Activist Legislatures

Gay rights wins in Massachusetts.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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."

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?

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.

RIP, Steve Gilliard

Steve Gilliard, who hosted the Newsblog, passed away at age 41. Steve had been ill and hospitalized for the past several months. His death is terrible news. The Newsblog has been for me one of the four to six essential must reads of the day. I never met him but we did exchange a few emails. He will be greatly missed.

Dem Debate Impressions

For the hype CNN made about this debate (and the GOP one on Tuesday), CNN made a slop of the thing. The format for one thing. There's a panel of NH journalists and pundits asking questions...and also the Beard jumping in with questions. I couldn't figure out what this was about. Pick a format and stick with it. Use a panel or lose it. And then there was a problem with one of the panelist's mikes, where none of the candidates could hear the question. Good work guys.

However, I did appreciate the Beard's rather confrontational style of questioning, trying to put the Dems on the spot on the "war on terra", the lack of new attacks since 9/11, etc. It will be the kind of thing Democrats will face a lot more of next year. And better to try to deal with it now, because nobody up there particularly looked all that good responding. Edwards looked like he was squinting, like there was something in his eyes.

Too much time given to HRC, Obama and Edwards. In the lead up to the debate, CNN's pundits talked about the problems faced by "bottom tier" candidates in getting attention, whether at some point some of the bottom tier candidates should be denied the privilege of debate participation, etc. Then CNN went ahead and made sure that none of the "bottom tier" candidates got much exposure.

And how exactly to we even get a "top tier", "bottom tier" set of designations? Polling? But how do members of the public know who to support or even consider? Um, well, probably by seeing who gets all the media attention? A vicious, stupid circle.

Random Thoughts From Last Night's GOP Debate

I didn't think Iraq got much attention.

I don't think any of the lower or second-tier candidates got themselves into the top tier by last night's performance, although of the bottom seven, I suspect Mike Huckabee might have faired the best of them and could manage to hang around a while in this race, if dis-satisfaction with the top tier continues.

Guliani probably had a good night, and I think he handled the abortion issue well, highlighting the need to restrict the coercive power of government, and the need to reduce abortion, rather than just condemn them (which is of course a Democratic argument--funny how many of those popped up during the debate--see Paul, Ron; McCain, John). It'd be nice if a candidate from either party would say a good word about the Right to Privacy. But I guess that's expecting a lot.

None of the candidates is campaigning on continuing and building on the great progress made by this administration. All speak as if government is "broken", in McCain's words, although neither he nor any of the others enlightened us as to why government was "broken" even though Republicans held the House and much of the Congress for the past 12 years and the presidency for the last six.

I thought McCain and Paul deserve kudos for boldness. Paul obviously committed the greatest sin of the evening by suggesting that 911 was a result of "blowback" (another liberal, dirty commy hippy argument held only by the Democrat Party which hates America). McCain highlighted how excess money flowing into Washington has corrupted "his own party". I thought that was a pretty strong statement given the audience.

I thought the Fox crew actually did a decent job, following up candidates' responses and holding candidates accountable for not answering questions by repeating them after a candidate had answered a question with a sound bite speech unrelated and unresponsive to the question asked. More of this please.

I thought Gilmore and Thompson did poorly. Thompson was asked what government program he was prepared to eliminate and he mumbled something about "stockpiles" of something at the CDC. Paul followed this up with advocating the elimination of the Depart of Ed, Energy and a few others. Gilmore fumbled a number of times. Not sure why he's in this race. Thompson showed he knew a lot about stem cell research--probably too much. He needed a simple, values based answer here and he went into policy wonkism.

Duncan Hunter seemed to me to be the candidate least inclined to posture. He never looked at the audience but only looked at the questioner (something I noticed Dick Cheney do with some effectiveness in the VP debate with Lieberman in 2000). Hunter was serious. Maybe too serious.

Some of the questioning seemed tailored to the candidates' known policy concerns (immigration for Tancredo, trade with China for Hunter) which makes a certain kind of sense, but I thought it would have been more interesting to here some of these lower tier or single issue candidates hold forth on abortion or Iraq.

Romney makes my skin crawl.

And McCain still looks stiff and old, although he did manage to appear cheery, optimistic and principled, a return to form of sorts to his 2000 persona.

