The conflict over the Geneva Conventions and methods of torture has been the point of emphasis by the press regarding the latest outbreak of inter-Republican Party strife, but as Amy Goodman reported on Democracy Now! this morning, it isn't just the torture that's wrong with the administration's policy.
There's also the matter of both the administration's as well as Congress's rejection of the right of habeas corpus. Goodman interviewed Michael Ratner from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
It's the lack of habeas corpus that led to this.
And while it's attempting to think this won't affect the "innocent" or at least, real American citizens, that's a slippery slope I'm not prepared to slide down.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Obviously, Ezra is Right
GOREWATCH. Obviously no one is saying Al Gore is going to run. Obviously no one is insinuating Al Gore is running. Obviously no one is suggesting that his decision to write The Assault on Reason for Penguin Press and publish it next May is in any way motivated by an impulse to keep testing the field at the precise moment speculation will be highest. Obviously no one is pointing out that a high-profile book tour on a Serious Subject in May 2007 will make Gore look even more attractive while the other candidates hang out at fish frys and chili cookoffs. Obviously no one is noticing that it'll let him tour the primary states and gauge the reaction without officially entering the race. Obviously no one is saying this is a fairly brilliant way to keep his options open and ensure his relevance and visibility if he wants to jump in. Obviously.
--Ezra Klein
By the way, speaking of books, could there be any more apt illustration of our reckless and negligent administration and its bungled foreign policy than the fact that these two books were up for review this weekend?
As if Iraq wasn't bad enough, the one "success" story in the "war on terror" is also turning out to be a mirage, its condition probably under-exposed until now given the importance attached to Iraq (and Lebanon and Syria, and Iran).
The tragedy of these books isn't that they are just now documenting the mistakes of the past, but that as a result, the future there, and here, could be very dark indeed.
--Ezra Klein
By the way, speaking of books, could there be any more apt illustration of our reckless and negligent administration and its bungled foreign policy than the fact that these two books were up for review this weekend?
As if Iraq wasn't bad enough, the one "success" story in the "war on terror" is also turning out to be a mirage, its condition probably under-exposed until now given the importance attached to Iraq (and Lebanon and Syria, and Iran).
The tragedy of these books isn't that they are just now documenting the mistakes of the past, but that as a result, the future there, and here, could be very dark indeed.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Cancer on the Presidency
Mo Dowd from yesterday's NYT:
I wish W. would let me help crystallize him.
But, alas, I’m not one of his chosen crystallizers, because he is loath to be exposed to anyone who doesn’t agree with him. He roams the country but never strays from Bushworld, going from military bases to conservative powwows to Republican Hill allies to sworn Bush supporters to sympathetic columnists.
“It helps crystallize my thought to answer your questions,” he told conservative columnists called to the Oval Office this week. But he made it clear that his thoughts were contentedly calcified: “Let me just first tell you that I’ve never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions. I’m oftentimes asked about, well, you’re stubborn and all this. If you believe in a strategy, in Washington, D.C., you’ve got to stick to that strategy, see.”
After reading this I couldn't help thinking about another President and the sort of people he reached out to. Writing in The Jesus I Never Knew, Christian evangelical author Philip Yancey recalls an occasion in which he, and a number of other evangelical Christians met with President Clinton to voice their concerns. Yancey wasn't specific about who exactly besides himself were in this delegation, but it seems safe to say that among them were people who hadn't voted for the Big Dawg and who weren't supportive of his policies. Still, whatever effect they had on him, Clinton chose to meet with them and at least hear them out.
W doesn't do this. In the David Brooks column I referenced last week, the NYT columnist made two points about Bush: (a) the President is very sure of himself and (b) the President doesn't seem to have the fetish common to almost all politicians of wanting or needing to be liked.
I suspect Bush's proclivity about meeting only with admirers and fellow ideological travelers is strongly related to the two personality traits Brooks identifies. His company tends to reinforce his sureness of himself and provide him with the necessary public acceptance he desires, without having to consort with the enemy, as Clinton felt the need to do.
In one sense, if we didn't know about the private visits Bush hosts with conservative bloggers and writers, Bush's seeming imperviousness to polls and public opinion could almost be a virtues. Presidents--and their constituents--of the world's lone super-power would seem to benefit from having the proper sort of emotional distance from dramatic turns of events and frequent, arbitrary changes in polls. Some steadiness of leadership under trying and changing circumstances is, I think, highly critical and valuable.
Among the complaints his critics raised about him, Clinton's seeming need to be liked and applauded have some validity.
But in Bush's case, as even some die-hard, dead-enders are starting to recognize, his insulation from the public and alternative points of view is becoming a liability and may border on the psychotic.
But perpectives on Bush that emphasize his self-assurance and his unflappability in the face of negative circumstances and polls also shields the reality that rather than being self-contained, Bush is actually a highly "handled" executive. The most telling example of this I thought was the first presidential debate, where Bush was suddenly out on the stage with competition, on his own for the first time in four years. And the comparison to Kerry that night was I think highly distinctive. That night it was almost a surprise to see a befuddled president in contrast to the cool, calm, choreagraphed, (and limited) images we had been given of him over his first term.
So who is our president? Self-assured and self-motivated (albeit stubbornly and unreflective), or sheltered and handled, the front-man of a partisan cabal, personified by Dick Cheney and propped up by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson?
I wish W. would let me help crystallize him.
But, alas, I’m not one of his chosen crystallizers, because he is loath to be exposed to anyone who doesn’t agree with him. He roams the country but never strays from Bushworld, going from military bases to conservative powwows to Republican Hill allies to sworn Bush supporters to sympathetic columnists.
“It helps crystallize my thought to answer your questions,” he told conservative columnists called to the Oval Office this week. But he made it clear that his thoughts were contentedly calcified: “Let me just first tell you that I’ve never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions. I’m oftentimes asked about, well, you’re stubborn and all this. If you believe in a strategy, in Washington, D.C., you’ve got to stick to that strategy, see.”
After reading this I couldn't help thinking about another President and the sort of people he reached out to. Writing in The Jesus I Never Knew, Christian evangelical author Philip Yancey recalls an occasion in which he, and a number of other evangelical Christians met with President Clinton to voice their concerns. Yancey wasn't specific about who exactly besides himself were in this delegation, but it seems safe to say that among them were people who hadn't voted for the Big Dawg and who weren't supportive of his policies. Still, whatever effect they had on him, Clinton chose to meet with them and at least hear them out.
W doesn't do this. In the David Brooks column I referenced last week, the NYT columnist made two points about Bush: (a) the President is very sure of himself and (b) the President doesn't seem to have the fetish common to almost all politicians of wanting or needing to be liked.
I suspect Bush's proclivity about meeting only with admirers and fellow ideological travelers is strongly related to the two personality traits Brooks identifies. His company tends to reinforce his sureness of himself and provide him with the necessary public acceptance he desires, without having to consort with the enemy, as Clinton felt the need to do.
In one sense, if we didn't know about the private visits Bush hosts with conservative bloggers and writers, Bush's seeming imperviousness to polls and public opinion could almost be a virtues. Presidents--and their constituents--of the world's lone super-power would seem to benefit from having the proper sort of emotional distance from dramatic turns of events and frequent, arbitrary changes in polls. Some steadiness of leadership under trying and changing circumstances is, I think, highly critical and valuable.
Among the complaints his critics raised about him, Clinton's seeming need to be liked and applauded have some validity.
But in Bush's case, as even some die-hard, dead-enders are starting to recognize, his insulation from the public and alternative points of view is becoming a liability and may border on the psychotic.
But perpectives on Bush that emphasize his self-assurance and his unflappability in the face of negative circumstances and polls also shields the reality that rather than being self-contained, Bush is actually a highly "handled" executive. The most telling example of this I thought was the first presidential debate, where Bush was suddenly out on the stage with competition, on his own for the first time in four years. And the comparison to Kerry that night was I think highly distinctive. That night it was almost a surprise to see a befuddled president in contrast to the cool, calm, choreagraphed, (and limited) images we had been given of him over his first term.
So who is our president? Self-assured and self-motivated (albeit stubbornly and unreflective), or sheltered and handled, the front-man of a partisan cabal, personified by Dick Cheney and propped up by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson?
Friday, September 15, 2006
Curb Your Gratification
I know this David Brooks column is about Bush and The War, but I'm still puzzling over this statement:
"I got into politics initially because I wanted to help change a culture," he (Bush) says, referring to his campaign against the instant gratifications of the 1960's counterculture. And he sees his efforts today as a series of long, gradual cultural transformations. Like many executives, he believes that the higher you go, the further into the future you should see, and so his conversation is filled with speculations about the long-term effects of deep social trends--the current religious awakening or the politics of volunteer armies.
What does this mean? If Bush wants or wanted to change the culture by challenging the "instant gratifications of the 1960's", who is the target of such a challenge? How is it implemented? More importantly, is it working? Are you delaying your gratification?
Now, I realize Bush has used this line in front of friendly campaign audiences. But I assume, and I trust you'll assume, that he probably didn't intend for his audience to think he meant them. Everyone knows conservatives are good, responsible people who curb their gratification. But if he's making these statements in front of audiences that don't need to be told to curb their gratification, than how does the message to curb your gratification get out and the culture get changed?
On the other hand, maybe some Republicans did need to hear the president's curb your gratification speeches.
Speaking of rich republicans, how do tax cuts fit into this picture? Is more cash on hand good for curbing one's gratification? Or what about those calls after 9/11 to keep doing what we've been doing, like keep going to malls, spending money and buying stuff?
Maybe the curb your gratification agenda was about welfare reform, and now that that's been disposed of, we can get back to the business of unleashing our gratification.
Or is this curb your gratification plan not about welfare, corruption, money or consumer zeal at all, but rather just about our sexual mores? If so, how does the president plan on curbing our gratification of the flesh?
Conservative judges who strike down previously permissive court rulings, or who strike down or fail to strike down congressional legislation depending on the needs required by the curb your gratification movement probably help here. But in Bush's tenure, the court seems to have mostly sided with the unleash your gratification crowd, like in the case where the court voted to overturn the anti-sodomy law in Texas. Of course now that Bush has gotten two conservatives on the bench, this will change, and the curb your gratification plan will finally be implemented.
But I'm still a bit confused. How would we know if American had gotten the curb your gratification message? Maybe a military draft would help. It would help curb young peoples' gratification by sending them off to war instead of off to colleges (and we know what goes on there). A military draft would also help in the president's war on terror, war in Iraq, war against militant radical islamicist fascistists.
In any event, I look forward to more presidential speeches and news conferences where the curb your gratification agenda is spelled out in more detail, and its violators appropriately chastened.
"I got into politics initially because I wanted to help change a culture," he (Bush) says, referring to his campaign against the instant gratifications of the 1960's counterculture. And he sees his efforts today as a series of long, gradual cultural transformations. Like many executives, he believes that the higher you go, the further into the future you should see, and so his conversation is filled with speculations about the long-term effects of deep social trends--the current religious awakening or the politics of volunteer armies.
What does this mean? If Bush wants or wanted to change the culture by challenging the "instant gratifications of the 1960's", who is the target of such a challenge? How is it implemented? More importantly, is it working? Are you delaying your gratification?
Now, I realize Bush has used this line in front of friendly campaign audiences. But I assume, and I trust you'll assume, that he probably didn't intend for his audience to think he meant them. Everyone knows conservatives are good, responsible people who curb their gratification. But if he's making these statements in front of audiences that don't need to be told to curb their gratification, than how does the message to curb your gratification get out and the culture get changed?
On the other hand, maybe some Republicans did need to hear the president's curb your gratification speeches.
Speaking of rich republicans, how do tax cuts fit into this picture? Is more cash on hand good for curbing one's gratification? Or what about those calls after 9/11 to keep doing what we've been doing, like keep going to malls, spending money and buying stuff?
Maybe the curb your gratification agenda was about welfare reform, and now that that's been disposed of, we can get back to the business of unleashing our gratification.
Or is this curb your gratification plan not about welfare, corruption, money or consumer zeal at all, but rather just about our sexual mores? If so, how does the president plan on curbing our gratification of the flesh?
Conservative judges who strike down previously permissive court rulings, or who strike down or fail to strike down congressional legislation depending on the needs required by the curb your gratification movement probably help here. But in Bush's tenure, the court seems to have mostly sided with the unleash your gratification crowd, like in the case where the court voted to overturn the anti-sodomy law in Texas. Of course now that Bush has gotten two conservatives on the bench, this will change, and the curb your gratification plan will finally be implemented.
