Pam Spaulding points out what I alluded to below, that the progressive blogosphere has not had the case of the Jena 6 on its radar, although it was highlighted by Democracy Now's Amy Goodman over two months ago.
Reading Pam's post, and surfing through the leading progressive blogs is a trip of cognitive dissonance, particularly as Pam notes, many of these same blogs are only to eager to capitalize on the Republican candidates' dissing of minority-moderated debates and events.
Why such a blindspot among us?
-------
I started this post yesterday (September 20) and briefly let it publish before returning to it to make some revisions and ultimately to send it back to draft status when I couldn't get it together in a way that suited me.
In the interim, the peaceful marching and demonstration in Jena of "tens of thousands" of mostly African Americans from around the country has taken place.
And still. No commentary from the blogosphere (except for Pandagon's Pam Spaulding). (cue the sound of crickets chirping)
This is really shocking to this white senator.
How to explain it?
The answer I was trying to put together yesterday had to do with the fact that we white bloggers are mostly consumed with the Great Partisan Debate. This preoccupation lends itself to a focus on national issues, like war and the economy, and to national figures, like party officials and media elites. That is to say, if an issue, development or situation can be immediately and directly plugged into the Great Partisan Debate, than it is fodder for the blogger mill. But if the issue is perceived as parachial (i.e. local or limited in application) or ambigious, and most of all, if it is not easy to see its connection to the Great Partisan Debate, than that issue will whither on the vine.
And I still think this explains a lot of it. But to not have any of the A-list blogs commenting on yesterday's demonstration and the situation in Jena TODAY, after the demonstration and the national media coverage paid to it has me completely baffled.
A secondary but related feature of the Jena case that gives it the blogosphere kiss of death is its criminal justice component. Criminal justice issues, inequality in sentencing, the Drug War, prison conditions, AIDS in prison, prison rape and violence, gangs in prison, rehabilitation and especially, the racial intercept of all these issues, are the political black hole (no pun intended but it may apply anyway) of national politics. Hence, the A-list of white bloggers consumed with national issues, national personalities, and the Great Partisan Debate, shy away from criminal justice issues in the states and localities (unless the criminal case is in Washington, DC and involves administration officials).
For all our talk about how myopic and self indulgent the Washington Beltway class is, most of us bloggers are not much better or different in regards to things taking place in the lives of regular people outside of major metropolitan areas and to the culture and vibes of truly alternative media and community fronts (i.e black radio).
All I can say today is that the White Out regarding Jena is simply astounding. I'm embarassed.
Post Script
I have to say that Al Sharpton had a good one at yesterday's demonstration. He said (I'm paraphrasing from what I heard him say from this morning's Democracy Now broadcast).
"The first Civil Rights struggle was against Jim Crow. Today's Civil Right's struggle is against James Crow, Jr. Esq. The first Civil Right's struggle was about a seat on the bus. Today's Civil Right's struggle is about our seat in the courtroom."
Post Script II
Those A-listers who have briefly raised the subject of the Jena 6 have done so in the context of--wait for it--the statements about the Jena released by the Democratic presidential candidates. This is that What Are You Doing For The Great Partisan Debate? angle I discussed above. See the 7th bulleted item in this Daily Kos post for an example of the same.
Post Script III
I think the left blogosphere has been silent on this matter due in no small part to the fact we are without the late, great Steve Gilliard. It's times like these when his presence is most missed. Steve brought more of a real world connection to the reality based blogosphere.
Post Script IV
The Daily Kos and FireDogLake (in an ambigously worded post-title) now have frontpage posts up about Jena.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Jena 6
There hasn't been much left-blogosphere attention to this case, so far. Pandagon's Pam Spaulding has written about it. But I haven' t seen it blogged about anywhere else. I first heard about it at least a month ago on Democracy Now.
The details still seem a little fuzzy to me. First example, the fight at the school in which six black kids supposedly assaulted one white kid. There was a report that a racial epithet started the fight, but that, again, is a little unclear. As is whether anyone else was involved, and whether the attack was pre-meditated (among the charges against the Six was Conspiracy, which would imply pre-meditation).
And then, as Democracy Now reported, there was the District Attorney coming to the campus amidst the initial White Tree crisis and threatening the students:
The story of the Jena Six began at the start of the school year last year, when an African American student asked at a school assembly if he could sit down under a schoolyard tree unofficially reserved for white students. The next morning, three nooses were hanging from the tree's broad, leafy branches. African American students protested, gathering under the tree. Soon after, the district attorney, Reed Walters, came to the school with the police, threatening, “I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.”
Who, or which students, were the target of this statement from the DA? All of them? The black students only? Those who hung the nooses? It is unclear what the full context of the DA''s remark was.
But in any event, the extent of the charges (Conspiracy, Second Degree Attempted Murder) and the possible sentences call to mind the abuses behind the drug arrests in Tulia, Texas a few years ago.
It's also distressing and a bit curious to read, as I did today, that the first convicted defendent, Mychal Bell, has had his conviction tossed out because Bell was tried as an adult instead of as a child. But Bell is still in jail, unable to raise the $90,000 for bail. With all the volunteers and protesters in Jena today, one would hope that they could pass the hat around, if it is as simple as that.
Fortunately, with thousands of protesters converging on Jena, the national media is finally beginning to pay attention. Hopefully we will learn more details about the charges against the 6 and if, as seems apparent, the charges are excessive, the teens will have their charges reduced or be released.
The details still seem a little fuzzy to me. First example, the fight at the school in which six black kids supposedly assaulted one white kid. There was a report that a racial epithet started the fight, but that, again, is a little unclear. As is whether anyone else was involved, and whether the attack was pre-meditated (among the charges against the Six was Conspiracy, which would imply pre-meditation).
And then, as Democracy Now reported, there was the District Attorney coming to the campus amidst the initial White Tree crisis and threatening the students:
The story of the Jena Six began at the start of the school year last year, when an African American student asked at a school assembly if he could sit down under a schoolyard tree unofficially reserved for white students. The next morning, three nooses were hanging from the tree's broad, leafy branches. African American students protested, gathering under the tree. Soon after, the district attorney, Reed Walters, came to the school with the police, threatening, “I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.”
Who, or which students, were the target of this statement from the DA? All of them? The black students only? Those who hung the nooses? It is unclear what the full context of the DA''s remark was.
But in any event, the extent of the charges (Conspiracy, Second Degree Attempted Murder) and the possible sentences call to mind the abuses behind the drug arrests in Tulia, Texas a few years ago.
It's also distressing and a bit curious to read, as I did today, that the first convicted defendent, Mychal Bell, has had his conviction tossed out because Bell was tried as an adult instead of as a child. But Bell is still in jail, unable to raise the $90,000 for bail. With all the volunteers and protesters in Jena today, one would hope that they could pass the hat around, if it is as simple as that.
Fortunately, with thousands of protesters converging on Jena, the national media is finally beginning to pay attention. Hopefully we will learn more details about the charges against the 6 and if, as seems apparent, the charges are excessive, the teens will have their charges reduced or be released.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
What I'm Reading
Seizing Destiny: How America Grew from Sea to Shining Sea, by Richard Kluger
The Terror Presidency by Jack Goldsmith
Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, by Charlie Savage
The first of these is a work of history, basically describing the settlement of America and the spread of the colonies and territories across the continent. It is not a breezy read; it requires careful attention. But it is written very eloquently and is very picturesque in its prose.
The Terror Presidency is by the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration from 2003 to 2004. The author is a small-c conservative, supportive of greater presidential prerogatives in the war on terror but an opponent of warrant-less surveillance and of the wholesale disregarding of the Geneva conventions. A more personal, easy to read book but well balanced in its writing and unlike many first hand accounts, well structured and light on the self-indulgence.
Takeover is by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe who was among the first to write about the Bush Administration's use of "signing statements" and other dimensions of the "unitary executive theory" the administration employed in the aftermath of 911 to respond to the crises of the day but also in strategic response to ideas first formulated by, among others, Dick Cheney, first during his stint as President Ford's Chief of Staff and later, as a congressman and ranking House Republican on the joint Iran-Contra committee. From the later post, Cheney bonded with a Republican legislative aid, David Addington, and went on to issue a minority report dissenting from the full Iran Contra committee's scolding of the Reagan White House. The Cheney minority used the unitary executive theory concocted by Ed Meese's Federalist Society staffed Justice Department to argue that the White House was not obligated to follow or obey the Boland Amendment which had prohibited aid to the Contras. Not all of Cheney's Republican colleagues signed on to his minority report. The leading Senate Republican on the committee, New Hampshire's Warren Rudman signed the majority report and ridiculed the radicalism of the minority report and, presumably, its authors. Very riveting stuff.
The Terror Presidency by Jack Goldsmith
Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, by Charlie Savage
The first of these is a work of history, basically describing the settlement of America and the spread of the colonies and territories across the continent. It is not a breezy read; it requires careful attention. But it is written very eloquently and is very picturesque in its prose.
The Terror Presidency is by the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration from 2003 to 2004. The author is a small-c conservative, supportive of greater presidential prerogatives in the war on terror but an opponent of warrant-less surveillance and of the wholesale disregarding of the Geneva conventions. A more personal, easy to read book but well balanced in its writing and unlike many first hand accounts, well structured and light on the self-indulgence.
Takeover is by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe who was among the first to write about the Bush Administration's use of "signing statements" and other dimensions of the "unitary executive theory" the administration employed in the aftermath of 911 to respond to the crises of the day but also in strategic response to ideas first formulated by, among others, Dick Cheney, first during his stint as President Ford's Chief of Staff and later, as a congressman and ranking House Republican on the joint Iran-Contra committee. From the later post, Cheney bonded with a Republican legislative aid, David Addington, and went on to issue a minority report dissenting from the full Iran Contra committee's scolding of the Reagan White House. The Cheney minority used the unitary executive theory concocted by Ed Meese's Federalist Society staffed Justice Department to argue that the White House was not obligated to follow or obey the Boland Amendment which had prohibited aid to the Contras. Not all of Cheney's Republican colleagues signed on to his minority report. The leading Senate Republican on the committee, New Hampshire's Warren Rudman signed the majority report and ridiculed the radicalism of the minority report and, presumably, its authors. Very riveting stuff.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Our "Liberal" Washington Post Sunday Outlook Section
Top left hand corner op-ed by David Broder
Lindsey Graham's Realism
-- Are you kidding me? Nah, I didn't read this one.
Top dead center op-ed by Henry Kissinger
The Disaster of Hasty Withdrawal
-- What, again? Nah, I didn't read this one either. Would you?