As it appears now, though, Rudy could win this thing. How about that, a pro-choice GOP nominee. Who'd a thunk it?

Let Us Remember

In the most critical periods of our Nation's history, there have always been those on the fringes of our society who have sought to escape their own responsibility by finding a simple solution, an appealing slogan or a convenient scapegoat.

Financial crises could be explained by the presence of too many immigrants or too few greenbacks.

War could be attributed to munitions makers or international bankers. Peace conferences failed because we were duped by the British, or tricked by the French, or deceived by the Russians. It was not the presence of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe that drove it to communism, it was the sellout at Yalta. It was not a civil war that removed China from the Free World, it was treason in high places. At times these fanatics have achieved a temporary success among those who lack the will or the wisdom to face unpleasant facts or unsolved problems. But in time the basic good sense and stability of the great American consensus has always prevailed.

Now we are face to face once again with a period of heightened peril. The risks are great, the burdens heavy, the problems incapable of swift or lasting solution. And under the strains and frustrations imposed by constant tension and harassment, the discordant voices of extremism are once again heard in the land. Men who are unwilling to face up to the danger from without are convinced that the real danger is from within.

They look suspiciously at their neighbors and their leaders. They call for "a man on horseback" because they do not trust the people. They find treason in our churches, in our highest court, in our treatment of water. They equate the Democratic Party with the welfare state, the welfare state with socialism, socialism with communism. They object quite rightly to politics intruding on the military - but they are very anxious for the military to engage in their kind of politics.

But you and I - most Americans, soldiers and civilians - take a different view of our peril. We know it comes from without, not within. It must be met by quiet preparedness, not provocative speeches. And the steps taken this year to bolster our defenses - to increase our missile forces, to put more planes on alert, to provide more airlift and sealift and ready divisions - to make more certain than ever before that this nation has all the power that it will need to deter any attack of any kind - these steps constitute the most effective answer that can be made to those who would sow the seeds of doubt and of hate.

So let us not heed these counsels of fear and suspicion. Let us concentrate more on keeping enemy bombers and missiles away from our shores, and concentrate less on keeping neighbors away from our shelters. Let us devote more energy to organizing the free and friendly nations of the world, with common trade and strategic goals, and devote less energy to organizing armed bands of civilian guerrillas that are more likely to supply local vigilantes than national vigilance.

Let our patriotism be reflected in the creation of confidence in one another, rather than in crusades of suspicion. Let us prove we think our country great, by striving to make it greater. And, above all, let us remember, however serious the outlook, however harsh the task, the one great irreversible trend in the history of the world is on the side of liberty - and we, for all time to come, are on the same side.
------------------------------

These remarks were taken from this speech by JFK on November 18, 1961, amidst a chorus of criticism from insubordinate military officials and right-wing quacks like the John Birch Society who wanted to wage "pre-emptive war" on the Soviet Union.

I've been reading Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, by David Talbot, which just came out. I was suprised to read of this speech in this book, and the war-mongering, fear-driven scapegoating and red-baiting of the times. It's easy to sort of gloss over the craziness that existed in what we have sometimes thought of as calmer times. Kind of sounded familiar. Somewhat. But it makes me realize just how weak the descendents of Curtis LeMay and Bob Welch were and are in the aftermath of 911 and the Iraq invasion of March 2003. They blustered a lot and tried to intimidate us, who they regard as their enemies, but their bluster and bark was considerably worse than their bite.

Our Liberal Media

Digby provides us this nugget from last night's GOP debate coverage on MSNBC:

FINEMAN: Keith, if you look at that picture and took away all of the writing and all of the words, and just had the image, could the American people tell that those were Republicans? I think the answer is yes. There is a hierarchical, there is, dare I say it, male, there is an old-line quality to them that some voters, indeed a lot of voters, find reassuring. And this is something that the Democrats need to understand. The Democrats are the “we are family” party, which is great, but this is the other side of the conversation and this is their home here. We really are in Reagan country.

-----------------------------------------
Does anyone even know what this means?

I Really Don't Know Why

Democrats Back Down on (non-binding) Timetable

Yet, the article goes on to insist that Democrats want to insist that the supplemental spending bill still include "benchmarks" and other language that "influences war policy".

Huh?

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.

Anyone who thinks that any of these so-called "benchmarks" can be enforced, please raise your hands.