But I'm still a bit confused. How would we know if American had gotten the curb your gratification message? Maybe a military draft would help. It would help curb young peoples' gratification by sending them off to war instead of off to colleges (and we know what goes on there). A military draft would also help in the president's war on terror, war in Iraq, war against militant radical islamicist fascistists.
In any event, I look forward to more presidential speeches and news conferences where the curb your gratification agenda is spelled out in more detail, and its violators appropriately chastened.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Everything But The Party
It took until yesterday afternoon for the results of many of Tuesday's PARTY PRIMARY elections to be tallied and announced. So it wasn't until today's papers that the news of William Donald Schaeffer's loss in the Maryland Comptroller's race was reported and analyzed.
Unfortunately, at least as far as the NYT and the Washington Post are concerned, Schaeffer's lost can mainly be explained on the basis of his advanced age (84), his excess of lifelong "candor" finally catching up to him, and in this race in particular, an untimely amount of mud-slinging engaged in by the colorful Schaeffer and one of his main opponents. According to this analysis, with Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens calling Schaeffer "old" and Schaeffer calling Owens "Old Mother Hubbard" and "fat", voters tuned them out and opted for the under-stated Maryland House Delegate Peter Franchot from Montgomery County.
This is the superfilous fair we've come to expect from professional journalism. Elections are about style, personality, essentially what the late political scientist V.O. Key referred to as "issue-less politics".
It's unclear to me why seemingly well-educated, experienced members of the press corps, or at least their bosses, fail to catch the fact that Schaeffer (like Lieberman last month) was defeated in a PARTY PRIMARY. That is, the election he lost was among Democratic Party Voters. Hmmmm. Why might that be? Maybe because the people who vote in Democratic Party Primaries are actually Democratic voters. And maybe it was Democratic voters that had wisened up--however long after the fact--and realized that Schaeffer wasn't one of them, and that Schaeffer was moreover an active impediment to the Democratic Party and in opposition to its progressive goals. Presented with a progressive alternative in Peter Franchot, progressive voters turned out the conservative Schaeffer.
But I guess picking up on this is too much to ask of our beleagured print media.
On a secondary note, we can see in the Comptroller's race an additional similarity to the Lieberman-Lamont race last month. Although Schaeffer, and his apologists, claim the ousted "political legend" valued public service for its ability to allow him to "help the people", a Washington Post article* did catch a very telling Schaeffer remark about the race. Referring to who he assumed was his main rival, Owens, Schaeffer bemoaned the fact that one of his friends had "turned on" him. Here is the incumbent's entitlement claim. Since and as long as he wants to hold the office, no one should run against him. The office belongs to him until he decides to gracefully step down. Once he wins his own election, he shouldn't have to engage in any more until he decides to retire (or dies in office). This was Lieberman's chant. Fortunately, at age 84, Schaeffer doesn't appear interested in forming a Maryland for Schaeffer, "independent Democrat" ticket. He is apparently suffering from power withdrawal however, as he already is making noices about running for mayor of Ocean City, as it's name suggests, a tourist, beachy town on Maryland's eastern shore where the Maryland Donald owns a condo.
*There is an additional Post article on the race but it isn't in the paper's on-line edition.
Unfortunately, at least as far as the NYT and the Washington Post are concerned, Schaeffer's lost can mainly be explained on the basis of his advanced age (84), his excess of lifelong "candor" finally catching up to him, and in this race in particular, an untimely amount of mud-slinging engaged in by the colorful Schaeffer and one of his main opponents. According to this analysis, with Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens calling Schaeffer "old" and Schaeffer calling Owens "Old Mother Hubbard" and "fat", voters tuned them out and opted for the under-stated Maryland House Delegate Peter Franchot from Montgomery County.
This is the superfilous fair we've come to expect from professional journalism. Elections are about style, personality, essentially what the late political scientist V.O. Key referred to as "issue-less politics".
It's unclear to me why seemingly well-educated, experienced members of the press corps, or at least their bosses, fail to catch the fact that Schaeffer (like Lieberman last month) was defeated in a PARTY PRIMARY. That is, the election he lost was among Democratic Party Voters. Hmmmm. Why might that be? Maybe because the people who vote in Democratic Party Primaries are actually Democratic voters. And maybe it was Democratic voters that had wisened up--however long after the fact--and realized that Schaeffer wasn't one of them, and that Schaeffer was moreover an active impediment to the Democratic Party and in opposition to its progressive goals. Presented with a progressive alternative in Peter Franchot, progressive voters turned out the conservative Schaeffer.
But I guess picking up on this is too much to ask of our beleagured print media.
On a secondary note, we can see in the Comptroller's race an additional similarity to the Lieberman-Lamont race last month. Although Schaeffer, and his apologists, claim the ousted "political legend" valued public service for its ability to allow him to "help the people", a Washington Post article* did catch a very telling Schaeffer remark about the race. Referring to who he assumed was his main rival, Owens, Schaeffer bemoaned the fact that one of his friends had "turned on" him. Here is the incumbent's entitlement claim. Since and as long as he wants to hold the office, no one should run against him. The office belongs to him until he decides to gracefully step down. Once he wins his own election, he shouldn't have to engage in any more until he decides to retire (or dies in office). This was Lieberman's chant. Fortunately, at age 84, Schaeffer doesn't appear interested in forming a Maryland for Schaeffer, "independent Democrat" ticket. He is apparently suffering from power withdrawal however, as he already is making noices about running for mayor of Ocean City, as it's name suggests, a tourist, beachy town on Maryland's eastern shore where the Maryland Donald owns a condo.
*There is an additional Post article on the race but it isn't in the paper's on-line edition.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
John Mueller Speak--You Listen
I would be remiss if I did not link you to this Foreign Affairs article by John Mueller, a poli-sci prof from Ohio State, and you would be equally remiss if you did not read it.
Go.
I forgot what site clued me in to this article, but thanks to whoever deserves the credit.
Go.
I forgot what site clued me in to this article, but thanks to whoever deserves the credit.
"We Must Kill All The Terrorists We're Creating"
Mo Dowd, from today's NYT:
Bin Laden has become the Willie Horton of the midterms. After letting the C.I.A. disband the unit devoted to hunting for Osama -- the Senate took a slap at the White House on Thursday when it voted to reinstate it -- Mr. Bush now won't stop talking about the bogeyman he ignored for five years while he transferred all his resources to Iraq.
"The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad," he said.
Instead of going after Osama, we invaded Iraq. Now W. says we must stay in Iraq or it will be run by Osamas. We must kill all the terrorists we are creating. American soldiers must keep dying because American soldiers have died. If we criticize Mr. Bush, then we're unmanning the whole country. The logic is deviously Rovian, and we are trapped in the circularity.
On "Meet the Press," Mr. Cheney warned that America cannot let its adversaries "break our will" and show we "don't have the stomach for the fight."
"It was the right thing to do," Vice insisted of the war in Iraq, "and if we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing."
After all the miscalculations and billions wasted, projects screwed up, lives and limbs lost, foreign enemies made, American stature squandered, Taliban strength regained, North Korean bombs and Iran-Iraq alliances built (visiting the American-hating, Holocaust-denying Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq called Iran "a good friend and brother") Dick Cheney wouldn't do anything differently?
Part of leadership has to be retooling, saying: "You know what? This hasn't worked. This is making things worse. What else can we do?"
Break out the Wet Wipes, Mr. Cheney. Time for a good scrubbing.
Meanwhile, The Rude One says:
"Don't let Osama Bin Laden tell you how to vote."
Bin Laden has become the Willie Horton of the midterms. After letting the C.I.A. disband the unit devoted to hunting for Osama -- the Senate took a slap at the White House on Thursday when it voted to reinstate it -- Mr. Bush now won't stop talking about the bogeyman he ignored for five years while he transferred all his resources to Iraq.
"The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad," he said.
Instead of going after Osama, we invaded Iraq. Now W. says we must stay in Iraq or it will be run by Osamas. We must kill all the terrorists we are creating. American soldiers must keep dying because American soldiers have died. If we criticize Mr. Bush, then we're unmanning the whole country. The logic is deviously Rovian, and we are trapped in the circularity.
On "Meet the Press," Mr. Cheney warned that America cannot let its adversaries "break our will" and show we "don't have the stomach for the fight."
"It was the right thing to do," Vice insisted of the war in Iraq, "and if we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing."
After all the miscalculations and billions wasted, projects screwed up, lives and limbs lost, foreign enemies made, American stature squandered, Taliban strength regained, North Korean bombs and Iran-Iraq alliances built (visiting the American-hating, Holocaust-denying Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq called Iran "a good friend and brother") Dick Cheney wouldn't do anything differently?
Part of leadership has to be retooling, saying: "You know what? This hasn't worked. This is making things worse. What else can we do?"
Break out the Wet Wipes, Mr. Cheney. Time for a good scrubbing.
Meanwhile, The Rude One says:
"Don't let Osama Bin Laden tell you how to vote."
The Path to Iraq
Now with the Bush-apologist Path to 9/11 behind us, I'm thinking of pitching a new idea to ABCDisney: The Path to Iraq. It would go back to 1990 when Senate Democrats oppose Bush 41's courageous decision to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwaiit and proceed to 1991 with the Democrats' demand that the First President Bush not carry the First Gulf War to Baghdad. Feeling the pressure from Democrats already running for 1992, Bush 41 and his war council, including Def Sec Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chair, Powell reluctantly back accede to the demands from the Democrat party. In the war's aftermath, the U.S. ingloriously agrees to European demands that only mild sanctions be applied to Saddam Hussein. More interested in health care and Monica Lewinski, and not in that order, President Clinton largely ignores Iraq while Saddam Hussein skirts the sanctions and re-assembles his stockpile of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Although international weapons inspectors had been required by the U.N. as a condition of the cease-fire, Saddam doesn't co-operate with them and finally ejects them from Iraq, meaning the West is left without a means of verifying Saddam's compliance with U.N. resolutions to disarm.
Thankfully, after eight years of neglect, the year 2001 brings with it the Bush-Republican Restoration. George H.W. Bush's first son, George W. re-takes the throne, er Oval Office. Immediately the new Decider of a president begins to implement the policy proposals put forward by the Project for a New American Century, an organization formed in exile during the Clinton years by devout conservatives such as William Kristol and Max Boot. These proposals call for regime change in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, in order to spread freedom and democracy across the Middle East. The new president first attempts a strategy of diplomacy, trying to force Iraq to allow the weapons inspectors back in the country. But Saddam Hussein, lured into complacency after eight years of Clinton appeasement refuses to re-admit the inspectors. Reluctantly, but with the support of former members of the PNAC--many of whom are either sprinkled through the new administration or heading up media efforts--Bush 43 launches an invasion of Iraq, but with only a limited number of American troops due to the restrictions demanded on the use of military force by Senate Democrats and the mainstream media.
Despite these restrictions, the war initially goes well, American forces occupy the country to a friendly reception while getting the electricity turned back on and toppling the Saddam statute to the cheers of Baghdadies and Americans alike. Unfortunately, the low number of troops allowed into Iraq for the war are far insufficient to subdue the country, prevent looting, civil breakdown and locate Saddam's illicit weapons. The detailed post-war occupation plans put forward by the Pentagon and State Department have to be shelved in order to stamp out the budding insurgency. Soon, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis begin warring against each other as well as with the occupying American army. Bloodshed spreads throughout Baghdad, while many parts of Iraq disolve into hostile territory of ousted Sunni remnants from the Saddam Baathist party and religious Shiite separatists.
Once again, a noble American military effort is bungled by the Democrat party opposition and the media. Americans at home gradually tire of the turmoil in Iraq and express that discontent against the President's party in the mid-term elections of 2006. A lame-duck President Bush 43 is left with no other choice than to slowly withdraw the number of American troops in Iraq, paving the way for a new group, known as Al Qaeda, to emerge in the former Saddam Hussein stronghold and begin destabilizing regimes across the Middle East, sparking conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, a Shiite sect, and endangering the American-friendly regime in Afghanistan. What's worse, the bungled Iraqi war has resulted in renewed friendly ties between Baghdad and Tehran, giving Iran cover to produce nuclear weapons to be used to wipe Israel off the map.
A new Democrat president takes office in 2009, thereby encouraging the formation of a new anti-American, anti-Israeli coalition consisting of China, Russia and Iraq-Iran. Unwilling to engage in World War III, the Democrat president allows the new superpower to control all Middle East oil and gas prices in the U.S. shoot up to $2.12 a gallon, precipitating a quick rise in inflation and an economic recession.