Top right hand corner op-ed by David Ignatius
Cooling the Clash with Iran
-- This title sounds more promising, but knowing Ignatius' columns, I opted out of this op-ed, too.
Below the fold op-ed by Jim Hoagland
From Hope to Fear in Iraq
-- I did briefly skim this one, but only for the purposes of wrapping up this post. Didn't do wonders for me.
Lindsey Graham's Realism
-- Are you kidding me? Nah, I didn't read this one.
Top dead center op-ed by Henry Kissinger
The Disaster of Hasty Withdrawal
-- What, again? Nah, I didn't read this one either. Would you?
Top right hand corner op-ed by David Ignatius
Cooling the Clash with Iran
-- This title sounds more promising, but knowing Ignatius' columns, I opted out of this op-ed, too.
Below the fold op-ed by Jim Hoagland
From Hope to Fear in Iraq
-- I did briefly skim this one, but only for the purposes of wrapping up this post. Didn't do wonders for me.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Priceless
Some people were offended that the Bush Administration tried to milk the 9/11 anniversary by having its Iraq war commander (who is, apparently, a separate figure from that of the administration's war czar) testify before Congress on the state of the escalation.
I can't say I'm bothered by it. In fact, the fact that (a) regular government business was being conducted on that day rather than having some holiday declared with speeches and required marches, flag-waving, etc is a positive sign that the nation is moving on and (b) Petraeus's testimony was a fitting bookend to the opportunities for American unity on that day to the divisiveness, mendacity and failure that is represented by the Iraq invasion and occupation.
What could be better than that?
I can't say I'm bothered by it. In fact, the fact that (a) regular government business was being conducted on that day rather than having some holiday declared with speeches and required marches, flag-waving, etc is a positive sign that the nation is moving on and (b) Petraeus's testimony was a fitting bookend to the opportunities for American unity on that day to the divisiveness, mendacity and failure that is represented by the Iraq invasion and occupation.
What could be better than that?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
A Friendly Face to Protect the President
That's the Attorney General job description and requirement (for Republican presidents only, apparently) as identified by conservative columnist Robert Novak.
But the next Democratic president, I'm sure, will need to demonstrate "independence", nonpoliticalness and the avoidance of all those real bad partisan words for his or her AG.
But the next Democratic president, I'm sure, will need to demonstrate "independence", nonpoliticalness and the avoidance of all those real bad partisan words for his or her AG.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Not Impressed
Michael Vick's statement:
For most of my life, I’ve been a football player, not a public speaker, so, you know, I really don’t know, you know, how to say what I really want to say.
You know, I understand it’s — it’s important or not important, you know, as far as what you say but how you say things. So, you know, I take this opportunity just to speak from the heart.
When people talk from the heart, they don't have to say they are talking from the heart.
First, I want to apologize, you know, for all the things that — that I’ve done and that I have allowed to happen. I want to personally apologize to commissioner Goodell, Arthur Blank, coach Bobby Petrino, my Atlanta Falcons teammates, you know, for our — for our previous discussions that we had. And I was not honest and forthright in our discussions, and, you know, I was ashamed and totally disappointed in myself to say the least.
Forthright? Who uses that word? And "not honest" means "I lied". You were ashamed? Of what? Lying?
I want to apologize to all the young kids out there for my immature acts and, you know, what I did was, what I did was very immature so that means I need to grow up.
His best line of the statement.
I totally ask for forgiveness and understanding as I move forward to bettering Michael Vick the person, not the football player.
I take full responsibility for my actions. For one second will I sit right here — not for one second will I sit right here and point the finger and try to blame anybody else for my actions or what I’ve done.
I’m totally responsible, and those things just didn’t have to happen. I feel like we all make mistakes. It’s just I made a mistake in using bad judgment and making bad decisions. And you know, those things, you know, just can’t happen.
No, six years of funding and operating a dog-fighting ring is not a "mistake". It is a pre-medicated series of actions.
Dog fighting is a terrible thing, and I did reject it.
You do or you did reject it? When did you reject it? Why?
I’m upset with myself, and, you know, through this situation I found Jesus and asked him for forgiveness and turned my life over to God. And I think that’s the right thing to do as of right now.
Oh for cryin' out loud.
Like I said, for this — for this entire situation I never pointed the finger at anybody else, I accepted responsibility for my actions of what I did and now I have to pay the consequences for it.
Saying you never pointed a finger at anybody else is self-serving. You didn't accept responsibility for six years, and you didn't accept responsibility until just now, four months after the facts initially arose. You're a bit late accepting responsibility.
But in a sense, I think it will help, you know, me as a person. I got a lot to think about in the next year or so.
I offer my deepest apologies to everybody out in there in the world who was affected by this whole situation. And if I’m more disappointed with myself than anything it’s because of all the young people, young kids that I’ve let down, who look at Michael Vick as a role model. And to have to go through this and put myself in this situation, you know, I hope that every young kid out there in the world watching this interview right now who’s been following the case will use me as an example to using better judgment and making better decisions.
Once again, I offer my deepest apologies to everyone. And I will redeem myself. I have to.
How?
So I got a lot of down time, a lot of time to think about my actions and what I’ve done and how to make Michael Vick a better person.
Thank you.
For most of my life, I’ve been a football player, not a public speaker, so, you know, I really don’t know, you know, how to say what I really want to say.
You know, I understand it’s — it’s important or not important, you know, as far as what you say but how you say things. So, you know, I take this opportunity just to speak from the heart.
When people talk from the heart, they don't have to say they are talking from the heart.
First, I want to apologize, you know, for all the things that — that I’ve done and that I have allowed to happen. I want to personally apologize to commissioner Goodell, Arthur Blank, coach Bobby Petrino, my Atlanta Falcons teammates, you know, for our — for our previous discussions that we had. And I was not honest and forthright in our discussions, and, you know, I was ashamed and totally disappointed in myself to say the least.
Forthright? Who uses that word? And "not honest" means "I lied". You were ashamed? Of what? Lying?
I want to apologize to all the young kids out there for my immature acts and, you know, what I did was, what I did was very immature so that means I need to grow up.
His best line of the statement.
I totally ask for forgiveness and understanding as I move forward to bettering Michael Vick the person, not the football player.
I take full responsibility for my actions. For one second will I sit right here — not for one second will I sit right here and point the finger and try to blame anybody else for my actions or what I’ve done.
I’m totally responsible, and those things just didn’t have to happen. I feel like we all make mistakes. It’s just I made a mistake in using bad judgment and making bad decisions. And you know, those things, you know, just can’t happen.
No, six years of funding and operating a dog-fighting ring is not a "mistake". It is a pre-medicated series of actions.
Dog fighting is a terrible thing, and I did reject it.
You do or you did reject it? When did you reject it? Why?
I’m upset with myself, and, you know, through this situation I found Jesus and asked him for forgiveness and turned my life over to God. And I think that’s the right thing to do as of right now.
Oh for cryin' out loud.
Like I said, for this — for this entire situation I never pointed the finger at anybody else, I accepted responsibility for my actions of what I did and now I have to pay the consequences for it.
Saying you never pointed a finger at anybody else is self-serving. You didn't accept responsibility for six years, and you didn't accept responsibility until just now, four months after the facts initially arose. You're a bit late accepting responsibility.
But in a sense, I think it will help, you know, me as a person. I got a lot to think about in the next year or so.
I offer my deepest apologies to everybody out in there in the world who was affected by this whole situation. And if I’m more disappointed with myself than anything it’s because of all the young people, young kids that I’ve let down, who look at Michael Vick as a role model. And to have to go through this and put myself in this situation, you know, I hope that every young kid out there in the world watching this interview right now who’s been following the case will use me as an example to using better judgment and making better decisions.
Once again, I offer my deepest apologies to everyone. And I will redeem myself. I have to.
How?
So I got a lot of down time, a lot of time to think about my actions and what I’ve done and how to make Michael Vick a better person.
Thank you.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
A Strange Little Column
One wants to feel almost sorry for Michael O'Hanlon, he of the Brookings Institution and together with Ken Pollack, supporter of the war and of the president's escalation "policy". Almost.
For instance, no-name, non-members of the Washington D.C. establishment like Glenn Greenwald shouldn't be getting ink for criticizing O'Hanlon's trip to Iraq's Green Zone and subsequent pro-surge write-up of a few weeks ago.
But O'Hanlon's apologia in today's Fred Hiatt's Washington Post is not really conducive to his cause.
The first couple of paragraphs consist basically of O'Hanlon pouting about being criticized, a situation I'm sure is probably new to him as it pertains to how media personalities and fellow pundits have usually gratefully treated his work. Worse, though, is his petulant claim that however devoid of merit his trip and analysis might have been, it was all worth while, really, because the result of the whole shebang was that O'Hanlon and Pollack had the chance to speak truth to power, against all the tiresome, whinny Politically Correct pessimism about Iraq:
Unfortunately, much of the blogosphere and other media outlets have emphasized the wrong question, challenging the integrity of anyone who dares to express politically incorrect views about Iraq.
Sigh. But after dispensing with the pissing contest part of his op-ed, his substantive responses end up falling flat, too.
His first bulleted item in that regard is a claim that Iraqi civilian casualties are down, at least according to the Army. OK. But where are the numbers and what are they compared to? O'Hanlon doesn't provide them. As Matt Yglesias comments, if the military was sure of their accuracy, why not provide them?
His second bulleted item says the counter-insurgency tactics are working much better. There are more "joint patrols" between Iraqi and U.S. military units. I don't know what O'Hanlon really means by this claim, but I think he means, or at least I wonder what he thinks of, the new policy of financing Sunni insurgents and trying to turn them against Al Qaeda in Iraq. And what, one wonders, is the likely long term effect of this policy?
His third bulleted item says Iraqi forces are improving, but offers no evidence to support this claim other than that the U.S. military folks he spoke to seem to be more satisfied with their Iraqi counterparts collaboration and the fact that a few of the most biased commanders (i.e. most aligned with Shiite militias) have been fired. O'Hanlon admits his positive vibes regarding this point are "more hedged than the first two".
His last bulleted item says that "Economic reconstruction is improving". O'Hanlon lauds the fact that "we" (this is another troubling trend in O'Hanlon's writing--who is "we"?) are now focusing on more small-scaled reconstructive efforts, because, and he even says this, the big ones are "particularly vulnerable to single-point failures and thus sabotage".