Does anyone think the President would allow, or this Congress would agree to cut-off financial aid of any kind, let alone non-military aid to Iraq in the event that violence in the capital and throughout the country continues to escalate, just because Iraq didn't come through on some "benchmarks", which the president would most likely ignore or disallow through a signing statement (yeah, remember those?)?

If I was an optimistic sort, I might think about how the president's veto actually represents an opportunity of sorts to skuddle the whole supplemental war funding bill. It would, that is, if enough Democrats who weren't particularly thrilled with the continued funding request to begin with, decide that the lack of a timetable, however symbolic and meaningless it ever was, is an invitation to oppose the process and intent of a permanent war and eternal occupation of a Middle Eastern country.

I Know It's Been Said Before, But...

Glenn Greenwald on Harvey Mansfield's plea for establishing "One Man Rule":

I just want to add one related point here. Much of the intense dissatisfaction I have with the American media arises out of the fact that these extraordinary developments -- the dominant political movement advocating lawlessness and tyranny out in the open in The Wall St. Journal and Weekly Standard -- receive almost no attention.

While the Bush administration expressly adopts these theories to detain American citizens without charges, engage in domestic surveillance on Americans in clear violation of the laws we enacted to limit that power, and asserts a general right to disregard laws which interfere with the President's will, our media still barely discusses those issues.

They write about John Edwards' haircut and John Kerry's windsurfing and which political consultant has whispered what gossip to them about some painfully petty matter, but the extraordinary fact that our nation's dominant political movement is openly advocating the most radical theories of tyranny -- that "liberties are dangerous and law does not apply" -- is barely noticed by our most prestigious and self-loving national journalists. Merely to take note of that failure is to demonstrate how profoundly dysfunctional our political press is.

And Kevin Drum finds NRO's Thomas Sowell pining for a military coup--here:

BANANA REPUBLICANISM, CONT'D....Quote of the day, from Thomas Sowell:

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

Now that's a comforting, conservative thought, isn't it? I wonder what Buckley thinks of NRO publishing stuff like this?

(And in case you're wondering, there's no further context. That's the whole quote. It's one bullet point in a long series of dyspeptic observations about how liberals have ruined the country.)

I Loathe These People, Too

Greenwald:

We have been treated in the last 48 hours to an extremely vivid illustration of how conventional political Beltway wisdom is created. It all began with The Politico's in-house gossip, Ben Smith, who on consecutive days published a gossipy, petty article designed to fuel right-wing caricatures of the personality traits of John Edwards and Barack Obama, respectively.

First was a story on Monday about the costs of Edwards' haircuts and visits to a spa, plainly intended to fuel the principal right-wing anti-Edwards caricature -- his effeminate obsession with his hair.

That was followed by another Smith story yesterday ripping out of context a small part of Obama's speech -- in which he spoke of various types of "violence" (beyond physical violence) that create divisions in America. Attaching himself to the prevailing anti-Obama cliche, Smith asserts that these excerpts illustrate Obama's "instinct for abstraction and large themes, and his sense that America's problems have at their root solutions that have as much to do with hope and process as with any specific course of action."

Obama's crime? Instead of proposing specific policies to "solve" the problem of school shootings (as though such problems can be "solved"), Obama "moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life." In the rotted world of Beltway media cynicism, any talk of "root solutions" or "ideas" or "abstract concepts" is automatically insincere, irrelevant and merely a tactic for avoiding "real substance."

Predictably, both Politico items were immediately trumpeted by Drudge, almost certainly the real goal of Smith's stories. Thereafter, the standard right-wing hacks then dutifully followed along, reciting the exact storyline manufactured by Smith and Drudge. The conventional wisdom-spewing internet gossip Mickey Kaus then joined in with an item entitled "Barack the Hack," which claims -- in an act of extreme projection -- that the speech reflects "a mindset that tries to fit every event into a familiar, comforting framework he can spoon-feed his audience without disturbing them." Kaus says the Obama excerpts are "not exactly evidence of a fresh intelligence, or even basic common sense" -- but that "Democratic primary campaigns will do that to you."

The Associated Press then does its part, churning out a story, published by CNN (among others), that begins with this sentence: "Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies." The Associated Press then interviewed Edwards' hair stylist, and reported that he admitted this: "'I do cut his hair and I have cut it for quite a while,' Torrenueva said. 'We've been friends a long time.'"