How am I doing so far?
Thankfully, after eight years of neglect, the year 2001 brings with it the Bush-Republican Restoration. George H.W. Bush's first son, George W. re-takes the throne, er Oval Office. Immediately the new Decider of a president begins to implement the policy proposals put forward by the Project for a New American Century, an organization formed in exile during the Clinton years by devout conservatives such as William Kristol and Max Boot. These proposals call for regime change in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, in order to spread freedom and democracy across the Middle East. The new president first attempts a strategy of diplomacy, trying to force Iraq to allow the weapons inspectors back in the country. But Saddam Hussein, lured into complacency after eight years of Clinton appeasement refuses to re-admit the inspectors. Reluctantly, but with the support of former members of the PNAC--many of whom are either sprinkled through the new administration or heading up media efforts--Bush 43 launches an invasion of Iraq, but with only a limited number of American troops due to the restrictions demanded on the use of military force by Senate Democrats and the mainstream media.
Despite these restrictions, the war initially goes well, American forces occupy the country to a friendly reception while getting the electricity turned back on and toppling the Saddam statute to the cheers of Baghdadies and Americans alike. Unfortunately, the low number of troops allowed into Iraq for the war are far insufficient to subdue the country, prevent looting, civil breakdown and locate Saddam's illicit weapons. The detailed post-war occupation plans put forward by the Pentagon and State Department have to be shelved in order to stamp out the budding insurgency. Soon, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis begin warring against each other as well as with the occupying American army. Bloodshed spreads throughout Baghdad, while many parts of Iraq disolve into hostile territory of ousted Sunni remnants from the Saddam Baathist party and religious Shiite separatists.
Once again, a noble American military effort is bungled by the Democrat party opposition and the media. Americans at home gradually tire of the turmoil in Iraq and express that discontent against the President's party in the mid-term elections of 2006. A lame-duck President Bush 43 is left with no other choice than to slowly withdraw the number of American troops in Iraq, paving the way for a new group, known as Al Qaeda, to emerge in the former Saddam Hussein stronghold and begin destabilizing regimes across the Middle East, sparking conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, a Shiite sect, and endangering the American-friendly regime in Afghanistan. What's worse, the bungled Iraqi war has resulted in renewed friendly ties between Baghdad and Tehran, giving Iran cover to produce nuclear weapons to be used to wipe Israel off the map.
A new Democrat president takes office in 2009, thereby encouraging the formation of a new anti-American, anti-Israeli coalition consisting of China, Russia and Iraq-Iran. Unwilling to engage in World War III, the Democrat president allows the new superpower to control all Middle East oil and gas prices in the U.S. shoot up to $2.12 a gallon, precipitating a quick rise in inflation and an economic recession.
How am I doing so far?
Buh Bye, Schaeffer
If you don't live in Maryland you might miss the significance of this, but it now appears, with 94% of precincts reporting, that Peter Franchot has unseated Donald William Schaeffer in the Democratic Party Primary for State Comptroller (basically the State Treasurer).
Why is this important?
Schaeffer is and has long been a Republican in Democrat clothing. He was elected to four terms as Baltimore Mayor and to two terms as Maryland Governor (1987-1995). He supported George H.W. Bush for President in 1992 over his own party's nominee, Bill Clinton. Schaeffer publically feuded with his Democratic successor as Governor, Parris Glendening, and since becoming Comptroller, has supported and aligned himself with the Republican Governor, Bob Erlich.
Progressive Democrats fielded an opponent to Schaeffer four years ago but failed to make much of a dent in Schaeffer's state-wide recognition numbers. But this year, Peter Franchot, a Maryland State Delegate in the lower House of the state legislature, and a self-proclaimed True Democrat (and in some sense the only Democrat in the three-candidate Democratic Primary) has defeated two conservative opponents to win the State's Democratic Party nomination for Comptroller.
While the office might not seem especially important, Franchot's victory is important for a number of reasons. First, compared to four years ago, it sends a signal that progressive Democrats are an increasing force at least in Maryland and are large enough and committed enough to defeat a well-known, entrenched incumbent. So Franchot's victory seems like harbinger of things to come this Fall. Second, whatever the significance of the office, and for progressives the oversight of important public works projects is indeed critical for exanding the economy and providing jobs, the capture of public office promises better government, it also aids the party as it attempts to build up its ranks of leaders, who can help mobilize support for other Democrats across the state and country, and perhaps serve as future congressman and Senators themselves.
So, for a variety of reasons, Franchot's win and Schaeffer's rejection are very good news for progressive Democrats, particularly in Maryland, but across the country.
Buy Bye, Donald. Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
Why is this important?
Schaeffer is and has long been a Republican in Democrat clothing. He was elected to four terms as Baltimore Mayor and to two terms as Maryland Governor (1987-1995). He supported George H.W. Bush for President in 1992 over his own party's nominee, Bill Clinton. Schaeffer publically feuded with his Democratic successor as Governor, Parris Glendening, and since becoming Comptroller, has supported and aligned himself with the Republican Governor, Bob Erlich.
Progressive Democrats fielded an opponent to Schaeffer four years ago but failed to make much of a dent in Schaeffer's state-wide recognition numbers. But this year, Peter Franchot, a Maryland State Delegate in the lower House of the state legislature, and a self-proclaimed True Democrat (and in some sense the only Democrat in the three-candidate Democratic Primary) has defeated two conservative opponents to win the State's Democratic Party nomination for Comptroller.
While the office might not seem especially important, Franchot's victory is important for a number of reasons. First, compared to four years ago, it sends a signal that progressive Democrats are an increasing force at least in Maryland and are large enough and committed enough to defeat a well-known, entrenched incumbent. So Franchot's victory seems like harbinger of things to come this Fall. Second, whatever the significance of the office, and for progressives the oversight of important public works projects is indeed critical for exanding the economy and providing jobs, the capture of public office promises better government, it also aids the party as it attempts to build up its ranks of leaders, who can help mobilize support for other Democrats across the state and country, and perhaps serve as future congressman and Senators themselves.
So, for a variety of reasons, Franchot's win and Schaeffer's rejection are very good news for progressive Democrats, particularly in Maryland, but across the country.
Buy Bye, Donald. Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Progressives and Christianity
Here are two articles worth reading, one from the NYT the other in this weekend's Post. I'll be back in a later post to discuss.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?ex=1311912000&en=6e51918eb9327aca&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901155.html
Update: MSNBC has an item about former Republican Senator Jack Danforth and his forthcoming book on faith and politics.
This sentence is particularly important:
"Real faith is about searching for answers, not presuming to know them, he says, and "an assumption that ... I am God's chosen messenger to deliver a certain political message is divisive." "
This is the real dividing issue I think. Does a church presume to possess the truth and the obligation of spreading that truth, or is the church mainly a vehicle for community and spiritual exploration? The former has the benefit of offering a defining sense of mission and purpose. Its downside is its inflexibility and illusion of infallibility. It also suffers from a lack of meaningful participation and feedback. The latter form of church suffers from a lack of a compelling identity or purpose. It's benefit is its openness, tolerance and potential for intellectual and spiritual growth. The latter encourages community while the former tends to encourage separation and exclusivity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?ex=1311912000&en=6e51918eb9327aca&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901155.html
Update: MSNBC has an item about former Republican Senator Jack Danforth and his forthcoming book on faith and politics.
This sentence is particularly important:
"Real faith is about searching for answers, not presuming to know them, he says, and "an assumption that ... I am God's chosen messenger to deliver a certain political message is divisive." "
This is the real dividing issue I think. Does a church presume to possess the truth and the obligation of spreading that truth, or is the church mainly a vehicle for community and spiritual exploration? The former has the benefit of offering a defining sense of mission and purpose. Its downside is its inflexibility and illusion of infallibility. It also suffers from a lack of meaningful participation and feedback. The latter form of church suffers from a lack of a compelling identity or purpose. It's benefit is its openness, tolerance and potential for intellectual and spiritual growth. The latter encourages community while the former tends to encourage separation and exclusivity.
Monday Morning Quarterback, '06
Welcome to the NFL, year 2006.
Yesterday had some almost thrilling finishes. But let's start with the shutouts.
Ravens 27
Bucs 0
This didn't surprise me as much as it apparently did a lot of other people. The margin was certainly more than I anticipated. But I thought going in that the Steve McNair pick-up over the summer was probably the move of the off-season, giving a generally strong Baltimore squad the final piece it needed. The Ravens already had a lot of the pieces to contend and acquiring Air-McNair, who showed he can still play, will make Baltimore an intriguing player this year. The only question about Baltimore in my mind was I think they probably should have parted ways with Brian Bilick in the offseason. A number of commentators think he lost the team last year and was burned out. At the same time, maybe with everyone healthy and led by a good quarterback, continuity at coach was the way to go.
And oh yeah, the Bucs sure were bad.
Bears 26
Pack 0
Another non-surprise. Probably going to be a very long season on the frozen tundra. Mike Francesca of the New York-based NFL Now program yesterday morning--before the shutout loss no less--identified Farve as probably a detriment to this team. He's always been a gun-slinger but now there's no one in Green Bay to tell him "no", and the Hall of Fame quarterback has adopted the attitude that he'll just go out on the field and do whatever because he's his team's only chance to win. And this is essentially a recipe for disaster on the field and in the locker-room. Francesca also suggested Farve might be delt to a contender that loses its quarterback. Interesting times.
Of course when a team wins 26-0 and shuts out a Hall of Fame quarterback for the first time in his illustrious career, it's unfair for any analysis to focus on the defeated team. But we knew the
Bears were pretty good, maybe even very good on defense and special teams. But their offense, Rex Grossman in particular, really responded. Having genuine QB competition in camp in the form of Brian Griese may have added some urgency as well as some options to the Chicago offense. Da Bears should win this division by next week.
Let's look at the almost nail-biters.
49'ers 27
Arizona 31
The Cards led 31-21 with under a minute to go but Alex Smith led the Niners down the field, put them in field goal range and with 34 seconds kicked a field goal--and odd choice I thought until the Niners went with the onside kick, recovered it and provided enough time for Alex Smith to chuck a couple into the end zone. Cards held on to win as the final pass was batted down in the end zone with 0 seconds left. Earlier in the day a Phoenix-based correspondent noted that where the Cardinals were concerned, this was probably as close to a must-win Game 1 as has ever existed--at home, new stadium, new players like Edgerrin James, and a bad opponent. They escaped with the win. But seemed like Alex Smith had a big day and the Alex Smith era has probably just been inaugurated in the windy city.
Cowboys 17
Jags 24
A tale of two halves. Cowboys looked pretty strong in the first half and the Jags looked confused, as Joe Buck and Troy Aikman pointed out in the booth. But the 'Boys only had a 10-3 lead to show for it, and the Jags suddenly awoke at the end of the half to tie the game, took the ball and passed it down the field to open the third quarter and take the lead 17-10, and then went ahead in the fourth quarter with another well-executed offensive drive, 24-10, with less than two minutes to go. But the Jags prevent defense allowed Drew Bledsoe to march down the field with a first play pass of 51 yards (all of it through the air) and then a nice pitch and catch to T.O. in the end zone. But then Dallas botched the on-side kick and that was that. Bledsoe had a bad day, three picks, although the last came in the desperate moments on the last play.
One interesting thing about this game was that two calls were reversed on challenges, and in neither was there anything resembling "conclusive evidence" that the original call was wrong. The last of these was on the second to last play of the game when Bledsoe threw a third interception but the Jags player was ruled to have dropped the ball, giving Dallas the ball back. And nowhere in the instant replay could you clearly see the ball out or even coming out. No mine, Dallas got the ball back and Bledsoe threw another interception.
Some are calling for Tony Romo in Dallas to replace Bledsoe. Bledsoe was pretty critical for Dallas last year. They probably would have been competing for the first pick in the draft without him, but he's easily flustered into making bad plays, and probably won't stay the starter for long with more days like he had yesterday.
Other items of interest...Peyton won the Manning Bowl as the Colts slipped by the New York football Giants...Eric Mangini opens with a win in Tennessee as the Jets beat the Titans but Mike Nugent, a second round pick last year who kicked well last year missed an extra point and two cheapy field goals making this closer than it should have been.
Yesterday had some almost thrilling finishes. But let's start with the shutouts.