This last point highlights yet another weakness in "our" progress in Iraq: "small-scaled reconstructive efforts" in the area of utilities means in plain English that "we" have pretty much retreated to trying to run the country on local generators, an effort that does not speak of quality, efficiency or permanence.
For instance, no-name, non-members of the Washington D.C. establishment like Glenn Greenwald shouldn't be getting ink for criticizing O'Hanlon's trip to Iraq's Green Zone and subsequent pro-surge write-up of a few weeks ago.
But O'Hanlon's apologia in today's Fred Hiatt's Washington Post is not really conducive to his cause.
The first couple of paragraphs consist basically of O'Hanlon pouting about being criticized, a situation I'm sure is probably new to him as it pertains to how media personalities and fellow pundits have usually gratefully treated his work. Worse, though, is his petulant claim that however devoid of merit his trip and analysis might have been, it was all worth while, really, because the result of the whole shebang was that O'Hanlon and Pollack had the chance to speak truth to power, against all the tiresome, whinny Politically Correct pessimism about Iraq:
Unfortunately, much of the blogosphere and other media outlets have emphasized the wrong question, challenging the integrity of anyone who dares to express politically incorrect views about Iraq.
Sigh. But after dispensing with the pissing contest part of his op-ed, his substantive responses end up falling flat, too.
His first bulleted item in that regard is a claim that Iraqi civilian casualties are down, at least according to the Army. OK. But where are the numbers and what are they compared to? O'Hanlon doesn't provide them. As Matt Yglesias comments, if the military was sure of their accuracy, why not provide them?
His second bulleted item says the counter-insurgency tactics are working much better. There are more "joint patrols" between Iraqi and U.S. military units. I don't know what O'Hanlon really means by this claim, but I think he means, or at least I wonder what he thinks of, the new policy of financing Sunni insurgents and trying to turn them against Al Qaeda in Iraq. And what, one wonders, is the likely long term effect of this policy?
His third bulleted item says Iraqi forces are improving, but offers no evidence to support this claim other than that the U.S. military folks he spoke to seem to be more satisfied with their Iraqi counterparts collaboration and the fact that a few of the most biased commanders (i.e. most aligned with Shiite militias) have been fired. O'Hanlon admits his positive vibes regarding this point are "more hedged than the first two".
His last bulleted item says that "Economic reconstruction is improving". O'Hanlon lauds the fact that "we" (this is another troubling trend in O'Hanlon's writing--who is "we"?) are now focusing on more small-scaled reconstructive efforts, because, and he even says this, the big ones are "particularly vulnerable to single-point failures and thus sabotage".
This last point highlights yet another weakness in "our" progress in Iraq: "small-scaled reconstructive efforts" in the area of utilities means in plain English that "we" have pretty much retreated to trying to run the country on local generators, an effort that does not speak of quality, efficiency or permanence.
Another MoveOn.org "Knockoff"
Among the right-wing's War is Peace bag of goodies has been a variety and growing line of feable attempts to create MoveOn.org "knockoffs" that would, presumably, rally the grassroots, or more likely the 28% dead-enders and their media enablers to the righteousness of their cause, whatever that is.
The latest is something called Freedom March--I'm sorry--Freedom's Watchers--er, I mean Freedom Watchers, um, anyway. It has a prominent list of well-connected Board members including former Bush mouthpiece Ari Fleischer brought out of retirement for a second act of bamboozling the press, and apparently, and this is very useful, much moola to spend.
But before this week's Freedom Watching Illuminati we had The Victory Caucus. The Victory Caucus had an illustrious Board of Governors, too. Consequently, before it "relaunched" last month, whatever that means, The Victory Caucus was supposed to be the right-wing's answer to MoveOn.org.
Meanwhile, between the first launching of The Victory Caucus, and its relaunching last month, there was yet another right-wing stab at creating the illusion of grassroots support for endless war, or for at least propping up the Decider and what was left of the conservative Republican establishment after the 2006 election beatings, called, We Win, They Lose. We Win, They Lose, was the brainchild of former U.S. Senator, Tommy Frist, age 13. We Win, They Lose was trumpeted breathlessly by the likes of Glenn Reynolds, age 19, and Michelle Malkin, age 17, which should give you some indication of Win Win, They Lose's prospects.
So, Freedom's WatchTower (yawn), welcome to the party. When's the relaunch?
The latest is something called Freedom March--I'm sorry--Freedom's Watchers--er, I mean Freedom Watchers, um, anyway. It has a prominent list of well-connected Board members including former Bush mouthpiece Ari Fleischer brought out of retirement for a second act of bamboozling the press, and apparently, and this is very useful, much moola to spend.
But before this week's Freedom Watching Illuminati we had The Victory Caucus. The Victory Caucus had an illustrious Board of Governors, too. Consequently, before it "relaunched" last month, whatever that means, The Victory Caucus was supposed to be the right-wing's answer to MoveOn.org.
Meanwhile, between the first launching of The Victory Caucus, and its relaunching last month, there was yet another right-wing stab at creating the illusion of grassroots support for endless war, or for at least propping up the Decider and what was left of the conservative Republican establishment after the 2006 election beatings, called, We Win, They Lose. We Win, They Lose, was the brainchild of former U.S. Senator, Tommy Frist, age 13. We Win, They Lose was trumpeted breathlessly by the likes of Glenn Reynolds, age 19, and Michelle Malkin, age 17, which should give you some indication of Win Win, They Lose's prospects.
So, Freedom's WatchTower (yawn), welcome to the party. When's the relaunch?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Bizarro World
Atrios links to a Tommy Friedman interview from May 2003.
It's an hour long so I hesitated to sit through it all, but Atrios' extracted portions occur in the first few minutes.
It's an hour long so I hesitated to sit through it all, but Atrios' extracted portions occur in the first few minutes.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Why I Hate the Media
Arianna Huffington on the latest mine tragedy and the tragedy of the media's coverage of it and it's politically conservative and influential owner.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
They Must Be Kidding
Kevin Drum and Steve Benen think Hilary would stomp all over Fred Thompson in a debate.
Which debate? The substance debate, probably yes. The image debate, I seriously doubt it.
Are we forgetting the 2000 debates already, you know the ones that Gore "won" on substance but "lost" on style (Gore "sighs", W was somebody to have a drink with, even though the then Texas governor was a famous tea-totalling reformed alcoholic).
And when so much of the male media already has man-crushes on Thompson, I fail to see how any debates would be treated seriously for their content.
Which debate? The substance debate, probably yes. The image debate, I seriously doubt it.
Are we forgetting the 2000 debates already, you know the ones that Gore "won" on substance but "lost" on style (Gore "sighs", W was somebody to have a drink with, even though the then Texas governor was a famous tea-totalling reformed alcoholic).
And when so much of the male media already has man-crushes on Thompson, I fail to see how any debates would be treated seriously for their content.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Man Bites Dog
Special Iowa Republican Straw Poll Edition
The results were delayed by more than an hour, which the Republican Party of Iowa blamed on "machine difficulties." At least one machine, about 1,500 votes, had to be counted by hand, and took far longer than party officials had expected.
"That's what they've been doing this whole time, but they clearly misjudged how long this would take," GOP spokeswoman Mary Tiffany said.
The situation may have added fuel to the fire of some Ron Paul supporters who had sought to block voting at the event because of the machines. They filed a federal lawsuit on the constitutionality of the voting process this week, and argued that the vote-counting machines, made by Diebold Election Systems, had fundamental weaknesses.
A federal judge in Des Moines refused to grant an injunction on Friday. The matter was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which on Saturday morning upheld the ruling.
The machines, the plaintiffs argued, are the same type that California's secretary of state placed rigorous security conditions on last week.
The results were delayed by more than an hour, which the Republican Party of Iowa blamed on "machine difficulties." At least one machine, about 1,500 votes, had to be counted by hand, and took far longer than party officials had expected.
"That's what they've been doing this whole time, but they clearly misjudged how long this would take," GOP spokeswoman Mary Tiffany said.
The situation may have added fuel to the fire of some Ron Paul supporters who had sought to block voting at the event because of the machines. They filed a federal lawsuit on the constitutionality of the voting process this week, and argued that the vote-counting machines, made by Diebold Election Systems, had fundamental weaknesses.
A federal judge in Des Moines refused to grant an injunction on Friday. The matter was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which on Saturday morning upheld the ruling.
The machines, the plaintiffs argued, are the same type that California's secretary of state placed rigorous security conditions on last week.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
2004
A talk show host close to the President: (h/t this guy)
President Bush invited ten talk hosts into the Oval Office for an hour of conversation today --Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and me. This was an off-the-record conversation, and so I won't be quoting the president.
I will say on today's show that I am confident about the course of the war and about the momentum in Iraq, as well of the president's absolute commitment to doing right by the troops and his concern for every lost and wounded soldier and their families. President Bush's command of the details and his broad view of the conflict is reassuring, and among my comments to him was the wish that he found more opportunities to engage in long interviews that would allow the American public to see that grasp and that commitment.
President Bush invited ten talk hosts into the Oval Office for an hour of conversation today --Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and me. This was an off-the-record conversation, and so I won't be quoting the president.
I will say on today's show that I am confident about the course of the war and about the momentum in Iraq, as well of the president's absolute commitment to doing right by the troops and his concern for every lost and wounded soldier and their families. President Bush's command of the details and his broad view of the conflict is reassuring, and among my comments to him was the wish that he found more opportunities to engage in long interviews that would allow the American public to see that grasp and that commitment.
The Prince of Darkness Has an Epiphany
Once upon a time, like in 1992, the conventional wisdom was that the wives of presidential candidates should shut up and stay in the kitchen baking cookies. Wives of candidates who transgressed this commandment were harshly rebuked.
But 2007 is a very different year. In fact, it is now acceptable not only for a candidate to be divorced and married to a woman 24 years his junior, but it is also now wildly popular that said wife be a prominent force in the campaign, or at least so says famed op-edder and Republican insider Robert Novak:
Speaking at his $1,000-a-ticket fundraiser at the J.W. Marriott Hotel in downtown Washington on Monday night, Fred Thompson began by introducing "my campaign manager -- oh, I mean my wife." That little joke about Jeri Thompson reveals how the prospective Republican presidential candidate regards the attack on his intelligent, beautiful wife.
As the actor-lawyer-politician nears his long-awaited official announcement, Mrs. Thompson is slurred as a "trophy wife" -- privately by her husband's opponents for the Republican nomination and publicly by the media. Even Thompson supporters grumble that Jeri, 40, is too alluring, that she should modify the way she dresses and that, even then, she should not practice her skills as a professional political operative on behalf of her 64-year-old husband.