All of that leads The New Republic, a day late but right on script, to lament the effeminate and vain Edwards and the shallow and empty Obama. Eve Fairbanks posts an item she headlines "He Feels Pretty and Witty and . . . ." in which she let's us know that she (of course) is far too sophisticated and serious to "give a damn that Edwards went to the Pink Sapphire." It is striking how they all use the word "pretty" to describe how John Edwards wants to look. She then links to the three-year-old You Tube clip of Edwards brushing his hair. Is any of this, at its core, any different than the oh-so-aberrational-and-universally-condemned Ann Coulter remark about Edwards?

Fairbanks revealingly justifies her post by claiming that "the fact that the haircut and the Pink Sapphire is a CNN top headline on a huge news day suggests that, sadly, plenty of people still think of Edwards like this." In her world, the media's chatter -- in which (as she herself was doing) they repeat Drudge gossip -- is proof of how "plenty of people" think. As always, Drudge rules their world -- if he selects a story to trumpet, and the media (as they always do) dutifully follow, that is proof, by itself, of the story's importance.

Not to be outdone, The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner follows with a post entitled "Obama Hits Bottom," which also cites Smith's Politico piece and warns Obama supporters they "have to face up to the fact that his speeches can be really, really grating." He then labels the parts of the speech cited by Smith as "disappointing" and "obnoxious."

Needless to say, it is perfectly fine to criticize all candidates running for president. That is something that ought to be done, vigorously and frequently -- obviously including Obama and Edwards. There are plenty of grounds to question both of them. And, admittedly, a candidate's speech is obviously far more legitimate grounds for such criticism than the costs of his haircut or which spas he visits.

But none of this is substantive criticism. It is just petty, cheap personality-based mockery of the strain that dominates (and degrades and destroys) our political discourse -- it is Al Gore inventing the Internet and claiming to be the inspiration for Love Story, and John Kerry wind-surfing and speaking French. It is all just mindless gossipy shorthand intended to fuel right-wing caricatures and platitudes that have nothing to do with substance and everything to do with demonizing the personality of these political figures in order to render them ugly and embarrassing -- hence, Edwards is a girlish fop and Obama is an intellectual lightweight who relies on empty fancy-sounding buzzphrases in lieu of substance.

What is notable here is not so much the specific petty attacks, but the method of how they are disseminated and engrained as conventional wisdom among our Really Smart Political Insiders.

This is the process that occurred here, and it is the process that repeats itself endlessly:

STEP 1: A new right-wing gossip (Ben Smith) at a new substance-free political rag (The Politico) seizes on some petty, manufactured incident to fuel personality caricatures of Democratic candidates.

STEP 2: The old right-wing gossip (Drudge) uses his old substance-free political rag (The Drudge Report) to amplify the inane personality caricatures.

STEP 3: Right-wing hacks with pretenses of respectability -- like Mickey Kaus and others -- follow the script by "analyzing" the gossip and embracing it.

STEP 4: National media outlets -- such as AP and CNN -- whose world is ruled by Drudge, turn the gossip into "news stories."

STEP 5: Our Serious Beltway Political Analysts -- in this case, the very somber and smart Substantive Journalists at The New Republic -- mindlessly repeat all of it, thereby solidifying it as conventional wisdom, showing that "even Democrats and liberals are embarrassed by their candidates."

One should note here that Step 5, the Final Stage, is almost always sponsored by those who endlessly proclaim how irresponsible and substance-free and unserious political bloggers are, and who thereafter write pieces which do nothing other than repeat the latest Drudge gossip.

(snip)

But this is the process that generates our country's petty conventional political wisdom. And it these type of personality stories which are often outcome-determinative. The 2004 presidential election (and the one before it) were not determined by an ideological choice between fundamentally different competing political philosophies, but instead, was largely the by-product of personality-based cultural preferences -- the swaggering, strong, resolute, protective cowboy over the mewling, wind-surfing, effete French fop. In our Drudge-ruled media world, these are the storylines which dominate our political process.

Those who live in the World Ruled by Drudge -- such as Eve Fairbanks, Mickey Kaus and the other Serious, Sober, Important Journalists -- ceaselessly tout their own substance and seriousness and pompously lament how irresponsible and "simplistic" everyone else is. Meanwhile, most of what they write is barely disguised political cliches and personality gossip that have nothing to do with any actual substance, and it is fed to them by the lowest and sleaziest sources around.