Ravens 27
Bucs 0
This didn't surprise me as much as it apparently did a lot of other people. The margin was certainly more than I anticipated. But I thought going in that the Steve McNair pick-up over the summer was probably the move of the off-season, giving a generally strong Baltimore squad the final piece it needed. The Ravens already had a lot of the pieces to contend and acquiring Air-McNair, who showed he can still play, will make Baltimore an intriguing player this year. The only question about Baltimore in my mind was I think they probably should have parted ways with Brian Bilick in the offseason. A number of commentators think he lost the team last year and was burned out. At the same time, maybe with everyone healthy and led by a good quarterback, continuity at coach was the way to go.
And oh yeah, the Bucs sure were bad.
Bears 26
Pack 0
Another non-surprise. Probably going to be a very long season on the frozen tundra. Mike Francesca of the New York-based NFL Now program yesterday morning--before the shutout loss no less--identified Farve as probably a detriment to this team. He's always been a gun-slinger but now there's no one in Green Bay to tell him "no", and the Hall of Fame quarterback has adopted the attitude that he'll just go out on the field and do whatever because he's his team's only chance to win. And this is essentially a recipe for disaster on the field and in the locker-room. Francesca also suggested Farve might be delt to a contender that loses its quarterback. Interesting times.
Of course when a team wins 26-0 and shuts out a Hall of Fame quarterback for the first time in his illustrious career, it's unfair for any analysis to focus on the defeated team. But we knew the
Bears were pretty good, maybe even very good on defense and special teams. But their offense, Rex Grossman in particular, really responded. Having genuine QB competition in camp in the form of Brian Griese may have added some urgency as well as some options to the Chicago offense. Da Bears should win this division by next week.
Let's look at the almost nail-biters.
49'ers 27
Arizona 31
The Cards led 31-21 with under a minute to go but Alex Smith led the Niners down the field, put them in field goal range and with 34 seconds kicked a field goal--and odd choice I thought until the Niners went with the onside kick, recovered it and provided enough time for Alex Smith to chuck a couple into the end zone. Cards held on to win as the final pass was batted down in the end zone with 0 seconds left. Earlier in the day a Phoenix-based correspondent noted that where the Cardinals were concerned, this was probably as close to a must-win Game 1 as has ever existed--at home, new stadium, new players like Edgerrin James, and a bad opponent. They escaped with the win. But seemed like Alex Smith had a big day and the Alex Smith era has probably just been inaugurated in the windy city.
Cowboys 17
Jags 24
A tale of two halves. Cowboys looked pretty strong in the first half and the Jags looked confused, as Joe Buck and Troy Aikman pointed out in the booth. But the 'Boys only had a 10-3 lead to show for it, and the Jags suddenly awoke at the end of the half to tie the game, took the ball and passed it down the field to open the third quarter and take the lead 17-10, and then went ahead in the fourth quarter with another well-executed offensive drive, 24-10, with less than two minutes to go. But the Jags prevent defense allowed Drew Bledsoe to march down the field with a first play pass of 51 yards (all of it through the air) and then a nice pitch and catch to T.O. in the end zone. But then Dallas botched the on-side kick and that was that. Bledsoe had a bad day, three picks, although the last came in the desperate moments on the last play.
One interesting thing about this game was that two calls were reversed on challenges, and in neither was there anything resembling "conclusive evidence" that the original call was wrong. The last of these was on the second to last play of the game when Bledsoe threw a third interception but the Jags player was ruled to have dropped the ball, giving Dallas the ball back. And nowhere in the instant replay could you clearly see the ball out or even coming out. No mine, Dallas got the ball back and Bledsoe threw another interception.
Some are calling for Tony Romo in Dallas to replace Bledsoe. Bledsoe was pretty critical for Dallas last year. They probably would have been competing for the first pick in the draft without him, but he's easily flustered into making bad plays, and probably won't stay the starter for long with more days like he had yesterday.
Other items of interest...Peyton won the Manning Bowl as the Colts slipped by the New York football Giants...Eric Mangini opens with a win in Tennessee as the Jets beat the Titans but Mike Nugent, a second round pick last year who kicked well last year missed an extra point and two cheapy field goals making this closer than it should have been.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
What a Surprise
From CNN:
The five-hour miniseries [The Path to 911] is set to run [on ABC] without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. Among the actors in it are Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.
What a surprise to learn that Patricia Heaton stars in this "movie".
That would be this Patricia Heaton.
Heaton is a conservative, pro-life activist and is the honorary chairperson of Feminists for Life, an organization opposed to abortion. She is a very outspoken Republican and supporter of both President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. Although she has been quoted as saying "once a Catholic, always a Catholic," Heaton now attends an evangelical Presbyterian church with her husband and their four sons. She has not renounced her Catholic faith nor converted to Presbyterian faith and may be attending because of family unity.
Again, I am shocked, surprised, and amazed by this development.
The five-hour miniseries [The Path to 911] is set to run [on ABC] without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. Among the actors in it are Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.
What a surprise to learn that Patricia Heaton stars in this "movie".
That would be this Patricia Heaton.
Heaton is a conservative, pro-life activist and is the honorary chairperson of Feminists for Life, an organization opposed to abortion. She is a very outspoken Republican and supporter of both President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. Although she has been quoted as saying "once a Catholic, always a Catholic," Heaton now attends an evangelical Presbyterian church with her husband and their four sons. She has not renounced her Catholic faith nor converted to Presbyterian faith and may be attending because of family unity.
Again, I am shocked, surprised, and amazed by this development.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Martydom and Torture
I didn't know what else to title this post, but I've been thinking about the connection between conservatives who, on the one hand, want to give the government free reign to torture "terrorists-insurgents-liberals" and who on the other hand, express anger, shock, disappointment--whatever the source of the vitriolic spit is--at western hostages (in this case, journalists) who opt to make canned confessions-accusations at the behest of their captors so as to save themselves.
As to the first, conservatives seem to think that prisoners of our war on terror will, under the threat or implementation of torture, truthfully confess the whereabouts of their comrades, the details of their Islamistist-fascisitist plans to conquer America, as well as their most secret western fetishes.
As to the second, conservative trackball warriors seem to demand that western hostages under the same or similar conditions clam up, not co-operate with their captors, and devoutly embrace the martydom the conservatives' war of civilizations requires, even if and though, as is likely the case, the heathen western journalists are neither Christian Nationalists United Against Islamcisticis Fasicistim or made of the same hearty, fearless stuff of the right-wing Internets militia.
Make sense to you?
Me neither.
As to the first, conservatives seem to think that prisoners of our war on terror will, under the threat or implementation of torture, truthfully confess the whereabouts of their comrades, the details of their Islamistist-fascisitist plans to conquer America, as well as their most secret western fetishes.
As to the second, conservative trackball warriors seem to demand that western hostages under the same or similar conditions clam up, not co-operate with their captors, and devoutly embrace the martydom the conservatives' war of civilizations requires, even if and though, as is likely the case, the heathen western journalists are neither Christian Nationalists United Against Islamcisticis Fasicistim or made of the same hearty, fearless stuff of the right-wing Internets militia.
Make sense to you?
Me neither.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
A False God
Wolcott:
"What we're hearing from pundits, bloggers, and likeminded belligerents this August is a baying to a false God, a nostalgic need for motivational clarity and a macho yearning for deliverance that the facts on the ground will deny them. Their commando belts tied up in knots, their umbrellas unfolded, they can turn on Bush, or on Condi Rice (as Richard Perle has done), but who can they turn to? Nobody. That's why they're egging each other on, flexing their biceps, and clinging to Mark Steyn for warmth. It's the only way to hold on to their fading relevance."
I've been saying this for awhile. The kind of war the War Party wants doesn't exist anymore and can't be conjured up absent both a mass mobilization for war and mass carnage, neither of which people or markets will stand for.
The problem with the war vitriolicism is that it's anger will not easily be dissipated, meaning that it will ultimately have to find another outlet, and that most likely outlet will be the War Party's domestic antagonists--meaning us, pointy-headed university intellectuals, liberals, secular humanism, modernity, tolerance, gays, abortionists, freedom of thought, freedom itself.
"What we're hearing from pundits, bloggers, and likeminded belligerents this August is a baying to a false God, a nostalgic need for motivational clarity and a macho yearning for deliverance that the facts on the ground will deny them. Their commando belts tied up in knots, their umbrellas unfolded, they can turn on Bush, or on Condi Rice (as Richard Perle has done), but who can they turn to? Nobody. That's why they're egging each other on, flexing their biceps, and clinging to Mark Steyn for warmth. It's the only way to hold on to their fading relevance."
I've been saying this for awhile. The kind of war the War Party wants doesn't exist anymore and can't be conjured up absent both a mass mobilization for war and mass carnage, neither of which people or markets will stand for.
The problem with the war vitriolicism is that it's anger will not easily be dissipated, meaning that it will ultimately have to find another outlet, and that most likely outlet will be the War Party's domestic antagonists--meaning us, pointy-headed university intellectuals, liberals, secular humanism, modernity, tolerance, gays, abortionists, freedom of thought, freedom itself.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
The Dismantling of FEMA
This week brings with it much deserved attention to the memory of Katrina and the failure of government to adequately plan for, and respond to the crisis. Pictures of the president first playing the guitar in California in the first hours of the natural disaster and later peering out an airplane window at the chaos below are again circulating on the Internets, on TV, and the print media.
But the high crime of this administration pertaining to Katrina can be found in the first months of the administration, back in 2001 as a new cadre of political appointees found their way into FEMA and in various ways sought to undermine the agency's history, purpose and structure, intending indeed, to reduce the agency to the figurative rubble much like the literal rubble that would in four years characterize New Orleans. Nor was this intent to dismantle FEMA a secret--Bush's first appointee to the job stated his belief that FEMA had essentially become a welfare provider, a role he no longer wanted the agency to play.
Long-time investigative journalist Russ Baker last year contributed a thoughtful essay on what happened to FEMA prior to Katrina, and it makes for some horrific reading.
But the high crime of this administration pertaining to Katrina can be found in the first months of the administration, back in 2001 as a new cadre of political appointees found their way into FEMA and in various ways sought to undermine the agency's history, purpose and structure, intending indeed, to reduce the agency to the figurative rubble much like the literal rubble that would in four years characterize New Orleans. Nor was this intent to dismantle FEMA a secret--Bush's first appointee to the job stated his belief that FEMA had essentially become a welfare provider, a role he no longer wanted the agency to play.
Long-time investigative journalist Russ Baker last year contributed a thoughtful essay on what happened to FEMA prior to Katrina, and it makes for some horrific reading.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Well, You Haven't Been on My Show, Have You, Mr. Chaffee?
Mr. Atrios:
Easy Answers to Easy Questions
Greg Sargent asks:
RI-SEN: When Will Bigfoot Pundits Bemoan Laffey?
Never.
This has been another edition of easy answers to easy questions.
I don't think Chaffee has ever done MTP, the Beard's show, or Imus, so why should the Bigfoot pundit class be concerned that moderate Lincoln Chaffee, son and successor of the long-time moderate Rhode Island Republican John Chaffee is about to go down to defeat to a winger opponent in his party's primary? Chaffee's situation is totally different from Lieberman's. Lieberman appears on all the Bigfoot pundit shows, and Holy Joe's loss is seen by Big Media as a rebuke to them. Chaffee on the other hand, doesn't appear to know the Bigfoot pundits exist. And who knows, maybe this Laffey guy will be good for quotes and appearances?
Easy Answers to Easy Questions
Greg Sargent asks:
RI-SEN: When Will Bigfoot Pundits Bemoan Laffey?
Never.
This has been another edition of easy answers to easy questions.
I don't think Chaffee has ever done MTP, the Beard's show, or Imus, so why should the Bigfoot pundit class be concerned that moderate Lincoln Chaffee, son and successor of the long-time moderate Rhode Island Republican John Chaffee is about to go down to defeat to a winger opponent in his party's primary? Chaffee's situation is totally different from Lieberman's. Lieberman appears on all the Bigfoot pundit shows, and Holy Joe's loss is seen by Big Media as a rebuke to them. Chaffee on the other hand, doesn't appear to know the Bigfoot pundits exist. And who knows, maybe this Laffey guy will be good for quotes and appearances?
Friday, August 25, 2006
Bulworth Left Behind
As a U.S. Senator and a blogger (the latter a much more important role), I'm feeling pretty p-o'd that I was left off the invitation list for this gathering.