------
Well, yeah, that was the line back when Bill Clinton was running for President and the warnings were directed at his wife, Hillary. But I guess so long as the candidate and spouse are Republicans, than it's OK.
But 2007 is a very different year. In fact, it is now acceptable not only for a candidate to be divorced and married to a woman 24 years his junior, but it is also now wildly popular that said wife be a prominent force in the campaign, or at least so says famed op-edder and Republican insider Robert Novak:
Speaking at his $1,000-a-ticket fundraiser at the J.W. Marriott Hotel in downtown Washington on Monday night, Fred Thompson began by introducing "my campaign manager -- oh, I mean my wife." That little joke about Jeri Thompson reveals how the prospective Republican presidential candidate regards the attack on his intelligent, beautiful wife.
As the actor-lawyer-politician nears his long-awaited official announcement, Mrs. Thompson is slurred as a "trophy wife" -- privately by her husband's opponents for the Republican nomination and publicly by the media. Even Thompson supporters grumble that Jeri, 40, is too alluring, that she should modify the way she dresses and that, even then, she should not practice her skills as a professional political operative on behalf of her 64-year-old husband.
------
Well, yeah, that was the line back when Bill Clinton was running for President and the warnings were directed at his wife, Hillary. But I guess so long as the candidate and spouse are Republicans, than it's OK.
Fundy Bamboozlement
Reports of the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis were barely going out over the Intertubes when the fundy scaremongers seized on the tragedy to recite a "sinners in the hands of an angry god" sermon from four centuries ago:
The people who drove onto that bridge had no advance warning of its collapse. They made no conscious decision to embrace danger or to put their lives on the line. Experience and reason have trained us all to trust what looks solid and stable -- and that bridge looked solid and stable up until it fell.
This is a metaphor for our lives and spiritual peril, as Jonathan Edwards so clearly understood. In his famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," Edwards made this point with clarity and power:
-------
Actually I was thinking the falling bridge was punishment from god for electing a Democrat U.S. Senator last fall. Maybe someone will make that connection before the tragedy moves off the front pages.
The people who drove onto that bridge had no advance warning of its collapse. They made no conscious decision to embrace danger or to put their lives on the line. Experience and reason have trained us all to trust what looks solid and stable -- and that bridge looked solid and stable up until it fell.
This is a metaphor for our lives and spiritual peril, as Jonathan Edwards so clearly understood. In his famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," Edwards made this point with clarity and power:
-------
Actually I was thinking the falling bridge was punishment from god for electing a Democrat U.S. Senator last fall. Maybe someone will make that connection before the tragedy moves off the front pages.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
More Bamboozlement in California
Republicans trying to get California's 53 electoral votes allocated by Congressional District (two would go to the state-wide winner equaling the state's 55 EV total).
I can't believe this hasn't gotten more attention.
I can't believe this hasn't gotten more attention.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Fear
I think Andrew Sullivan is on to something here:
One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in thier defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars.
(snip)
Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.
---------------
The recent dust up between Obama and HRC over diplomacy is a case in point. And it applies not just to HRC, but to any GOP candidate Obama would face.
One of the Republicans playing cards for the last several decades has been their perceived "toughness" in foreign policy. But this apparent toughness is in many cases just a cloak for fear.
Consider the fear phrase HRC uttered in response to Obama during the debate: I don't want to be used as a propaganda tool. That's a statement rooted in fear. It's not a statement of confidence, particularly the statement of confidence that should emenate from the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. It demonstrates fear, a skittishness about political engagements of all kinds. It's severely risk-avoidant, perhaps neurotically so.
One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in thier defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars.
(snip)
Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.
---------------
The recent dust up between Obama and HRC over diplomacy is a case in point. And it applies not just to HRC, but to any GOP candidate Obama would face.
One of the Republicans playing cards for the last several decades has been their perceived "toughness" in foreign policy. But this apparent toughness is in many cases just a cloak for fear.
Consider the fear phrase HRC uttered in response to Obama during the debate: I don't want to be used as a propaganda tool. That's a statement rooted in fear. It's not a statement of confidence, particularly the statement of confidence that should emenate from the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. It demonstrates fear, a skittishness about political engagements of all kinds. It's severely risk-avoidant, perhaps neurotically so.
Monday, July 30, 2007
NAACP and Vick
I may be unduly influenced by my love of pets, but the NAACP is out of line here:
The president of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP criticized the prosecution of Vick at a news conference Monday morning. Dr. R.L. White, Jr., accused the government of "piling on."
"There's a penalty in football for piling on," White told reporters. "After a player has been tackled and somebody piles on, they're penalized for unnecessary roughness. Today, the NAACP blows the whistle and warns the powers that be that you are piling on."
Please.
But there's more:
NAACP leaders urged public restraint Monday in judging Michael Vick before he has his day in court.
R.L. White, president of the Atlanta chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the Atlanta Falcons quarterback has been vilified by animal rights groups, talk radio and the news media and prematurely punished by his team and corporate sponsors.
"If Mr. Vick is guilty, he should pay for his crime, but to treat him as he is being treated now is also a crime," White said at a news conference.
No, it is not.
"Be restrained in your premature judgment until the legal process is completed."
Premature judgments like saying that the government is "piling on" and that the powers that be are being "warned"?
...White plans to contact Vick to see what assistance the Atlanta NAACP chapter can offer.
Vick's a millionaire many times over. The NAACP would be better off helping those with far fewer advantages in life than Vick.
White predicted that public opinion may worsen in the wake of Taylor's plea deal.
Until then, he said he would keep an open mind and encouraged others to do the same.
Georgia NAACP President Edward Dubose thanked Vick for his community service and the money and excitement he has brought to Georgia as a Falcon. Dubose said Vick is being prosecuted in the court of public opinion before he has had a chance to defend himself.
"We're not condoning bad behavior, but Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty," Dubose said.
So that's it, huh? As long as he puts in community service hours and has brought "excitement" to Georgia as a Falcon, he gets a pass?
Atlanta chapter member Bernadette Allen attended the news conference and also a rally Sunday to support Vick.
Attend a rally to support Vick? Why? Doesn't sound like Ms. Allen is impartial. Does the "keep an open mind" apply to those charging that the government is "piling on" and those attending rallies in support of Michael Vick?
"The man is entitled to due process under the law, as is any citizen," Allen said.
Thanks for the civics lesson.
The president of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP criticized the prosecution of Vick at a news conference Monday morning. Dr. R.L. White, Jr., accused the government of "piling on."
"There's a penalty in football for piling on," White told reporters. "After a player has been tackled and somebody piles on, they're penalized for unnecessary roughness. Today, the NAACP blows the whistle and warns the powers that be that you are piling on."
Please.
But there's more:
NAACP leaders urged public restraint Monday in judging Michael Vick before he has his day in court.
R.L. White, president of the Atlanta chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the Atlanta Falcons quarterback has been vilified by animal rights groups, talk radio and the news media and prematurely punished by his team and corporate sponsors.
"If Mr. Vick is guilty, he should pay for his crime, but to treat him as he is being treated now is also a crime," White said at a news conference.
No, it is not.
"Be restrained in your premature judgment until the legal process is completed."
Premature judgments like saying that the government is "piling on" and that the powers that be are being "warned"?
...White plans to contact Vick to see what assistance the Atlanta NAACP chapter can offer.
Vick's a millionaire many times over. The NAACP would be better off helping those with far fewer advantages in life than Vick.
White predicted that public opinion may worsen in the wake of Taylor's plea deal.
Until then, he said he would keep an open mind and encouraged others to do the same.
Georgia NAACP President Edward Dubose thanked Vick for his community service and the money and excitement he has brought to Georgia as a Falcon. Dubose said Vick is being prosecuted in the court of public opinion before he has had a chance to defend himself.
"We're not condoning bad behavior, but Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty," Dubose said.
So that's it, huh? As long as he puts in community service hours and has brought "excitement" to Georgia as a Falcon, he gets a pass?
Atlanta chapter member Bernadette Allen attended the news conference and also a rally Sunday to support Vick.
Attend a rally to support Vick? Why? Doesn't sound like Ms. Allen is impartial. Does the "keep an open mind" apply to those charging that the government is "piling on" and those attending rallies in support of Michael Vick?
"The man is entitled to due process under the law, as is any citizen," Allen said.
Thanks for the civics lesson.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Real Change
I didn't watch the YouTube debate last night, but I was intrigued by one of the issues that emerged from it--Obama appearing to offer to meet with any foreign leader and HRC's and Edwards' more conventional pushback that they wouldn't want to be used for propaganda purposes (another GOP line--remember Pelosi in Syria?) or that they would agree to do so only after substantial changes were made in certain countries or only after their underlings had properly laid a foundation and made appropriate contacts, etc.
First, I think foreign affairs has gotten short thrift in the debates and coverage of the Democratic candidates, and truth be told, has not been given high visibility by the candidates themselves. So I was pleased to see an issue such as this emerge as a point of contention among the candidates.
Second, this seems to be another example of how different an Obama presidency might be. And by different I mean, different in a good way.
Denouncing certain countries and leaders has been a staple of both Republican and Democratic candidacies for years. Castro's Cuba has in particular been a favorite bipartisan target for five decades. And by their responses, HRC and Edwards don't give any indication that they would try to alter any of America's most entrenched and dubious policies or would be willing to stick their necks out to antagonize any minority but vocal interests.
Whether Obama just goofed in making the response (he's been defending it today) or whether it reflects an accurate guage of his foreign policy approach remains to be seen. But unlike his more timid peers, Obama appears more willing to challenge old assumptions and long-standing biases in foreign affairs.
First, I think foreign affairs has gotten short thrift in the debates and coverage of the Democratic candidates, and truth be told, has not been given high visibility by the candidates themselves. So I was pleased to see an issue such as this emerge as a point of contention among the candidates.
Second, this seems to be another example of how different an Obama presidency might be. And by different I mean, different in a good way.
Denouncing certain countries and leaders has been a staple of both Republican and Democratic candidacies for years. Castro's Cuba has in particular been a favorite bipartisan target for five decades. And by their responses, HRC and Edwards don't give any indication that they would try to alter any of America's most entrenched and dubious policies or would be willing to stick their necks out to antagonize any minority but vocal interests.
Whether Obama just goofed in making the response (he's been defending it today) or whether it reflects an accurate guage of his foreign policy approach remains to be seen. But unlike his more timid peers, Obama appears more willing to challenge old assumptions and long-standing biases in foreign affairs.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
They Say, We Say
Atrios Says--
What Was That Word?