I Loathe These People

Atrios, via Think Progress, uncovered this gem from the very manly men at Human Events Online and National Review Online:

College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut. Meanwhile, an old man hurled his body at the shooter to save others.

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that. …

Like Derb, I don’t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn’t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don’t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary.

To these people I say--

You are nothing but a piece of crap.
A piece of crap.
I find you extremely ugly.
You emit a foul and unpleasant odour...
I *loathe* you...
I *loathe* you.

Another Reason to Just Say No to Fox "News"

Do any of you find it strange that in this day, in this era, of political scandal, an era of big ole messes as far as the eye can see over the last six years, the embarassment and disgrace of Katrina, of an open-ended military and financial commitment Fiasco in Iraq, of the various criminal indictments and convictions that have come out of Washington (Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff), of what we are learning now about Karl Rove's mechanizations to have non-existent voter "fraud" cases prosecuted, to have Democrat politicians targeted for prosecution, of "lost" emails, that in this day and era, amidst all these messes, that Fox "News" would choose to broadcast a special half-hour segment dedicated to the life and crimes of...Sandy Berger?

Do any of you find that the least bit strange?

I do.

Dear Democrats running for Prez: Keep telling Fox "News" to stick it.

Czar needed

What?

Anybody out there as puzzled by this as me? I heard a reference to this on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now this morning and thought it was some kind of joke, only to pick up my Wash Post and see it on the front page, above the fold.

A war czar? Isn't that what the Secretary of Defense is? And aren't there a couple of layers at the uniformed military level for this, someone who's the military chief of the region, another person that overseas the Iraq war broadly and another who's the on-the-ground chief?

However unusual this is or what the position is supposed to entail that would distinguish it from the warriors above, no one seems to be taking, and what's more, they're willing to state publicly that they aren't and why.

Not sure where this is going but I wouldn't count it as indicative of competence in the war-room.

"Serious"? Seriously?

Today is Day Two of my staying home with a bad tooth day. And apparently this Bad Tooth Day will go on for another two weeks, as my appointment with the oral surgeon isn't until April 23, and the meds the dentist prescribed for me yesterday are only having a minimal impact on my impacted wisdom tooth, which is rumored to be the cause of my present, physical suffering.

But anyway, enough about me. Let's talk more about Me.

Or rather, that I was guesting over at No More Mister Nice Blog over the weekend, where I had a few things to say about the latest flap-up involving Don "the Iman" Imus.

But I wanted to highlight an article that appeared in the Business section of yesterday's NYT about "the Iman". The writer, David Carr, noting how Imus's show is regularly frequented by media and politician-types, appropriately refers to the host as a "lawn jockey to the establishment". Most of the article is a pretty accurate rendering of how borish Imus and his show are and all-too-rare reflection on why it is that a lot of high-profile media show ponies and politicos nonetheless keep appearing on his show and kissing his ass.

But I stumbled over sections of the article like these:

"...his show is one of the few places where they can talk seriously and at length about public issues."

Um, talk seriously and at length about public issues? On Imus in The Morning?

Later in the article, after pointing out that there is a suspicious and typically incestuous connection between Imus's guests and his program, namely being that many of his guests get paychecks from the same corporate media giant as him, lapses into this:

"He fills a demand for serious discussion on contemporary radio so that the journalists and politicians pushing an agenda or a book don't have to get in line behind the strippers at Howard Stern's show."

There it is again, that word serious, meant to depict the type of discussion that occurs on the Imus show, between himself and his illustrious guests. Of course, the word "serious" is used here in a very maximumly relative fashion, with Howard Stern's radio stripper shows serving as the control group for comparison, which I understand now can only be heard on Sirius satellite radio, but I digress.

But serious and at length discussions about public issues on Imus in the Morning?

No, Imus is just a sample representive of the hate radio genre that has bloomed in the last several decades, but which for some unknown reason seems to be exempt from complaints about incivility from the mainstream, corporately run and controlled press, the trash talk radio that has regularly demeaned everthing non white Christian male and demogogued and exploited every possible issue for its resentment value, all without having to serve on any blogger-ethics type panels for their eliminationist rhetoric and hate-mongering.