From the Tbogg, a "somewhat popular blogger":
Let's face it, things have gotten so bad that they have had to float leaky balloons such as Bush having read sixty books this year in an effort to stop the "idiot' talk, and we now we have a rash of Bush "extemporaneous" chats with select groups of supporters that just happen to include folks like Kathleen Parker:
This theory occurred to me not long ago at an off-the-record luncheon with Bush and a hundred or so of his supporters. I was the guest of a guest, and welcomed the opportunity to observe the president in his natural habitat.What I witnessed was revealing. Not only was the man fluent in the English language and intellectually agile, he was knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects raised during a 90-minute Q&A. Someone apparently had been slipping intellectual-curiosity tablets into Bush's cola.Toward the end, one of the guests said, "Mr. President, I think if Americans could hear you speak the way you have today, you'd have a 95 percent approval rating.''I think that's almost true. Not 95 percent, obviously, but he'd surely have a higher than 30 percent approval rating were he better able to explain what he's thinking. Bush does know; he just can't seem to say.
and Captain Corndog:
I had the opportunity this afternoon to be part of a relatively small group who heard President Bush talk, extemporaneously, for around forty minutes. It was an absolutely riveting experience. It was the best I’ve ever seen him. Not only that; it may have been the best I’ve ever seen any politician. If I summarized what he said, it would all sound familiar: the difficult times we live in; the threat from Islamic fascism–the phrase drew an enthusiastic round of applause–the universal yearning for freedom; the need to confront evil now, with all the tools at our disposal, so that our children and grandchildren can live in a better and safer world. As he often does, the President structured his comments loosely around a tour of the Oval Office. But the digressions and interpolations were priceless.
And Glenn says that Minnesota guy was there, too:
(2) This week, Hinderaker was part of a small gathering that toured the Oval Office and heard the President speak. Afterwards, he authored one of the most painfully obsequious posts ever, which is saying a lot, given that Hinderaker is the Bush follower who previously said: "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another . . ."
His most recent paean to George Bush was appropriately titled "Hail to the Chief," and Hinderaker said that being able to hear President Bush Speak was "an absolutely riveting experience"; that "it may have been the best I've ever seen any politician"; that "up close, [Bush] is a great communicator, in a way that, in my opinion, Ronald Reagan was not"; and that it was "the most inspiring forty minutes I've experienced in politics." He also shared that he is "worried about how President Bush can withstand the Washington snake pit" whose attacks "dwarf[] in both volume and injustice the abuse directed against any prior President."
Most notably by far, Hinderaker also said, with no irony at all, that Bush's "persona is very much that of the big brother." I have never agreed more with any statement. That is exactly the persona which has been created for George Bush, and the fact that it is -- to use Hinderaker's own unbelievably revealing description -- a "big brother" which Hinderaker and so many of his like-minded Bush followers want, need and crave really does explain virtually everything one needs to know about the so-called new "conservatism."
George Bush is the "big brother" which John Hinderaker wants and needs, and for that, he really loves the President. That might be unpleasant to think about, even creepy and rather disturbing, but that dynamic is indispensable in understanding the mindset fueling so much of the Bush movement.
With all the reading the president is supposedly doing these days, you think he'd at least browse my blog, and give me an invite to one of these chillin with the homies roundtables he does for the faithful and compliant.
From the Tbogg, a "somewhat popular blogger":
Let's face it, things have gotten so bad that they have had to float leaky balloons such as Bush having read sixty books this year in an effort to stop the "idiot' talk, and we now we have a rash of Bush "extemporaneous" chats with select groups of supporters that just happen to include folks like Kathleen Parker:
This theory occurred to me not long ago at an off-the-record luncheon with Bush and a hundred or so of his supporters. I was the guest of a guest, and welcomed the opportunity to observe the president in his natural habitat.What I witnessed was revealing. Not only was the man fluent in the English language and intellectually agile, he was knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects raised during a 90-minute Q&A. Someone apparently had been slipping intellectual-curiosity tablets into Bush's cola.Toward the end, one of the guests said, "Mr. President, I think if Americans could hear you speak the way you have today, you'd have a 95 percent approval rating.''I think that's almost true. Not 95 percent, obviously, but he'd surely have a higher than 30 percent approval rating were he better able to explain what he's thinking. Bush does know; he just can't seem to say.
and Captain Corndog:
I had the opportunity this afternoon to be part of a relatively small group who heard President Bush talk, extemporaneously, for around forty minutes. It was an absolutely riveting experience. It was the best I’ve ever seen him. Not only that; it may have been the best I’ve ever seen any politician. If I summarized what he said, it would all sound familiar: the difficult times we live in; the threat from Islamic fascism–the phrase drew an enthusiastic round of applause–the universal yearning for freedom; the need to confront evil now, with all the tools at our disposal, so that our children and grandchildren can live in a better and safer world. As he often does, the President structured his comments loosely around a tour of the Oval Office. But the digressions and interpolations were priceless.
And Glenn says that Minnesota guy was there, too:
(2) This week, Hinderaker was part of a small gathering that toured the Oval Office and heard the President speak. Afterwards, he authored one of the most painfully obsequious posts ever, which is saying a lot, given that Hinderaker is the Bush follower who previously said: "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another . . ."
His most recent paean to George Bush was appropriately titled "Hail to the Chief," and Hinderaker said that being able to hear President Bush Speak was "an absolutely riveting experience"; that "it may have been the best I've ever seen any politician"; that "up close, [Bush] is a great communicator, in a way that, in my opinion, Ronald Reagan was not"; and that it was "the most inspiring forty minutes I've experienced in politics." He also shared that he is "worried about how President Bush can withstand the Washington snake pit" whose attacks "dwarf[] in both volume and injustice the abuse directed against any prior President."
Most notably by far, Hinderaker also said, with no irony at all, that Bush's "persona is very much that of the big brother." I have never agreed more with any statement. That is exactly the persona which has been created for George Bush, and the fact that it is -- to use Hinderaker's own unbelievably revealing description -- a "big brother" which Hinderaker and so many of his like-minded Bush followers want, need and crave really does explain virtually everything one needs to know about the so-called new "conservatism."
George Bush is the "big brother" which John Hinderaker wants and needs, and for that, he really loves the President. That might be unpleasant to think about, even creepy and rather disturbing, but that dynamic is indispensable in understanding the mindset fueling so much of the Bush movement.
With all the reading the president is supposedly doing these days, you think he'd at least browse my blog, and give me an invite to one of these chillin with the homies roundtables he does for the faithful and compliant.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
They Said It
Alaska for Murkowski!
Despite coming in third in Tuesday's primary in Alaska, embattled Republican governor Frank Murkowski is taking a page out of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's (I-CT) playbook and is refusing to accept the verdict of the voters:
"With all that's at stake in Alaska and around the country, I cannot and will not let these results stand," said Murkowski, who captured 19 percent of the vote in his bid for a second gubenatorial term.
Promising to continue running as an independent Republican, Murkowski pledged to make this a "people's campaign".
For the moment it's unclear what provisions exist for allowing Murkowski to continue his campaign and whether new petitions and signatures supporting his new independent campaign have to be gathered.
Nevertheless, Murkowski, who before being elected governor in 2002, was elected to four terms in the U.S. Senate remains unbowed:
I'm staying in this race because I want to keep working for the things that matter to you and help meet the critical challenges facing our state and country...
I have always followed a different path. My 30 years of experience has been about bringing people together and solving problems...
That is what my campaign will be all about building a new politics of unity and purpose and delivering results for the people of Alaska.
I hope you will join me in this cause, no matter your political persuasion, to secure a brighter future for our state and our country.
Meanwhile, other endangered incumbents across the country are considering similar strategies to keep their jobs.
In Rhode Island, U.S. Senator Lincoln Chaffee faces a challenge from his party's conservative wing, Cranston mayor Steve Laffey, and trails his presumed Democratic opponent, Sheldon Whitehouse, in recent polls.
"It's a tough issue, no doubt about that", says an anonymous aid. "The Lieberman and Murkowski defeats certainly give us pause. At the same time, those elected officials' promises to fight on also give us encouragement in case the voters vote us out, too. We'll be watching their campaigns closely for clues as to how we might stay in this thing if the elections don't work out", said the aid.
Other embattled U.S. Senators, such as Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, and Mike DeWine are trailing in their re-election bids. But the moves by Lieberman and Murkowski may encourage defeated incumbents, even in general elections, to fight on and repudiate the will of the voters.
The fear of incumbents is so wide spread that even some not on the 2006 ballot are re-considering their options when term limits and other technicalities threaten their political futures.
President George W. Bush, for instance, received a welcome bit of cheer from a totally spontaneous visit by Rockey Vaccarella, an average citizen from the Katrina-striken gulf coast who thanked the president for his FEMA trailer and expressed his hope that Bush could be persuaded to run again for a third term, even though the Constitution prohibits it.
Bush's aids soft-pedaled talk of an un-Constitutional third term, but sources close to the Vice President expressed their interest in foregoing the next election on account of the "war on terror". The aids believe that a little known idea known as the unitary-executive theory may exempt the current administration from the 22nd Amendment and allow President Bush to run again in 2008.
While aids to President Bush and other embattled incumbents are wary of public reaction to their attempts to maintain hold over their entitled offices, others are confident the news media, particularly cable television, will provide the popular cover they need.
"With all that's at stake in Alaska and around the country, I cannot and will not let these results stand," said Murkowski, who captured 19 percent of the vote in his bid for a second gubenatorial term.
Promising to continue running as an independent Republican, Murkowski pledged to make this a "people's campaign".
For the moment it's unclear what provisions exist for allowing Murkowski to continue his campaign and whether new petitions and signatures supporting his new independent campaign have to be gathered.
Nevertheless, Murkowski, who before being elected governor in 2002, was elected to four terms in the U.S. Senate remains unbowed:
I'm staying in this race because I want to keep working for the things that matter to you and help meet the critical challenges facing our state and country...
I have always followed a different path. My 30 years of experience has been about bringing people together and solving problems...
That is what my campaign will be all about building a new politics of unity and purpose and delivering results for the people of Alaska.
I hope you will join me in this cause, no matter your political persuasion, to secure a brighter future for our state and our country.
Meanwhile, other endangered incumbents across the country are considering similar strategies to keep their jobs.
In Rhode Island, U.S. Senator Lincoln Chaffee faces a challenge from his party's conservative wing, Cranston mayor Steve Laffey, and trails his presumed Democratic opponent, Sheldon Whitehouse, in recent polls.
"It's a tough issue, no doubt about that", says an anonymous aid. "The Lieberman and Murkowski defeats certainly give us pause. At the same time, those elected officials' promises to fight on also give us encouragement in case the voters vote us out, too. We'll be watching their campaigns closely for clues as to how we might stay in this thing if the elections don't work out", said the aid.
Other embattled U.S. Senators, such as Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, and Mike DeWine are trailing in their re-election bids. But the moves by Lieberman and Murkowski may encourage defeated incumbents, even in general elections, to fight on and repudiate the will of the voters.
The fear of incumbents is so wide spread that even some not on the 2006 ballot are re-considering their options when term limits and other technicalities threaten their political futures.
President George W. Bush, for instance, received a welcome bit of cheer from a totally spontaneous visit by Rockey Vaccarella, an average citizen from the Katrina-striken gulf coast who thanked the president for his FEMA trailer and expressed his hope that Bush could be persuaded to run again for a third term, even though the Constitution prohibits it.
Bush's aids soft-pedaled talk of an un-Constitutional third term, but sources close to the Vice President expressed their interest in foregoing the next election on account of the "war on terror". The aids believe that a little known idea known as the unitary-executive theory may exempt the current administration from the 22nd Amendment and allow President Bush to run again in 2008.
While aids to President Bush and other embattled incumbents are wary of public reaction to their attempts to maintain hold over their entitled offices, others are confident the news media, particularly cable television, will provide the popular cover they need.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Sigh
I don't know about you, but I'm already tired of the John McCain Administration.
At least Bush II--or his handlers--spared us an innumerable amount of press conferences and television appearances.
At least Bush II--or his handlers--spared us an innumerable amount of press conferences and television appearances.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Energy Shortages and High Gas Prices in Iraq
Gas is about $6 per gallon in Iraq and the electricity is on for about only four hours a day there.
The result is increasing prices for almost everything, with most people in Iraq having very little income to pay for what they need.
But that isn't the worst part.
The worst part is there is at least one area in Baghdad and across Iraq that has all the fuel and energy anyone needs--and an array of creature comforts to go with it. That area is the heavily fortified Green Zone.