It's quite impressive how when the minority party's name began with D regular Senate actions were described as "obstructionism" or as "filibusters," while since the minority party's name started to begin with an R all the news consuming public has learned that fact of life that every Senate action requires 60 votes.
-------------
Actually, Atrios, and all who may be concerned, the new word or words for "obstructionism" and "filibuster" and "up and down vote" is "Republican procedural hurdle".
From Reuters (h/t Josh Marshall):
Democrats have all but publicly acknowledged that they will be unable to pass their end-the-war amendment because opposition Republicans are insisting on 60 votes for a victory.
Reid said that without the Republicans' procedural hurdle, a simple majority of the 100-member Senate would vote for the troop withdrawal, with "a number of Republicans" supporting it.
--------------
The way Reuters wrote up the story, it appears as if it is Harry Reid who is identifying the Republican filibuster and obstructionism as a "procedural hurdle". But is that what Reid actually said?
From Think Progress: (h/t Atrios)
Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.
They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.
I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.
If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.
The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.
----------
As Josh Marshall accurately notes, the media's (non) response to Republican filibustering and obstructionism is a classic case of bamboozlement:
This is pretty funny. This article from Reuters manages to get through an entire article on the filibuster the Democrats are going to force senate Republicans to go through with without ever actually using the word 'filibuster'. It's almost a thing of beauty in its negative capacity of bamboozlement.
----------------
Finally, Bob Geiger, gives us a practical, one-sentence summary response of the issues involved: (h/t Atrios)
And I'm sure more than one Democratic Senator will remind the public that Republicans screamed at the top of their lungs last year when it came to getting up-or-down votes on Bush's right-wing judicial nominees, but expressing the sentiments of most Americans and protecting America's troops gets no such treatment from them.
What Was That Word?
It's quite impressive how when the minority party's name began with D regular Senate actions were described as "obstructionism" or as "filibusters," while since the minority party's name started to begin with an R all the news consuming public has learned that fact of life that every Senate action requires 60 votes.
-------------
Actually, Atrios, and all who may be concerned, the new word or words for "obstructionism" and "filibuster" and "up and down vote" is "Republican procedural hurdle".
From Reuters (h/t Josh Marshall):
Democrats have all but publicly acknowledged that they will be unable to pass their end-the-war amendment because opposition Republicans are insisting on 60 votes for a victory.
Reid said that without the Republicans' procedural hurdle, a simple majority of the 100-member Senate would vote for the troop withdrawal, with "a number of Republicans" supporting it.
--------------
The way Reuters wrote up the story, it appears as if it is Harry Reid who is identifying the Republican filibuster and obstructionism as a "procedural hurdle". But is that what Reid actually said?
From Think Progress: (h/t Atrios)
Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.
They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.
I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.
If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.
The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.
----------
As Josh Marshall accurately notes, the media's (non) response to Republican filibustering and obstructionism is a classic case of bamboozlement:
This is pretty funny. This article from Reuters manages to get through an entire article on the filibuster the Democrats are going to force senate Republicans to go through with without ever actually using the word 'filibuster'. It's almost a thing of beauty in its negative capacity of bamboozlement.
----------------
Finally, Bob Geiger, gives us a practical, one-sentence summary response of the issues involved: (h/t Atrios)
And I'm sure more than one Democratic Senator will remind the public that Republicans screamed at the top of their lungs last year when it came to getting up-or-down votes on Bush's right-wing judicial nominees, but expressing the sentiments of most Americans and protecting America's troops gets no such treatment from them.
Friday, July 13, 2007
They Send Emails
An Andrew Sullivan reader writes in to say:
This president often mentions his oath but never talks about protecting the constitution. On the contrary, he regularly talks about his oath to protect the people, or to protect America. But it's possible to justify any number of tyrannies in the name of protecting the people.
The framers were aware of that danger and so wrote an oath of office that demands the constitution be protected, not the people. It would be much harder for a president to claim dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the constitution. "I had to destroy the constitution to save it" wouldn't fly. Or so you'd think. Yet Dubya has gotten away with it nearly unchallenged, as far as I can see. This slip by a functionary already has received much more attention than Dubya's frequent use of the same construction — perhaps because any Senator or presidential candidate who dared say "The president's oath is not to protect the people, and in the name of a vow he never took he has deliberately violated the oath he did take, to protect the constitution" would be pilloried by the Bushies for "not understanding the threat" or having a "pre-9/11 mindset."
Maybe. But it needs to be said, loudly and often, by patriots of any political stripe.
-------------------------------------
Meanwhile, a TPM reader has a query:
Remember the War Czar? Anyone heard anything from him lately? Shouldn't he be pretty prominent what with all the news from Iraq and the surge in full swing now? Oh, maybe he's off "coordinating" or something. Here's, arguably, the most powerful military man in the country and I'll bet 9 out of 10 Americans (even the informed ones) don't even know the guy's name (it's Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute). Talk about another brilliant idea.
This president often mentions his oath but never talks about protecting the constitution. On the contrary, he regularly talks about his oath to protect the people, or to protect America. But it's possible to justify any number of tyrannies in the name of protecting the people.
The framers were aware of that danger and so wrote an oath of office that demands the constitution be protected, not the people. It would be much harder for a president to claim dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the constitution. "I had to destroy the constitution to save it" wouldn't fly. Or so you'd think. Yet Dubya has gotten away with it nearly unchallenged, as far as I can see. This slip by a functionary already has received much more attention than Dubya's frequent use of the same construction — perhaps because any Senator or presidential candidate who dared say "The president's oath is not to protect the people, and in the name of a vow he never took he has deliberately violated the oath he did take, to protect the constitution" would be pilloried by the Bushies for "not understanding the threat" or having a "pre-9/11 mindset."
Maybe. But it needs to be said, loudly and often, by patriots of any political stripe.
-------------------------------------
Meanwhile, a TPM reader has a query:
Remember the War Czar? Anyone heard anything from him lately? Shouldn't he be pretty prominent what with all the news from Iraq and the surge in full swing now? Oh, maybe he's off "coordinating" or something. Here's, arguably, the most powerful military man in the country and I'll bet 9 out of 10 Americans (even the informed ones) don't even know the guy's name (it's Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute). Talk about another brilliant idea.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Broder Comes Clean
Sort of. In today's op-ed The Dean realizes that the much-maligned and totally unserious Harry Reid managed to get 33 of his guys to vote for the president's immigration reform bill, but the Republican leader only got 12, and couldn't even convince himself. So, Broder comes around late in recognizing the role Republicans played in the immigration bill's demise. It isn't all Harry Reid's fault after all.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Josh Marshall Speak
You listen.
There aren't many subjects on which I claim expertise. But this is one of them. I think I know the details of this one -- both the underlying story of the forgeries and their provenance and the epi-story of Wilson and Plame -- as well as any journalist who's written about the story...
And with that knowledge, I have to say that the claim that Wilson's charges have been discredited, disproved or even meaningfully challenged is simply false. What he said on day one is all true. It's really as simple as that. ..
No one is perfect. The key dividing line is who's telling the truth and who's lying. Wilson is on the former side, his critics the latter. Everything else is triviality...
--------------------------------------------------
For the life of me, I've never understood the attacks against Wilson, the persistency of the meme that somehow Wilson wasn't credible. I could understand them from the Administration's vantage point--what Wilson reported severely discredited their case.
But I don't get the bitterness Wilson's op-ed spawned in the editorial offices of the Washington Post and elsewhere throughout media land. Are they mad because he has a beautiful wife? The great untold story of the past six years--maybe the past 12 years or more, is why (not whether), the country's media elite threw itself prostrate before the Republican Party, first in Congress, and later when it took the White House, and enlisted in the conservative movement's various smear campaigns.
There aren't many subjects on which I claim expertise. But this is one of them. I think I know the details of this one -- both the underlying story of the forgeries and their provenance and the epi-story of Wilson and Plame -- as well as any journalist who's written about the story...
And with that knowledge, I have to say that the claim that Wilson's charges have been discredited, disproved or even meaningfully challenged is simply false. What he said on day one is all true. It's really as simple as that. ..
No one is perfect. The key dividing line is who's telling the truth and who's lying. Wilson is on the former side, his critics the latter. Everything else is triviality...
--------------------------------------------------
For the life of me, I've never understood the attacks against Wilson, the persistency of the meme that somehow Wilson wasn't credible. I could understand them from the Administration's vantage point--what Wilson reported severely discredited their case.
But I don't get the bitterness Wilson's op-ed spawned in the editorial offices of the Washington Post and elsewhere throughout media land. Are they mad because he has a beautiful wife? The great untold story of the past six years--maybe the past 12 years or more, is why (not whether), the country's media elite threw itself prostrate before the Republican Party, first in Congress, and later when it took the White House, and enlisted in the conservative movement's various smear campaigns.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
There They Go Again, Vol. XX458
Talk Radio, controlled by conservatives, is teh good.
The Internets, not controlled by anybody, but heavily populated by dirty, pinko, latte-sipping, hippies, is bringing an end to civilization as we know it.
The Internets, not controlled by anybody, but heavily populated by dirty, pinko, latte-sipping, hippies, is bringing an end to civilization as we know it.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Knowing Dick
I don't mean to take anything away from the otherwise excellent four-part Washington Post expose on Vice, but there were a couple of items that stood out from part three that seemed a little under-whelming to me.
In Tuesday's "Dominating Budget Decisions" segment, the post writers relate this account from the halls of the WH:
Perhaps more important than Cheney's influence in pushing policies is his power to stop them before they reach the Oval Office.
When Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, broached the idea of limiting the popular mortgage tax deduction, he said he quickly dropped it after Cheney told him it would never fly with Congress. "He's a big timesaver for us in that he takes off the table a lot of things he knows aren't going to go anywhere," Lazear said.
--------------
Does anyone see the problem here? Any sixth-grader could tell you that fiddling with the "popular" mortgage tax deduction was gonna be a non-starter. I wouldn't credit Dick too much with having stifled that idea before it reached the President.
Then there's this matter of Vice chairing something called the budget review board, which, according to the Post writers, was--
....a panel the Bush administration created to set spending priorities and serve as arbiter when Cabinet members appeal decisions by White House budget officials. The White House has portrayed the board as a device to keep Bush from wasting time on petty disagreements, but previous administrations have seldom seen Cabinet-level disputes in that light. Cheney's leadership of the panel gives him direct and indirect power over the federal budget -- and over those who must live within it. [Read then-OMB Director Joshua Bolten's memo about the review board.]