The meager existence of regular Iraqi's is all the more torturous given that their American overlords are not likely doing without. Besides everything else that's wrong in Iraq, this disparency is among the most problematic, and can only result in greater opposition and anger towards the occupation.
The result is increasing prices for almost everything, with most people in Iraq having very little income to pay for what they need.
But that isn't the worst part.
The worst part is there is at least one area in Baghdad and across Iraq that has all the fuel and energy anyone needs--and an array of creature comforts to go with it. That area is the heavily fortified Green Zone.
The meager existence of regular Iraqi's is all the more torturous given that their American overlords are not likely doing without. Besides everything else that's wrong in Iraq, this disparency is among the most problematic, and can only result in greater opposition and anger towards the occupation.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Breaking News
Al Zarqawi, former head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, is still dead.
And Glenn Greenwald says Zarqawi was killed last month.
Was it that recent? I could have sworn the much celebrated killing of the Al Qaeda in Iraq chief was at least One Friedman ago.
And Glenn Greenwald says Zarqawi was killed last month.
Was it that recent? I could have sworn the much celebrated killing of the Al Qaeda in Iraq chief was at least One Friedman ago.
Brooks: You know, those smoke filled rooms were really under-rated
Via Matt Taibbi, via David Sirota, I discover that David Brooks has identified the existential threat to our American democracy: Democratic Party Partisanship; more particularly, polarized, partisan Democratic voters, and the polarizingly partisan Democratic primaries that allow the polarized partisan Democratic voters to vote.
The Lamont-Lieberman election in Connecticut, Brooks says:
"...explained why polarized primary voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics."
Phew. I'm glad Brooks has finally shined the light on what ails the American republic. Primaries. And voting. And partisanship. And Democrats being partisan.
I'm just a little perplexed that Brooksie has happened upon this crisis only recently. Because I think partisanship has been pretty potent for like the last 26 years, maybe even longer. And it's been especially important and vile to boot, since 1994. And 1998 wasn't a partisan sleeper by any means either. And what about that time the Republican U.S. Senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, ditched the GOP for Independent status after he was re-elected? Do you really want me to dig up the unveiled threats to Jeffords eminating from the Republican White House and Republican Congress when that happened?
And what those little things we call elections in 2002 and 2004? Well, those things were downright partisan, let me tell ya, Brooksie.
But now, that Bush's polls have cratered, his war in Iraq is a Fiasco, some of the DC pundit class are predicting a Democratic tidal wave in 2006, and perhaps most offensively, beltway favorite Joe Lieberman lost his primary re-election bid, Brooksie has finally discovered the source of American malaise in the 21st century. There are elections. And party primaries. Who knew?
Of course, I must concede that Brooksie concedes this disease of partisanship and primary voting has infected his own party. There is indeed a pox on both our houses;
"...look at how Representative Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican, was defeated by a conservative rival in Michigan."
I hope no one reminds Brooksie that long time Republican Senator Arlen Spector was challenged by a very partisan Republican in 2004 and barely got to hang onto his Judiciary Chairmanship. What's more, another Republican Senator, from Rhode Island, also faces a primary challenger. These Republicans are pretty partisan, they are.
But while Brooksie is forced to acknowledge the polarizing partisanship his own party has indulged in, if not driven to great heights over the last three decades, his real problem it appears is with Democratic partisans. That Democrats would vote to turn out one of his few buddies in the Democratic party was more than he, and many other political elites in DC can take.
As Taibbi notes:
There is something perversely exhilarating about watching the American political establishment in action, especially now, when -- with the Middle East in flames, the front pages filled with news of jarring electoral surprises, and the poll numbers of its once-brightest stars falling through the floor -- it has begun behaving like a cornered animal, lashing out incoherently at anything that comes near.
Lieberman himself has been stumbling around like a deer that has just been hit and thrown 200 yards by an F-150, taking the utterly insane position that his candidacy -- his, Joe Lieberman's candidacy -- somehow represents a fight against the "same old" Washington politics. You have Dick Cheney and a whole host of conservative talking heads, all pretense of two-party politics gone now, openly parroting the talking points of the supposed other side, the Democratic Leadership Council. And then you have Times columnist David Brooks, acting like a man high on laughing gas, committing to print that positively amazing assertion that "polarized primary voters should not be allowed to define the choices in American politics."
(That one might be my all-time favorite; flailing around in search of a new group on the margins to demonize, this yutz accidentally argues that voters shouldn't be allowed to decide elections. I thought it was funny, but Brooks this time nearly gave Dave Sirota an aneurysm.)
The reason the Lamont election has all of Washington so badly freaked out and dug in is that it's revealed a crack in the long-dependable mechanism of mainstream American politics. For almost four decades now conservatives in both parties have been governing according to a very simple formula. You run against Jane Fonda and George McGovern in election season, then you spend the next four years playing golf, shooting flightless birds, and taking $25,000 speaking gigs in Aspen while you let your fundraisers run things around the office.
But their problem now is that they've fucked up Iraq and everything else so badly that they've practically made "McGovernism" mainstream. A whole generation of hacks has reached office running against George McGovern, and now Joe Lieberman is threatening to ruin things for everybody, just like Jimmy Carter wrecked the Barry Goldwater gravy train for the last generation by falling on his face against Ronald Reagan. If there is such a thing as a principle in Washington, avoiding such a catastrophe as that is it. That's why they won't let Joe die easy -- no matter how much he seems to deserve it.
But it's not just the case that professional punditry is offended by the uptick in primaries, voting, and partisanship; it's that this demonstration of small "d" democracy is occuring among Democratic Party voters, and slowly trickling up towards their elected representatives. Don Imus, Chris Matthews, and Fox News were more than happy to have partisanship when the Democrats were having their rear ends handed to them every election. Now that the mood has turned, and the masses are unsettled, the political elite is worried and by most indicators, becoming increasingly irrational.
The Lamont-Lieberman election in Connecticut, Brooks says:
"...explained why polarized primary voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics."
Phew. I'm glad Brooks has finally shined the light on what ails the American republic. Primaries. And voting. And partisanship. And Democrats being partisan.
I'm just a little perplexed that Brooksie has happened upon this crisis only recently. Because I think partisanship has been pretty potent for like the last 26 years, maybe even longer. And it's been especially important and vile to boot, since 1994. And 1998 wasn't a partisan sleeper by any means either. And what about that time the Republican U.S. Senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, ditched the GOP for Independent status after he was re-elected? Do you really want me to dig up the unveiled threats to Jeffords eminating from the Republican White House and Republican Congress when that happened?
And what those little things we call elections in 2002 and 2004? Well, those things were downright partisan, let me tell ya, Brooksie.
But now, that Bush's polls have cratered, his war in Iraq is a Fiasco, some of the DC pundit class are predicting a Democratic tidal wave in 2006, and perhaps most offensively, beltway favorite Joe Lieberman lost his primary re-election bid, Brooksie has finally discovered the source of American malaise in the 21st century. There are elections. And party primaries. Who knew?
Of course, I must concede that Brooksie concedes this disease of partisanship and primary voting has infected his own party. There is indeed a pox on both our houses;
"...look at how Representative Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican, was defeated by a conservative rival in Michigan."
I hope no one reminds Brooksie that long time Republican Senator Arlen Spector was challenged by a very partisan Republican in 2004 and barely got to hang onto his Judiciary Chairmanship. What's more, another Republican Senator, from Rhode Island, also faces a primary challenger. These Republicans are pretty partisan, they are.
But while Brooksie is forced to acknowledge the polarizing partisanship his own party has indulged in, if not driven to great heights over the last three decades, his real problem it appears is with Democratic partisans. That Democrats would vote to turn out one of his few buddies in the Democratic party was more than he, and many other political elites in DC can take.
As Taibbi notes:
There is something perversely exhilarating about watching the American political establishment in action, especially now, when -- with the Middle East in flames, the front pages filled with news of jarring electoral surprises, and the poll numbers of its once-brightest stars falling through the floor -- it has begun behaving like a cornered animal, lashing out incoherently at anything that comes near.
Lieberman himself has been stumbling around like a deer that has just been hit and thrown 200 yards by an F-150, taking the utterly insane position that his candidacy -- his, Joe Lieberman's candidacy -- somehow represents a fight against the "same old" Washington politics. You have Dick Cheney and a whole host of conservative talking heads, all pretense of two-party politics gone now, openly parroting the talking points of the supposed other side, the Democratic Leadership Council. And then you have Times columnist David Brooks, acting like a man high on laughing gas, committing to print that positively amazing assertion that "polarized primary voters should not be allowed to define the choices in American politics."
(That one might be my all-time favorite; flailing around in search of a new group on the margins to demonize, this yutz accidentally argues that voters shouldn't be allowed to decide elections. I thought it was funny, but Brooks this time nearly gave Dave Sirota an aneurysm.)
The reason the Lamont election has all of Washington so badly freaked out and dug in is that it's revealed a crack in the long-dependable mechanism of mainstream American politics. For almost four decades now conservatives in both parties have been governing according to a very simple formula. You run against Jane Fonda and George McGovern in election season, then you spend the next four years playing golf, shooting flightless birds, and taking $25,000 speaking gigs in Aspen while you let your fundraisers run things around the office.
But their problem now is that they've fucked up Iraq and everything else so badly that they've practically made "McGovernism" mainstream. A whole generation of hacks has reached office running against George McGovern, and now Joe Lieberman is threatening to ruin things for everybody, just like Jimmy Carter wrecked the Barry Goldwater gravy train for the last generation by falling on his face against Ronald Reagan. If there is such a thing as a principle in Washington, avoiding such a catastrophe as that is it. That's why they won't let Joe die easy -- no matter how much he seems to deserve it.
But it's not just the case that professional punditry is offended by the uptick in primaries, voting, and partisanship; it's that this demonstration of small "d" democracy is occuring among Democratic Party voters, and slowly trickling up towards their elected representatives. Don Imus, Chris Matthews, and Fox News were more than happy to have partisanship when the Democrats were having their rear ends handed to them every election. Now that the mood has turned, and the masses are unsettled, the political elite is worried and by most indicators, becoming increasingly irrational.
From the Heart
The Washington Post:
Sen. George Allen on Tuesday sought to contain the political damage from remarks he made to a Fairfax County man that dredged up charges of racial insensitivity -- allegations that have dogged him for years as governor, senator and now presidential hopeful.
Despite a quick apology Monday, criticism poured in about Allen's use of the word "Macaca" to address a volunteer for the campaign of his Democratic opponent, James Webb, and also about another Allen comment, "Welcome to America." Democrats, left-wing bloggers and civil rights groups called him "insensitive" and "racist," while some conservatives called him "foolish" and "mean."
The question was fiercely debated all day: Was "Macaca," which literally means a genus of monkey, a deliberate racist epithet or a weird ad-libbed word with no meaning? And what was Allen trying to say by singling out the young man of Indian descent?
Allen's defenders rushed to his side, saying the comments, though careless, do not reflect what is inside the senator's heart. Sudhakar Shenoy, an Indian business executive from Fairfax who has known Allen for years, said he "has been an incredible friend to Indians" and is not a racist. "I'd stake everything I have that George is not that kind of a guy," Shenoy said.
Gospel of Mark:
Mark 7: 1-7.
And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.)
And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people honoreth me with their lips,
But their heart is far from me.
But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.
(snip)
Mark 7: 14-15.
And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand: there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
The book of Jeremiah
Jeremiah 17:9.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?
Sen. George Allen on Tuesday sought to contain the political damage from remarks he made to a Fairfax County man that dredged up charges of racial insensitivity -- allegations that have dogged him for years as governor, senator and now presidential hopeful.
Despite a quick apology Monday, criticism poured in about Allen's use of the word "Macaca" to address a volunteer for the campaign of his Democratic opponent, James Webb, and also about another Allen comment, "Welcome to America." Democrats, left-wing bloggers and civil rights groups called him "insensitive" and "racist," while some conservatives called him "foolish" and "mean."
The question was fiercely debated all day: Was "Macaca," which literally means a genus of monkey, a deliberate racist epithet or a weird ad-libbed word with no meaning? And what was Allen trying to say by singling out the young man of Indian descent?
Allen's defenders rushed to his side, saying the comments, though careless, do not reflect what is inside the senator's heart. Sudhakar Shenoy, an Indian business executive from Fairfax who has known Allen for years, said he "has been an incredible friend to Indians" and is not a racist. "I'd stake everything I have that George is not that kind of a guy," Shenoy said.
Gospel of Mark:
Mark 7: 1-7.
And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.)
And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people honoreth me with their lips,
But their heart is far from me.
But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.
(snip)
Mark 7: 14-15.
And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand: there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
The book of Jeremiah
Jeremiah 17:9.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?
Back to Iraq
In yesterday's NYT we learned that president Bush is apparently disappointed with the Iraqi people's lack of gratitude to the U.S. for their "liberation".
Today we find out that in addition to the sectarian violence between Iraqi Shia and Sunni Muslims, the Iraqi insurgency is also continuing to grow, launching the most attacks last month on American and Iraqi government forces since the start of the war. I'd almost become convinced the insurgency had more or less become subsumed if not replaced by a civil war; but apparently the turmoil in Iraq is not a zero-sum game in which either an insurgency or civil war can be waged but not both. Both are thriving as not only are attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi soldiers up, so are the number of civilians murdered in Baghdad:
As the politics in Iraq have grown more polarized since the elections in December, in which many Sunni Arabs voted, attacks have soared, including sectarian clashes that have killed an average of more than 100 Iraqi civilians per day over the past two months.
Glenn Greenwald has this to say in response to the latest news:
Once the U.S. finally extricates itself from the Iraqi disaster, a comprehensive public accounting is critical. While much attention has been paid to the pre-war misinformation disseminated by the government and the media, the post-invasion deceit has been worse -- much worse. There was, at least, a reasonable question about whether Saddam had WMDs. Nobody knew the answer to that question for certain one way or the other prior to the war. But it has long been apparent that conditions in Iraq were deteriorating, that our occupation was achieving nothing constructive, that violence was spiraling out of control, and that our invasion had achieved the opposite of the goals we proclaimed to be pursuing.
But the political establishment -- the Bush administration, its followers, and our "serious" pundits alike -- were all so invested, so personally invested, in the invasion which they advocated and caused that they just all agreed to pretend that it was not happening. Pointing out the magnitude of the disaster we caused -- both to Iraq and, at least equally, to the U.S. -- was deemed inappropriate, distasteful, hyperbolic, and even subversive. As a result, and in stark contrast to the quick and open Israeli recognition that their war was going poorly, we continued to pursue a clearly misguided and destructive path because our political leaders and their media enablers were too weak and self-interested -- and, in many cases, still are -- to acknowledge reality.
There's certainly a lot of truth to Glenn's argument that the administration's post-war behavior has been worse than its pre-war behavior. And it's also true that many of the administration's think tank and media enablers have unfortunately followed suit, denying reports of Iraq's problems and trying to intimidate administration critics and members of the press interested in a full and truthful accounting of the war.
At the same time, it's worth recognizing the efforts turned in by journalists such as Tom Ricks, George Packer and Michael Gordon, among others, in fleshing out the mistakes and misinformation both prior to and after the invasion.
In addition, conservatives in the press and in the conservative movement also deserve kudos for being willing to recognize the failings associated with the administration's fantasy based war mongering and nation building, and in some cases, these players have acknowledged their own mistaken roles and been promptly attacked and disowned by their former collaborators, including this guy. George Will and William Buckley have also expressed criticism of the war and the administration's post-invasion strategeries.
And obviously, the public has become at least partly in tune to the results of the Iraqi invasion, driving down Bush's poll numbers and leading some observers to conclude the Democrats are on the verge of a take over of Congress.
Nonetheless, at least some of the dis-satisfaction with Bush and Iraq doesn't stem from what we might think of as liberal causes. Much of the mainstream angst seems primarily rooted in issues of war-management, rather than on the war's justification and moral worth. On the far right there is added the notion that the war was not waged violently enough.
And now, with the cease-fire still holding in Lebanon, the administration, and perhaps more importantly, it's rabid supporters in the mega-church, Christian Zionest movement, want to proceed with an attack on Iran. And even if Democrats make some gains in the Fall, it's hard to see the next two years, and even the next decade, being one of rational discourse and reasonable public policy whether here or abroad.
Today we find out that in addition to the sectarian violence between Iraqi Shia and Sunni Muslims, the Iraqi insurgency is also continuing to grow, launching the most attacks last month on American and Iraqi government forces since the start of the war. I'd almost become convinced the insurgency had more or less become subsumed if not replaced by a civil war; but apparently the turmoil in Iraq is not a zero-sum game in which either an insurgency or civil war can be waged but not both. Both are thriving as not only are attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi soldiers up, so are the number of civilians murdered in Baghdad:
As the politics in Iraq have grown more polarized since the elections in December, in which many Sunni Arabs voted, attacks have soared, including sectarian clashes that have killed an average of more than 100 Iraqi civilians per day over the past two months.
Glenn Greenwald has this to say in response to the latest news:
Once the U.S. finally extricates itself from the Iraqi disaster, a comprehensive public accounting is critical. While much attention has been paid to the pre-war misinformation disseminated by the government and the media, the post-invasion deceit has been worse -- much worse. There was, at least, a reasonable question about whether Saddam had WMDs. Nobody knew the answer to that question for certain one way or the other prior to the war. But it has long been apparent that conditions in Iraq were deteriorating, that our occupation was achieving nothing constructive, that violence was spiraling out of control, and that our invasion had achieved the opposite of the goals we proclaimed to be pursuing.
But the political establishment -- the Bush administration, its followers, and our "serious" pundits alike -- were all so invested, so personally invested, in the invasion which they advocated and caused that they just all agreed to pretend that it was not happening. Pointing out the magnitude of the disaster we caused -- both to Iraq and, at least equally, to the U.S. -- was deemed inappropriate, distasteful, hyperbolic, and even subversive. As a result, and in stark contrast to the quick and open Israeli recognition that their war was going poorly, we continued to pursue a clearly misguided and destructive path because our political leaders and their media enablers were too weak and self-interested -- and, in many cases, still are -- to acknowledge reality.
There's certainly a lot of truth to Glenn's argument that the administration's post-war behavior has been worse than its pre-war behavior. And it's also true that many of the administration's think tank and media enablers have unfortunately followed suit, denying reports of Iraq's problems and trying to intimidate administration critics and members of the press interested in a full and truthful accounting of the war.
At the same time, it's worth recognizing the efforts turned in by journalists such as Tom Ricks, George Packer and Michael Gordon, among others, in fleshing out the mistakes and misinformation both prior to and after the invasion.
In addition, conservatives in the press and in the conservative movement also deserve kudos for being willing to recognize the failings associated with the administration's fantasy based war mongering and nation building, and in some cases, these players have acknowledged their own mistaken roles and been promptly attacked and disowned by their former collaborators, including this guy. George Will and William Buckley have also expressed criticism of the war and the administration's post-invasion strategeries.
And obviously, the public has become at least partly in tune to the results of the Iraqi invasion, driving down Bush's poll numbers and leading some observers to conclude the Democrats are on the verge of a take over of Congress.
Nonetheless, at least some of the dis-satisfaction with Bush and Iraq doesn't stem from what we might think of as liberal causes. Much of the mainstream angst seems primarily rooted in issues of war-management, rather than on the war's justification and moral worth. On the far right there is added the notion that the war was not waged violently enough.
And now, with the cease-fire still holding in Lebanon, the administration, and perhaps more importantly, it's rabid supporters in the mega-church, Christian Zionest movement, want to proceed with an attack on Iran. And even if Democrats make some gains in the Fall, it's hard to see the next two years, and even the next decade, being one of rational discourse and reasonable public policy whether here or abroad.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Focus on Your Own Family
Right-wing political sect masquerading as "Christian" group gets the heave-hoe from Atlanta Braves' Faith Day.
Hate is Not a family value.
Hate is Not a family value.
Every Decent Person
Every decent person in the world condemns a plot that would purposely kill innocents from many countries for no reason imaginable in a sane world.
Divorced from its context, it might not be immediately discernible of what plot or of which innocents the writer of the above paragraph was speaking. At a minimum the plot against innocents could refer to Iraq or the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, among other current hot spots.
In actuality, the quote is from Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe and refers to the recent arrests in Great Britain of 19 or so reputed Islamic terrorists of English citizenship but of Pakistani descent who, we're told, were in the final stages of a hideous scheme to blow up 9 or 10 airplanes headed to America.
Unlike the terror alarms that went up briefly two months ago about a reported Muslim terrorist group operating out of Miami and planning to bomb the Chicago Sears Tower, the group arrested in Great Britain appears to have been the real thing.
But back to this post's lead 'graph. Hundt is correctly outraged by the barbarism exposed in this plot and relieved the gangsters were caught before they could do any real damage. At the same time, as the civilian death toll in Lebanon approaches or exceeds 1,000, I can't help but think that many in the Middle East would apply Hundt's statement to themselves, their countrymen, and religious comrades.
Naturally, many of us in the West would be quick to point out that Israeli and U.S. attacks in Lebananon and Iraq, respectively, did not and do not target innocents, and are thus manifestly different, morally, than the designs of Muslim terrorists in Great Britain and throughout the world.
But I sense that this is a distinction meant primarily for Western domestic consumption, and a distinction completely lost on the Middle East mass public. The blurred line between the strategies and motivations is compounded by Western thought leaders who engage in morally relativistic talk about redefining the term "civilian" to exclude targeted populations that happen to live near and among Western enemies, such as Hezbollah, or those "innocents" who can be demonstrated as having at least a peripheral sympathy for, or allegiance to, the attacked, even if the sympathy and allegiance is forged in the context of their own destruction.
Divorced from its context, it might not be immediately discernible of what plot or of which innocents the writer of the above paragraph was speaking. At a minimum the plot against innocents could refer to Iraq or the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, among other current hot spots.
In actuality, the quote is from Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe and refers to the recent arrests in Great Britain of 19 or so reputed Islamic terrorists of English citizenship but of Pakistani descent who, we're told, were in the final stages of a hideous scheme to blow up 9 or 10 airplanes headed to America.
Unlike the terror alarms that went up briefly two months ago about a reported Muslim terrorist group operating out of Miami and planning to bomb the Chicago Sears Tower, the group arrested in Great Britain appears to have been the real thing.
But back to this post's lead 'graph. Hundt is correctly outraged by the barbarism exposed in this plot and relieved the gangsters were caught before they could do any real damage. At the same time, as the civilian death toll in Lebanon approaches or exceeds 1,000, I can't help but think that many in the Middle East would apply Hundt's statement to themselves, their countrymen, and religious comrades.
Naturally, many of us in the West would be quick to point out that Israeli and U.S. attacks in Lebananon and Iraq, respectively, did not and do not target innocents, and are thus manifestly different, morally, than the designs of Muslim terrorists in Great Britain and throughout the world.
But I sense that this is a distinction meant primarily for Western domestic consumption, and a distinction completely lost on the Middle East mass public. The blurred line between the strategies and motivations is compounded by Western thought leaders who engage in morally relativistic talk about redefining the term "civilian" to exclude targeted populations that happen to live near and among Western enemies, such as Hezbollah, or those "innocents" who can be demonstrated as having at least a peripheral sympathy for, or allegiance to, the attacked, even if the sympathy and allegiance is forged in the context of their own destruction.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Joementum!
52-48.
Not the smashing victory I was hoping for. It gave Joementum! an excuse to carry on with his "independent" campaign, although maybe Corporate Joe didn't care about the margin or the primary in any event. Anyway, now, as Matt Taibbi forecasted:
"...Lieberman's crowning insult—and perhaps his last fatal mistake as an (ostensible) member of the Democratic Party—was his recent decision to register and run as an independent in case he loses the primary to Lamont. Finally taking his mask off and revealing himself as a baldly self-interested political creature, this final-act version of Lieberman plans on dying hard, forcing liberal voters to kill him twice in the same movie, like Jason in Friday the 13th."
And how about Corporate Joe's concession/full steam ahead, primary voters be damned speech? Much like the rantings of his Washington buddies and DLC enablers, it was devoid entirely of anything resembling substance, just some platitudes about creating a new politics of non-partisanship after the guy's been in DC for the last two decades. Blah blah blah.
I know there are a lot of people on the Internets who think Lamont's victory tonight is miraculous. And I am cheered. Really. But the truth is, if Democratic primary voters can't get rid of a guy like Joe Lieberman in a liberal state like CT, I don't know what the future holds.