----------------------
At first glance this sounds pretty impressive, particularly that bit about arbitering budget disputes between cabinet heads and WH staff.
But then just a few paragraphs down we read
Cheney shared conservative trepidations about the president's signature education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, which gave the federal government more control over K-12 education. He has griped privately to confidants, such as economist and CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow, about the administration's failure to control spending. And in robust internal White House discussions, he raised concerns about the cost of the administration's decision to expand Medicare to include a new multibillion-dollar drug entitlement, but bowed to the political reality that the president had to fulfill a campaign promise.
------------------------------
So, while Vice has been chairing this budget review board, and serving as the administration's conservative conscience on spending matters, the administration has still managed to let spending spiral and enacted an expensive new drug entitlement to boot along the way.
Finally, let's think about taxes, particularly the president's tax cut packages. The Post writers are eager to give Dick a lot of credit for the president's tax policies, especially since Vice really wanted both a capital gains cut and a special write-off for business investment.
Says the Post writers--
Bush sided with Cheney on the dividends tax but thought it would be better to eliminate it altogether. The president was cooler on the capital gains tax, according to Conda and others. And having campaigned on a platform of compassionate conservatism, he expressed doubts about giving another income tax break to the wealthiest Americans, particularly because they would benefit the most from the elimination of the dividends tax, Hubbard said.
---------------------
Hey, number 1, Bush campaigned on tax cuts and knew tax cuts would go to the highest income folks, so the Post writers inserting, and apparently buying, this line about Bush being cautious about proving more tax cuts for the rich doesn't ring true. Number 2, the Bush administration entered office with a budget surplus and given both the 2000 recession and the economic effects of 9/11, weren't likely to be directed off course from their tax cutting goals in any event. With or without Cheney, Bush was going to favor a tax cutting policy. And the signature item of the tax cuts were first, the income tax cuts, and second, the inheritence tax cut. The dividend and capital gains cuts, while important, were peripheral in the overall scheme of things.
In Tuesday's "Dominating Budget Decisions" segment, the post writers relate this account from the halls of the WH:
Perhaps more important than Cheney's influence in pushing policies is his power to stop them before they reach the Oval Office.
When Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, broached the idea of limiting the popular mortgage tax deduction, he said he quickly dropped it after Cheney told him it would never fly with Congress. "He's a big timesaver for us in that he takes off the table a lot of things he knows aren't going to go anywhere," Lazear said.
--------------
Does anyone see the problem here? Any sixth-grader could tell you that fiddling with the "popular" mortgage tax deduction was gonna be a non-starter. I wouldn't credit Dick too much with having stifled that idea before it reached the President.
Then there's this matter of Vice chairing something called the budget review board, which, according to the Post writers, was--
....a panel the Bush administration created to set spending priorities and serve as arbiter when Cabinet members appeal decisions by White House budget officials. The White House has portrayed the board as a device to keep Bush from wasting time on petty disagreements, but previous administrations have seldom seen Cabinet-level disputes in that light. Cheney's leadership of the panel gives him direct and indirect power over the federal budget -- and over those who must live within it. [Read then-OMB Director Joshua Bolten's memo about the review board.]
----------------------
At first glance this sounds pretty impressive, particularly that bit about arbitering budget disputes between cabinet heads and WH staff.
But then just a few paragraphs down we read
Cheney shared conservative trepidations about the president's signature education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, which gave the federal government more control over K-12 education. He has griped privately to confidants, such as economist and CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow, about the administration's failure to control spending. And in robust internal White House discussions, he raised concerns about the cost of the administration's decision to expand Medicare to include a new multibillion-dollar drug entitlement, but bowed to the political reality that the president had to fulfill a campaign promise.
------------------------------
So, while Vice has been chairing this budget review board, and serving as the administration's conservative conscience on spending matters, the administration has still managed to let spending spiral and enacted an expensive new drug entitlement to boot along the way.
Finally, let's think about taxes, particularly the president's tax cut packages. The Post writers are eager to give Dick a lot of credit for the president's tax policies, especially since Vice really wanted both a capital gains cut and a special write-off for business investment.
Says the Post writers--
Bush sided with Cheney on the dividends tax but thought it would be better to eliminate it altogether. The president was cooler on the capital gains tax, according to Conda and others. And having campaigned on a platform of compassionate conservatism, he expressed doubts about giving another income tax break to the wealthiest Americans, particularly because they would benefit the most from the elimination of the dividends tax, Hubbard said.
---------------------
Hey, number 1, Bush campaigned on tax cuts and knew tax cuts would go to the highest income folks, so the Post writers inserting, and apparently buying, this line about Bush being cautious about proving more tax cuts for the rich doesn't ring true. Number 2, the Bush administration entered office with a budget surplus and given both the 2000 recession and the economic effects of 9/11, weren't likely to be directed off course from their tax cutting goals in any event. With or without Cheney, Bush was going to favor a tax cutting policy. And the signature item of the tax cuts were first, the income tax cuts, and second, the inheritence tax cut. The dividend and capital gains cuts, while important, were peripheral in the overall scheme of things.
3 Signs
the apocalypse is upon us:
1. CNN's Paula Zahn show at 8 pm includes a countdown clock to Paris Hilton's Larry King appearance at 9 pm
2. CNN's Larry King plays host to Paris Hilton for a full hour from 9-10
3. at 10 pm CNN's Anderson Cooper plays host to an expert panel convened to discuss Paris Hilton's Larry King appearance during the prior hour and to discuss all things Paris Hilton
I can understand number two somewhat, but numbers 1 and 3 make me remember fondly the days of Ted Turner, Frank Sesno and Bernard Shaw.
1. CNN's Paula Zahn show at 8 pm includes a countdown clock to Paris Hilton's Larry King appearance at 9 pm
2. CNN's Larry King plays host to Paris Hilton for a full hour from 9-10
3. at 10 pm CNN's Anderson Cooper plays host to an expert panel convened to discuss Paris Hilton's Larry King appearance during the prior hour and to discuss all things Paris Hilton
I can understand number two somewhat, but numbers 1 and 3 make me remember fondly the days of Ted Turner, Frank Sesno and Bernard Shaw.
Dealing with Ann Coulter
As some of you may have noticed, Tweety had his favorite guest, Ann Coulter, on Hardball the other night. Only this time, Elizabeth Edwards called in to confront Coulter and her hateful comments regarding the Edwards' deceased son and Coulter's expression of support for Edwards' assassination.
This is of course all in addition to Coulter's "Edwards is a faggot" slur at a conservative hatefest (when was that--just a few months ago??) which resulted in Coulter's "column" being dropped from some newspapers and coming in for some, very limited, criticism by her conservative peers, who were mostly offended that Coulter may be dragging the conservative movement down into the slime with her. Not to mention that the "Edwards is a faggot" slur was supposed to be evidence that, at last, Coulter had really, really gone too far this time, really, and that this would surely result, really, in her not getting the usual slew of bookings in the future by respectful media outlets who had finally tired of her antics and had seen the light. Well.
But there is one angle it seems to me that has been curiously underplayed by liberals in the Ann Coulter culture wars; namely that Coulter passes herself off as a Christian, yet continues to say, and bases her entire faux fame on, deliriously hateful comments towards all sorts of people, and is by all visible evidence, completely devoid of any principle--in other words, while she passes herself off as a "Christian" her antics, words and behavior are anything but.
So, instead of asking Coulter to please stop her public displays of vulgarity and hate (although in Elizabeth Edwards' case, it was probably the right approach to start off with), why not take her at her word that she cares a great deal about the Christian faith and confront her with the words of the One she professes to follow, and the vast discrepancy between the admonitions of her faith and how she treats others, particularly those she disagrees with? Are her words and actions really Christian? She claims to want to advance the interests and values of Christianity, but what about Ann Coulter--and her legion of supporters--is Christian?
That would be my approach. And since I'm unlikely to be invited on any shows opposite Coulter, it is what I would recommend to Democratic bloggers, pundits and politicians who might have the opportunity to do so.
This is of course all in addition to Coulter's "Edwards is a faggot" slur at a conservative hatefest (when was that--just a few months ago??) which resulted in Coulter's "column" being dropped from some newspapers and coming in for some, very limited, criticism by her conservative peers, who were mostly offended that Coulter may be dragging the conservative movement down into the slime with her. Not to mention that the "Edwards is a faggot" slur was supposed to be evidence that, at last, Coulter had really, really gone too far this time, really, and that this would surely result, really, in her not getting the usual slew of bookings in the future by respectful media outlets who had finally tired of her antics and had seen the light. Well.
But there is one angle it seems to me that has been curiously underplayed by liberals in the Ann Coulter culture wars; namely that Coulter passes herself off as a Christian, yet continues to say, and bases her entire faux fame on, deliriously hateful comments towards all sorts of people, and is by all visible evidence, completely devoid of any principle--in other words, while she passes herself off as a "Christian" her antics, words and behavior are anything but.
So, instead of asking Coulter to please stop her public displays of vulgarity and hate (although in Elizabeth Edwards' case, it was probably the right approach to start off with), why not take her at her word that she cares a great deal about the Christian faith and confront her with the words of the One she professes to follow, and the vast discrepancy between the admonitions of her faith and how she treats others, particularly those she disagrees with? Are her words and actions really Christian? She claims to want to advance the interests and values of Christianity, but what about Ann Coulter--and her legion of supporters--is Christian?
That would be my approach. And since I'm unlikely to be invited on any shows opposite Coulter, it is what I would recommend to Democratic bloggers, pundits and politicians who might have the opportunity to do so.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Who Is This?
I thought at first she might be that actress from CSI. All the NYT tells us is she wrote a book called If They Only Listened To Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear.
Now, it so happens I frequent book stores a lot. A lot. Sometimes I buy. Sometimes I just browse. And I've never, never seen or heard of this book or her.
So why is this person being granted a valuable NYT op-ed spot to vent about Democrats and abortion, especially since her argument seems strangely so pre-2006. For that matter, it seems so strangely pre-2003. Does she know about Iraq? And ya know, the Democrats actually won the last election. But for Henneberger, the sky is still falling for Democrats, and apparently abortion is the problem.
Sigh. It also appears she spends too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh, or watching Hardball, because she somehow thinks it's the Republicans and Real American "pro-life" voters who are famously nuanced about this abortion business.
Very strange column, very strange timing, very strange argument. But whoever she is, it sounds like she'd be a perfect Fox "News" faux-Democrat.
Now, it so happens I frequent book stores a lot. A lot. Sometimes I buy. Sometimes I just browse. And I've never, never seen or heard of this book or her.
So why is this person being granted a valuable NYT op-ed spot to vent about Democrats and abortion, especially since her argument seems strangely so pre-2006. For that matter, it seems so strangely pre-2003. Does she know about Iraq? And ya know, the Democrats actually won the last election. But for Henneberger, the sky is still falling for Democrats, and apparently abortion is the problem.
Sigh. It also appears she spends too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh, or watching Hardball, because she somehow thinks it's the Republicans and Real American "pro-life" voters who are famously nuanced about this abortion business.
Very strange column, very strange timing, very strange argument. But whoever she is, it sounds like she'd be a perfect Fox "News" faux-Democrat.
Fool Me Once, Shame on Me, Shame Me Twice, Fool on...
Is anybody else besides me less than riveted by the increasing tendency on the part of the administration and the media to label any and all insurgents in Iraq, or people with guns, or anyone who just happens to look suspicious, as being full-fledged members of Al-Qaeda (either the Iraq franchise or the global one), who by the very label, must be committed to endless, suicidal war with the U.S. and who will no doubt jump on airplanes and fly over here to kill us all should we ever withdraw our military from Mesopotamia?
Is anybody buying this at all?
Update: Glenn Greenwald and other bloggers have noticed it, too.
Is anybody buying this at all?
Update: Glenn Greenwald and other bloggers have noticed it, too.
Bob Kerrey Back to the Senate?
I was surprised to read that former 9/11 Commission member and former Senator of Nebraska, Bob Kerrey is being recruited for, and is apparently highly interested in, another Senatorial run. I didn't think he even still lived in Nebraska. I suppose this should be counted as good news, although I wonder about his prospects. And even though he's a bit of a gadfly for progressives, having an extra vote for majority leader wouldn't be bad.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
They Get Radio Station Gigs
In this op-ed by guest-columnist Timothy Egan, we learn what the infamous, blowhard, got-his-ass-bounced-outta-Congress-last-fall, non-white-immigrant-hatin', former House Rep, J.D. Hayworth is doing with his time to pay the rent--hosting a conservative talk radio show. Gee, what a surprise. Guess conservative hate radio is never so saturated that another pretentious, has-been rageaholic can't get a spot. "Whateva it takes" I suppose.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Keeping the Lights Off
Although I agree with Glenn Greenwald here, I think there's something besides a general media-government camradarie that explains the ambivalence about, if not outright objection to, the trial and conviction of Scooter Libby among media people, like the "liberal" Wash Post columnist, Richard Cohen.
Mainly, as Cohen alludes to, the positive vibe towards Libby by even "liberal" media people stems from Fitzpatrick's jailing, and threats to jail, their fellow media buddies:
The special counsel used the immense power of the government to jail Judith Miller and to compel other journalists, including Time's Matt Cooper, to suspend their various and sacred vows of silence just so they could, understandably, avoid jail.
This is the gut of the whole thing: Fitzpatrick didn't play by the rules when he ignored the media's "sacred vows of silence" in dealing with sources, like special, high-up government people. And this Fitzpatrick fellow, runaway train driver, put one of their own in jail and threatened another fellow journalist with jail. This is the crux of the matter, why "journalists" like Cohen are giving Libby a pass and in doing so, demonstrate their hostility for Fitzpatrick.
But let's continue:
For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.
And finally:
Accountability is one thing. By all means, let Congress investigate and conduct oversight hearings with relish and abandon. But a prosecution is a different matter. It entails the government at its most coercive -- a power so immense and sometimes so secretive that it poses much more of a threat to civil liberties, including freedom of the press, than anything in the interstices of the scary Patriot Act. The mere arrival of a form letter from the IRS will give any sane person a touch of angina.
So there you have it. Maybe this helps answer Digby's question.
Mainly, as Cohen alludes to, the positive vibe towards Libby by even "liberal" media people stems from Fitzpatrick's jailing, and threats to jail, their fellow media buddies:
The special counsel used the immense power of the government to jail Judith Miller and to compel other journalists, including Time's Matt Cooper, to suspend their various and sacred vows of silence just so they could, understandably, avoid jail.
This is the gut of the whole thing: Fitzpatrick didn't play by the rules when he ignored the media's "sacred vows of silence" in dealing with sources, like special, high-up government people. And this Fitzpatrick fellow, runaway train driver, put one of their own in jail and threatened another fellow journalist with jail. This is the crux of the matter, why "journalists" like Cohen are giving Libby a pass and in doing so, demonstrate their hostility for Fitzpatrick.
But let's continue:
For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.
And finally:
Accountability is one thing. By all means, let Congress investigate and conduct oversight hearings with relish and abandon. But a prosecution is a different matter. It entails the government at its most coercive -- a power so immense and sometimes so secretive that it poses much more of a threat to civil liberties, including freedom of the press, than anything in the interstices of the scary Patriot Act. The mere arrival of a form letter from the IRS will give any sane person a touch of angina.
So there you have it. Maybe this helps answer Digby's question.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Why Won't Dems Agree to A Fox "News" Sponsored Debate?
I don't know.
But maybe this is a reason:
Yesterday, the far-right side of the blogosphere was delirious with joy over Dennis Miller’s two-minute diatribe on Fox News condemning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. At last count, I found over 400 conservative blogs praising the attack, characterizing it as the most devastating take-down in political monologue history.
You can watch the clip for yourself, but I have to admit, if this is the most insightful, stinging criticism the right can come up with, Reid should be fairly pleased. Miller’s rant had four basic parts to it:
1. Reid is physically unattractive.
2. Reid’s voice is “whinny” and unpleasant to listen to.
3. Reid’s rhetoric on the war has been “bleak.”
4. Reid is irrelevant (specifically, he has “delude[d] himself into thinking that he matters”).
-------------------------------
No, I can't imagine why Democrats would question Fox's professionalism on something like this. Can you?
But maybe this is a reason:
Yesterday, the far-right side of the blogosphere was delirious with joy over Dennis Miller’s two-minute diatribe on Fox News condemning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. At last count, I found over 400 conservative blogs praising the attack, characterizing it as the most devastating take-down in political monologue history.
You can watch the clip for yourself, but I have to admit, if this is the most insightful, stinging criticism the right can come up with, Reid should be fairly pleased. Miller’s rant had four basic parts to it:
1. Reid is physically unattractive.
2. Reid’s voice is “whinny” and unpleasant to listen to.
3. Reid’s rhetoric on the war has been “bleak.”
4. Reid is irrelevant (specifically, he has “delude[d] himself into thinking that he matters”).
-------------------------------
No, I can't imagine why Democrats would question Fox's professionalism on something like this. Can you?
Tom Schaller is Unbelievably Awesome
FERGUSON'S FACT-LESS CHECK OF GORE. In Sunday's Washington Post, Weekly Standard senior editor Andrew Ferguson had a little hit job on Al Gore's new book, built around Gore's citation of an Abraham Lincoln quote which, according to Ferguson, has been falsely attributed to The Great Emancipator. Here's how Ferguson opens the piece:
You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, "The Assault on Reason." It's a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver.
Still, I'd love to know where he found the scary quote from Abraham Lincoln that he uses on page 88. [emphasis added]
Well, Mr. Ferguson, the answer to that is quite easily to be found on p. 282 of the book where, in the endnotes, Gore provides the citation. (The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Macmillan: 1950, Andrew Ward, ed., page 40.) Is Ferguson so manipulative that he is using the endnote/footnote difference to mislead the readers into believing there is no sourcing whatsoever in Gore's book?
Or is Ferguson so damn lazy he didn't even bother to notice that Gore's book includes endnotes? Though I'm willing to give Ferguson the benefit of the doubt (he can email me at schaller67@hotmail.com to clarify), either way it looks bad for him. And if his point is merely to dispute Gore's use of The Lincoln Encyclopedia as a source or, worse, that the publisher's stylistic choice of endnotes rather than footnotes is intended to obscure the sourcing of the quote, are these complaints really worthy of space in the Post's Sunday section?
As for the Post's editors, did they, too, fail to fact check Ferguson's "not using footnotes" assertion which, had they done so, they would have discovered it to be true merely in the very misleading, endnote-v-footnote definitional sense?
To borrow a phrase from Ferguson, his piece and the Post's editing of it turns out to be a rather "sprawling, untidy blast" of misinformation.
Makes one wonder what the criterion is to make "senior editor" over at the Standard, eh? If all of this is not galling and ironic enough for you, the Post's choice for title of the op-ed is ... wait for it ... "Fact Check."
UPDATE: The Post has up a correction now ... though, as a commenter notes, it's hardly a complete one.
You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, "The Assault on Reason." It's a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver.
Still, I'd love to know where he found the scary quote from Abraham Lincoln that he uses on page 88. [emphasis added]
Well, Mr. Ferguson, the answer to that is quite easily to be found on p. 282 of the book where, in the endnotes, Gore provides the citation. (The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Macmillan: 1950, Andrew Ward, ed., page 40.) Is Ferguson so manipulative that he is using the endnote/footnote difference to mislead the readers into believing there is no sourcing whatsoever in Gore's book?
Or is Ferguson so damn lazy he didn't even bother to notice that Gore's book includes endnotes? Though I'm willing to give Ferguson the benefit of the doubt (he can email me at schaller67@hotmail.com to clarify), either way it looks bad for him. And if his point is merely to dispute Gore's use of The Lincoln Encyclopedia as a source or, worse, that the publisher's stylistic choice of endnotes rather than footnotes is intended to obscure the sourcing of the quote, are these complaints really worthy of space in the Post's Sunday section?
As for the Post's editors, did they, too, fail to fact check Ferguson's "not using footnotes" assertion which, had they done so, they would have discovered it to be true merely in the very misleading, endnote-v-footnote definitional sense?
To borrow a phrase from Ferguson, his piece and the Post's editing of it turns out to be a rather "sprawling, untidy blast" of misinformation.
Makes one wonder what the criterion is to make "senior editor" over at the Standard, eh? If all of this is not galling and ironic enough for you, the Post's choice for title of the op-ed is ... wait for it ... "Fact Check."
UPDATE: The Post has up a correction now ... though, as a commenter notes, it's hardly a complete one.
Republican Pseudo Populism. Fading.
Peter Beinert has an op-ed in the Washington Post today. And it kinda sorta makes sense, even if it's conclusions are not terribly groundbreaking.