I do have a few words of advice for Ned as he seeks to beat Lieberman for a second time--keep the outta staters off the stage. Was there a reason CT voters needed to see media hounds like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson out there tonight? I don't care about their race. One of the big criticisms of Corporate Joe is/was his out of touchness with the people of his state. Ned, don't let Corporate Joe come off like the regular guy in the general election by letting the self promoters hog the spotlight. They work for you, not you for them.
OK, enough said. A long night. The netroots can claim a temporary victory. And I can go to sleep. Finally.
Not the smashing victory I was hoping for. It gave Joementum! an excuse to carry on with his "independent" campaign, although maybe Corporate Joe didn't care about the margin or the primary in any event. Anyway, now, as Matt Taibbi forecasted:
"...Lieberman's crowning insult—and perhaps his last fatal mistake as an (ostensible) member of the Democratic Party—was his recent decision to register and run as an independent in case he loses the primary to Lamont. Finally taking his mask off and revealing himself as a baldly self-interested political creature, this final-act version of Lieberman plans on dying hard, forcing liberal voters to kill him twice in the same movie, like Jason in Friday the 13th."
And how about Corporate Joe's concession/full steam ahead, primary voters be damned speech? Much like the rantings of his Washington buddies and DLC enablers, it was devoid entirely of anything resembling substance, just some platitudes about creating a new politics of non-partisanship after the guy's been in DC for the last two decades. Blah blah blah.
I know there are a lot of people on the Internets who think Lamont's victory tonight is miraculous. And I am cheered. Really. But the truth is, if Democratic primary voters can't get rid of a guy like Joe Lieberman in a liberal state like CT, I don't know what the future holds.
I do have a few words of advice for Ned as he seeks to beat Lieberman for a second time--keep the outta staters off the stage. Was there a reason CT voters needed to see media hounds like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson out there tonight? I don't care about their race. One of the big criticisms of Corporate Joe is/was his out of touchness with the people of his state. Ned, don't let Corporate Joe come off like the regular guy in the general election by letting the self promoters hog the spotlight. They work for you, not you for them.
OK, enough said. A long night. The netroots can claim a temporary victory. And I can go to sleep. Finally.
Meet the Wall Street Journal Democrats
You've met the Fox News Democrats. Now meet the Wall Street Journal Democrats. Hint: sometimes they're the very same people. See if you can match them.
1. Senator Joe Lieberman, please step up:
It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril (November, 2005).
2. Marty Peretz, Editor in Chief, The New Republic:
We have been here before. Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding single-issue "peace candidates," and the one in Connecticut, like several in the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. It's really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of "having arrived" up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought they were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt, who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran for, and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator, assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had demonstrated abilities (August, 2006).
3. Lanny Davis, former Special Council to President Clinton, and former frat brother of President Bush, and currently serving on President Bush's "privacy board", along side Ted Olson, anti-Clinton lawyer extraordinaire:
My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman (August, 2006).
Meet the Wall Street Journal Democrats. Same as the Fox News Democrats.
Are you a Democrat who hates Democrats and democracy generally? Don't just do Fox News. The Wall Street Journal is soliciting essays for use as potential op-ed columns. Our rich, conservative Republican readership especially enjoys reading opinion pieces by Democrats criticizing other Democrats. Note: competitive entries must really savage other Democrats, especially close to election time.
1. Senator Joe Lieberman, please step up:
It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril (November, 2005).
2. Marty Peretz, Editor in Chief, The New Republic:
We have been here before. Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding single-issue "peace candidates," and the one in Connecticut, like several in the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. It's really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of "having arrived" up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought they were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt, who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran for, and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator, assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had demonstrated abilities (August, 2006).
3. Lanny Davis, former Special Council to President Clinton, and former frat brother of President Bush, and currently serving on President Bush's "privacy board", along side Ted Olson, anti-Clinton lawyer extraordinaire:
My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman (August, 2006).
Meet the Wall Street Journal Democrats. Same as the Fox News Democrats.
Are you a Democrat who hates Democrats and democracy generally? Don't just do Fox News. The Wall Street Journal is soliciting essays for use as potential op-ed columns. Our rich, conservative Republican readership especially enjoys reading opinion pieces by Democrats criticizing other Democrats. Note: competitive entries must really savage other Democrats, especially close to election time.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Sharing the Despair
Bilmon has been getting some grief for what some feel is his overly-pessimistic tone, in posts like these for example. And I think Bilmon's wrong to downplay the impact a Democratic executive, a branch or two of Congress and Democratic appointments to the courts could have in at least helping to slow the march towards American theocracy and authoritarianism, at least for a time while we hope saner minds prevail.
But I have to admit I've been sharing the Whiskey Bar's mood these days. Take for example, Joe Lieberman, and his enablers in the press and pundit world. I've tried to downplay Lamont's prospects tomorrow, but even I'd forgotten just what a real cancer on the body politic Joe Lieberman is until I read these essays by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone. And the truly sad thing is, Lieberman is probably not even the worst of the bunch. And maybe Lamont will prove no better over time, should he win tomorrow. As Bilmon points out, Lamont at the very least share's Lieberman's and the conventional U.S. view on the Lebanon-Israel conflict. So how different he'd be relative to the general level of silliness that's going on now concerning U.S. and the neocon's posturing towards Syria and Iran, and their defense of presidential signing statements and NSA wiretaps, etc, I don't know.
But along side of the problem presented by corruption and hypocrisy in Congress, it also seems to be the case that the fever pitch being worked up by neo conservative agitators in Washington and by their supporters in right-wing evangelical pulpits is, despite the abundance of counteracting evidence shining brightly from the Fiasco in Iraq, if anything only increasing.
And although I felt it necessary to slightly poo-pah Glenn Greenwald's essay on neo-conservatism and realignment a few weeks ago, basically everything that's gone on since then has only buttressed his view that a new alignment hinging on neo-conservative international politics is driving and shaping our national politics, subverting at least for a time, even the hot-button domestic issues like abortion, gay rights, etc that have been so prominent even throughout the first years of the Iraqi excapade.
Thus it has been highly ironic to hear from Joe Lieberman and his supporters the complaint that Democrats shouldn't oppose Lieberman based on his vote for the Iraq war. While this canard has been dispensed with by other commentators, I think Digby's post here on the nature of the opposition to Joe Lieberman probably captures it as well as any:
"This article lays out all the gripes that Connecticut, a liberal state, has against old Joe and it's quite an indictment. But what it comes down to is that he's always tried to have it both ways. He rhetorically reinforces all the destructive GOP memes, hedges his bets on important votes and even though (like most politicians) he generally votes with the party he's effectively working for the other side a good part of the time. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that being a member of the minority party in the Senate for most of his career means that he's had a lot of free votes that don't mean diddly.
Rhetoric, on the other hand, is one of the few powers a minority party has as it tries to persuade the country to come over to their side and put the opposition on the spot. Helping the majority make its case is one of the most destructive things Joe does. Democratic partisans have been complaining about it for years and so apparently have his constituents."
Lieberman and the DLC aside, though, I've actually been far less concerned about the saber rattling concerning Iran than seemingly many other commentators have. My reasoning has been that despite all the talk and apprehension about pre-emptive wars and one-percent doctrines, and bellicose threats from the likes of Newt Gingrish, Bill Kristol and Max Boot, the neo-conservative administration basically had one military-force card to play, and that was in Iraq. If the neo-cons really thought Iran was a serious threat, they could have continued with the containment of Iraq and mobilized for Iran instead (or North Korea). But they didn't.
In any event, Iran and North Korea are not countries that, it seems to me, are going to be persuaded or changed by air power alone--substantial ground forces would need to be committed for any plan to invade Iran, and I don't see that happening, since a draft would be needed to provide the forces for such a misadventure.
But now I'm not sure if there isn't more to worry about. More than a few evangelical leaders with mass followings--and contacts at the White House--are sounding apocalyptic warnings about Iran, and the general level of "debate" has been such that I wonder if there hasn't been a point of no return already crossed. In that case, some sort of military action, however limited to air attacks it might be, and however unsuccessful those attacks might be, would seem to be necessary to let off the steam being generated by the press and the president's party's fan base.
And of course, rising gas prices are probably not going to relieve the tension clouding the war talk either.
So, I'm not optimistic about the future, even if Democrats take one or both branches of Congress this fall. The mess that's already been created, the expectations that have been built up around the "global war on terrorism" and "world war III/IV/V" will need considerable political skill to navigate, and I'm not reassured that the Democratic leadership and intelligencia is equiped to handle it. Considering that some faux Democrats are more aligned with the Republican neo-cons than their reputed party, my lack of faith is even more understandable.
But I have to admit I've been sharing the Whiskey Bar's mood these days. Take for example, Joe Lieberman, and his enablers in the press and pundit world. I've tried to downplay Lamont's prospects tomorrow, but even I'd forgotten just what a real cancer on the body politic Joe Lieberman is until I read these essays by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone. And the truly sad thing is, Lieberman is probably not even the worst of the bunch. And maybe Lamont will prove no better over time, should he win tomorrow. As Bilmon points out, Lamont at the very least share's Lieberman's and the conventional U.S. view on the Lebanon-Israel conflict. So how different he'd be relative to the general level of silliness that's going on now concerning U.S. and the neocon's posturing towards Syria and Iran, and their defense of presidential signing statements and NSA wiretaps, etc, I don't know.
But along side of the problem presented by corruption and hypocrisy in Congress, it also seems to be the case that the fever pitch being worked up by neo conservative agitators in Washington and by their supporters in right-wing evangelical pulpits is, despite the abundance of counteracting evidence shining brightly from the Fiasco in Iraq, if anything only increasing.
And although I felt it necessary to slightly poo-pah Glenn Greenwald's essay on neo-conservatism and realignment a few weeks ago, basically everything that's gone on since then has only buttressed his view that a new alignment hinging on neo-conservative international politics is driving and shaping our national politics, subverting at least for a time, even the hot-button domestic issues like abortion, gay rights, etc that have been so prominent even throughout the first years of the Iraqi excapade.
Thus it has been highly ironic to hear from Joe Lieberman and his supporters the complaint that Democrats shouldn't oppose Lieberman based on his vote for the Iraq war. While this canard has been dispensed with by other commentators, I think Digby's post here on the nature of the opposition to Joe Lieberman probably captures it as well as any:
"This article lays out all the gripes that Connecticut, a liberal state, has against old Joe and it's quite an indictment. But what it comes down to is that he's always tried to have it both ways. He rhetorically reinforces all the destructive GOP memes, hedges his bets on important votes and even though (like most politicians) he generally votes with the party he's effectively working for the other side a good part of the time. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that being a member of the minority party in the Senate for most of his career means that he's had a lot of free votes that don't mean diddly.
Rhetoric, on the other hand, is one of the few powers a minority party has as it tries to persuade the country to come over to their side and put the opposition on the spot. Helping the majority make its case is one of the most destructive things Joe does. Democratic partisans have been complaining about it for years and so apparently have his constituents."
Lieberman and the DLC aside, though, I've actually been far less concerned about the saber rattling concerning Iran than seemingly many other commentators have. My reasoning has been that despite all the talk and apprehension about pre-emptive wars and one-percent doctrines, and bellicose threats from the likes of Newt Gingrish, Bill Kristol and Max Boot, the neo-conservative administration basically had one military-force card to play, and that was in Iraq. If the neo-cons really thought Iran was a serious threat, they could have continued with the containment of Iraq and mobilized for Iran instead (or North Korea). But they didn't.
In any event, Iran and North Korea are not countries that, it seems to me, are going to be persuaded or changed by air power alone--substantial ground forces would need to be committed for any plan to invade Iran, and I don't see that happening, since a draft would be needed to provide the forces for such a misadventure.
But now I'm not sure if there isn't more to worry about. More than a few evangelical leaders with mass followings--and contacts at the White House--are sounding apocalyptic warnings about Iran, and the general level of "debate" has been such that I wonder if there hasn't been a point of no return already crossed. In that case, some sort of military action, however limited to air attacks it might be, and however unsuccessful those attacks might be, would seem to be necessary to let off the steam being generated by the press and the president's party's fan base.
And of course, rising gas prices are probably not going to relieve the tension clouding the war talk either.
So, I'm not optimistic about the future, even if Democrats take one or both branches of Congress this fall. The mess that's already been created, the expectations that have been built up around the "global war on terrorism" and "world war III/IV/V" will need considerable political skill to navigate, and I'm not reassured that the Democratic leadership and intelligencia is equiped to handle it. Considering that some faux Democrats are more aligned with the Republican neo-cons than their reputed party, my lack of faith is even more understandable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)