As an aside, I tend to read Beinert's columns like I read those of David Brooks--with interest but still looking for the subtle incongruities beneath the parts I find myself agreeing with. With Brooks it's the illiberal notions he's purposely cloaking in genial tones. With Beinert it's more a matter of uncritically passing off some myth or piece of conventional wisdom.
His topic today is Republican "populism", which he says is in iminent danger now that the GOP has held the reigns of power for the past couple of decades, and as a result, has become the government elite it has long claimed to battle for the benefit of Real Americans. And now, Beinert says, the movement's populism is turning against itself. Like in the case of immigration for instance, where the party's nativist grassroots is in conflict with the party's corporatist cash cows and smoke-filled room decisionmakers. Add the problems presented by an unpopular president and an unpopular war, the party's in a fix.
Now, while I appreciate Beinert's upbeatedness here, the point really is that the Republican Party is not and has never been in any real, meaningful sense, populist. I can't tell if Beinert recognizes this and just doesn't make hay out of it, or if he recognizes that Republican "populism" has been rhetorical rather than substantive for four decades, or if he in some way believes that the Republican Party has genuinely been the populist party all these years, and now, regrettably, having dethroned and replaced the country's governing elite, it's balking at going all the way to challenge and dismantle the corporate elite, too.
See what I mean?
Most troubling is Beinert's assertion that the Bush Administration's NSA spying and other civil liberty violations is to be regarded as "populism". Fortunately, Beinert acknowledges that this scheme finally failed in 2006 and likely won't work next year either. And Beinert puts down in print the conundrum that is the Bush Administration, and the conservative movement's, "war on terror" politics: without actual events and catastrophes confirming the threat, the party's electoral prospects will be undermined and the work needed to craft something like a policy or governing agenda all the more put off. And without a galvenizing issue, the party's faux populism is fracturing the party.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
As an aside, I tend to read Beinert's columns like I read those of David Brooks--with interest but still looking for the subtle incongruities beneath the parts I find myself agreeing with. With Brooks it's the illiberal notions he's purposely cloaking in genial tones. With Beinert it's more a matter of uncritically passing off some myth or piece of conventional wisdom.
His topic today is Republican "populism", which he says is in iminent danger now that the GOP has held the reigns of power for the past couple of decades, and as a result, has become the government elite it has long claimed to battle for the benefit of Real Americans. And now, Beinert says, the movement's populism is turning against itself. Like in the case of immigration for instance, where the party's nativist grassroots is in conflict with the party's corporatist cash cows and smoke-filled room decisionmakers. Add the problems presented by an unpopular president and an unpopular war, the party's in a fix.
Now, while I appreciate Beinert's upbeatedness here, the point really is that the Republican Party is not and has never been in any real, meaningful sense, populist. I can't tell if Beinert recognizes this and just doesn't make hay out of it, or if he recognizes that Republican "populism" has been rhetorical rather than substantive for four decades, or if he in some way believes that the Republican Party has genuinely been the populist party all these years, and now, regrettably, having dethroned and replaced the country's governing elite, it's balking at going all the way to challenge and dismantle the corporate elite, too.
See what I mean?
Most troubling is Beinert's assertion that the Bush Administration's NSA spying and other civil liberty violations is to be regarded as "populism". Fortunately, Beinert acknowledges that this scheme finally failed in 2006 and likely won't work next year either. And Beinert puts down in print the conundrum that is the Bush Administration, and the conservative movement's, "war on terror" politics: without actual events and catastrophes confirming the threat, the party's electoral prospects will be undermined and the work needed to craft something like a policy or governing agenda all the more put off. And without a galvenizing issue, the party's faux populism is fracturing the party.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
College May Be Out For The Summer...
But the collegiate softball Worldseries, or whatever it is calling itself, is still going on. And you know what? It's pretty interesting stuff to watch, if not downright captivating.
I had the Bosox-Yankees game on Sunday night and between one of the innings I flipped around the dial and stumbled across ESPN2's coverage of game one of Arizona-Tennessee. For the fellow-uninitiated, Arizona is the defending champ, and the series is the best of three. Tennessee won on Sunday night, Arizona last night, bringing us game three tonight. What's different about softball is that the same pitcher pitches the whole game and every game. Tennessee's Monica Abbott and Arizona's Taryn Mowatt pitched complete games in games one and two, and are scheduled to take the mound tonight, too.
For fans of lots of scoring, you might be disappointed, because the pitchers are so dominating. But somehow the game is nevertheless riveting to watch. Sunday night's matchup won me over, leaving the Bosox-Yanks for Monday's sports page wrapup.
Last night's game had me hooked as it went to extra innings tied at zero, but Arizona scored a run in the top of the tenth and Mowatt held on in the bottom half of the inning to send the series to a game three.
Oh yeah, the girls are also, ahem, pretty foxy in most cases. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the game's draw. Really.
You should check it and them out. And if the Seattle Mariners are paying attention, Tennessee's Monica Abbott is graduating this year. I'm not an official scout, but here's a tip, Mariners' management: how about adding Abbott to your sorry starting staff?
I had the Bosox-Yankees game on Sunday night and between one of the innings I flipped around the dial and stumbled across ESPN2's coverage of game one of Arizona-Tennessee. For the fellow-uninitiated, Arizona is the defending champ, and the series is the best of three. Tennessee won on Sunday night, Arizona last night, bringing us game three tonight. What's different about softball is that the same pitcher pitches the whole game and every game. Tennessee's Monica Abbott and Arizona's Taryn Mowatt pitched complete games in games one and two, and are scheduled to take the mound tonight, too.
For fans of lots of scoring, you might be disappointed, because the pitchers are so dominating. But somehow the game is nevertheless riveting to watch. Sunday night's matchup won me over, leaving the Bosox-Yanks for Monday's sports page wrapup.
Last night's game had me hooked as it went to extra innings tied at zero, but Arizona scored a run in the top of the tenth and Mowatt held on in the bottom half of the inning to send the series to a game three.
Oh yeah, the girls are also, ahem, pretty foxy in most cases. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the game's draw. Really.
You should check it and them out. And if the Seattle Mariners are paying attention, Tennessee's Monica Abbott is graduating this year. I'm not an official scout, but here's a tip, Mariners' management: how about adding Abbott to your sorry starting staff?
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Who's Pro-Life? Part 2
Amanda's probably right to minimize any importance stemming from the dispute and dustup between the National "Right to Life" Committee and the James Dobson wing of the Republican Party, on the one side, and other anti-abortion groups as it relates to the recent SC ruling on "partial birth abortion".
Still, I couldn't help but be pleased in seeing at least some among the anti-abortion crowd calling out the obstensibly "pro-life" but practically "pro-Republican" groups for catering to party politics more than any real "pro-life" agenda.
In Rohrbough's view, partisan politics is also involved.
"What happened in the abortion world is that groups like National Right to Life, they're really a wing of the Republican Party, and they're not geared to push for personhood for an unborn child -- they're geared to getting Republicans elected," he said. "So we're seeing these ridiculous laws like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban put forward, and then we're deceived about what they really do."
Still, I couldn't help but be pleased in seeing at least some among the anti-abortion crowd calling out the obstensibly "pro-life" but practically "pro-Republican" groups for catering to party politics more than any real "pro-life" agenda.
In Rohrbough's view, partisan politics is also involved.
"What happened in the abortion world is that groups like National Right to Life, they're really a wing of the Republican Party, and they're not geared to push for personhood for an unborn child -- they're geared to getting Republicans elected," he said. "So we're seeing these ridiculous laws like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban put forward, and then we're deceived about what they really do."
Who's Pro-Life?
Pro-choice Republican Rudy getting the business from a Roman Catholic bishop:
"...As Catholics, we are called, indeed required to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death..."
I hate to wade in with a word of discord, but the Roman Catholic church wants to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift from God? I wonder what John Huss and other victims of the Inquisition think of this?
"...As Catholics, we are called, indeed required to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death..."
I hate to wade in with a word of discord, but the Roman Catholic church wants to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift from God? I wonder what John Huss and other victims of the Inquisition think of this?
Monday, June 04, 2007
Waiting For Thompson
Although I may never have mentioned it on this blog, I'd always thought Fred Thompson would be one of the better, one of the "tougher" candidates the Republicans could run for President. I've been somewhat surprised over the years that he never ran. Until now. Now it appears all but certain that Thompson will enter the race soon, and given the various problems associated with the present leaders of the field, it also seems highly certain that Thompson will vault to the top of the polls when he does so.
Even so, I found Robert Novak's recent gushing over Thompson rather unusual.
First, Novak makes the rather vapid point that Americans feel alienated from Washington, that bumbling, corrupt politicians have rendered Americans cynical, etc. And aside from being mush, it's an odd statement to make, coming as it does from a GOP operative and pundit, given the fact that the GOP has controlled DC for 12 years, and the presidency for the past six.
But then Novak goes on to offer a reason why American feel cynical and why Thompson represents the cure--the (unnecessary and unjust) trial and conviction of Scooter Libby.
He implied at Stamford that Republicans, along with Democrats, are responsible for making Americans cynical. While not spelling this out publicly, he deplores ethical abuses, profligate spending and incompetent management of the Iraq war. He becomes incandescent when considering abysmal CIA and Justice Department performance under the Bush administration. He is enraged by Justice's actions in decisions leading to Scooter Libby's prison sentence.
So, Novak tells us, Thompson would make Americans feel better about their government by...being more partisan and less transparent and accountable. By being even more partisan and less transparent and accountable than George W. Bush.
Yeah, that sounds like the ticket.
Even so, I found Robert Novak's recent gushing over Thompson rather unusual.
First, Novak makes the rather vapid point that Americans feel alienated from Washington, that bumbling, corrupt politicians have rendered Americans cynical, etc. And aside from being mush, it's an odd statement to make, coming as it does from a GOP operative and pundit, given the fact that the GOP has controlled DC for 12 years, and the presidency for the past six.
But then Novak goes on to offer a reason why American feel cynical and why Thompson represents the cure--the (unnecessary and unjust) trial and conviction of Scooter Libby.
He implied at Stamford that Republicans, along with Democrats, are responsible for making Americans cynical. While not spelling this out publicly, he deplores ethical abuses, profligate spending and incompetent management of the Iraq war. He becomes incandescent when considering abysmal CIA and Justice Department performance under the Bush administration. He is enraged by Justice's actions in decisions leading to Scooter Libby's prison sentence.
So, Novak tells us, Thompson would make Americans feel better about their government by...being more partisan and less transparent and accountable. By being even more partisan and less transparent and accountable than George W. Bush.
Yeah, that sounds like the ticket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)