Because the combination of his race, background, age and charisma make him the candidate best able to both do the job and shatter the existing order.
I believe his age and charisma are the qualities he brings to doing the job of president. Age, because the job of president is no longer for the old and weary. The president, particularly in a combative environment of hostile media, establishment and cultural warriors requires a large degree of stamina and fortitude. Obama strikes me as the best suited among the contenders to perform this role.
With regards to charisma, for much of the same issues relating to age, the ability of a president to project and explain himself in the media world is a much under-appreciated gift, again especially given the small "c" and large "C" conservative dimensions of the establishment and various centers of power throughout the business and religious world that will seek to undermine any change of direction by a Democratic president.
His race and background help to shatter traditional notions of what a president should look like and where he should come from, professionally and experientially. As the Rogue Progressive notes:
Obama is a member of an older generation who can reach out to younger generations in an authentic way that no one else can. He can break his own generation's tenure-based approach to politics, work and life by not being a presidential apprentice for eight more years. This will move us toward a 21st century way of politics, where politicians will rise and sink quicker because the world moves faster and they will be scrutinized for their performance rather than their resume-building skills.
I'd also add that this is an age where large-scale policy reforms and major legislative battles and achievements will be few and far between. Although there are outstanding concerns, domestically, in regard to inner-city poverty, the criminal justice system, and unequal health care and educational resources, the big ticket items in the liberal planning book have mostly been put in place. The job of the new presidency will be more rhetorical and nuanced, raising awareness of new challenges, inequities and injustices, both here and abroad. But Americans of all stripes will continue to be stymied in their dreams of a new American order as international problems continue to impose themselves on the American government's agenda. In particular, the challenges for the 21st century presidency will be those most hinged to the global economy and struggle for natural resources. The next president will not only have to navigate the already conflict-fused, class and culturally divided world of richer North and poorer South in matters of trade and other economic concerns, they will also have to somehow help bring to a conclusion and begin to reverse the collossal messes created in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world by the corrosively beligerent and militaristic neo-con cabal.
In short, the new presidency of the 21st century will have to be even more visionary than in previous eras, even while its ability to orchestrate wholesale changes diminishes. We've seen six years of one vision. Obama is the candidate best equipped to create another one.
Friday, March 23, 2007
In Contempt
In typical Washington-elite fashion, David Ignatius dismisses prosecutor-gate since everyone knows "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and he can fire whomever he wants". But his GOP-talking points on this issue weren't enough to prevent Ignatius from noticing something else about the matter:
The Bush political operatives have become the people the Republicans once warned the country against -- a club of insiders who seem to think that they're better than other folks. They are so contemptuous of government and the public servants who populate it that they have been unable to govern effectively. They are a smug, inward-looking elite that thinks it knows who the good guys are by the political labels they wear.
(snip)
After Katrina, it became clear that the public wanted a change. Americans want to be confident that those in charge of the country's business are members of what I call "the party of competence," whatever their political affiliation. The anguish of Iraq deepened that message, and the 2006 congressional elections codified it. But the Bush administration didn't get it. The purge at Justice came after the November election blowout. They acted as if they were still on a roll.
True to hypocritical form, believing the rules and rhetoric they spout to manipulate others shouldn't be or won't be measured against their own performance, Republican Washington is the mirror image of that which it campaigned against, and which existed only within the fever swamps of its own mind.
The Bush political operatives have become the people the Republicans once warned the country against -- a club of insiders who seem to think that they're better than other folks. They are so contemptuous of government and the public servants who populate it that they have been unable to govern effectively. They are a smug, inward-looking elite that thinks it knows who the good guys are by the political labels they wear.
(snip)
After Katrina, it became clear that the public wanted a change. Americans want to be confident that those in charge of the country's business are members of what I call "the party of competence," whatever their political affiliation. The anguish of Iraq deepened that message, and the 2006 congressional elections codified it. But the Bush administration didn't get it. The purge at Justice came after the November election blowout. They acted as if they were still on a roll.
True to hypocritical form, believing the rules and rhetoric they spout to manipulate others shouldn't be or won't be measured against their own performance, Republican Washington is the mirror image of that which it campaigned against, and which existed only within the fever swamps of its own mind.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Follow the Oil
The Bush Administration may not have a rubber stamp U.S. Congress anymore but that doesn't mean it and its corporate sponsors are lacking for things to do or political bodies to command. Consider Iraq, for instance. Yes, the country and its U.S. military occupiers are mired in a civil war, but amidst all the chaos, there is a government of sorts in Baghdad. And what sort of matters might that body be concerned with?
Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”
A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.
The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.
The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.
The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.
The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.
The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.
Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.
Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”
A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.
The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.
The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.
The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.
The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.
The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.
Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
An Audacious Endorsement (Part One)
A cynicism resulting from the disappointments of elections--and governments--past has made me hesitent about jumping on the bandwagon of any 2008 Democratic candidate too soon. Nevertheless, it hasn't taken long in this only recently initiated pre-primary season to assess the field and arrive at a point of clarity regarding the party's best candidate.
But before coming out of the not so hidden closet to reveal this candidate's identity, it's worth retreating a few steps to consider what exactly it is that Democratic voters should be looking for when choosing their next nominee and the country's next president.
1. Administrative Skill. At the top of the list, undoubtedly, is having someone who's unmistakeably up for the job; someone who can respond well to a crisis, can make good decisions, and can with some degree of expertise, survey the minutia of political drama and be able to ascertain and consistently maintain a vision of things and the country.
2. Political Values. Next to this, at least for us hyper-partisans, is someone who brings the right values to the position. For progressive/liberal Democrats, the ideals that come to mind are those relating to the preservation of fundamental civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of association, and the freedom of and need for an independent press); protecting the individual from the coercision and abuses of centralized power (church, business, and the state itself) through the enforcement of civil rights, consumer and worker safety, and labor (right to unionize) laws; and helping to ensure that the opportunities, benefits and prosperity of a free society are made available to all those who share with us the gift of humanity, and who by their support and contribution to that society, are entitled to its benefits--in other words, recognizing not just the visible movers and shakers, the privileged of our society, but all those who through their business consumption and civic association, participate in the affairs of the nation (which is all of us).
3. Communication Skills. Another attribute democrats and Democrats should look for in choosing their executive leadership is someone who can navigate the minefields of political opposition, particularly those with deep pockets or those having media and information control (and the likelihood that these political sources of power are frequently one and the same and bound up within single institutions). Can the candidate and presidential hopeful speak above the noise machine, and appeal directly to the mass public?
4. Paradigm Changing Aptitude. Finally, of especial importance for progressives, can the candidate fundamentally alter the country's political dynamics? Is, or can, he or she be a paradigm-buster?
5. Character. Is the candidate trustworthy, capable of exercising reason, and possessing of reasonably impeccable moral credentials?
With these qualifications and considerations in mind, it is clear to me that the best choice Democrats have is Barack Obama. The first term Illinois Senator of mixed racial heritage is not only the best choice this year, he may be the best choice Democrats have had in a generation, and maybe the most audacious candidate the party will have put forward ever.
In Part Two of this Audacious Endorsement, I will attempt to outline the reasons I believe this to be so.
But before coming out of the not so hidden closet to reveal this candidate's identity, it's worth retreating a few steps to consider what exactly it is that Democratic voters should be looking for when choosing their next nominee and the country's next president.
1. Administrative Skill. At the top of the list, undoubtedly, is having someone who's unmistakeably up for the job; someone who can respond well to a crisis, can make good decisions, and can with some degree of expertise, survey the minutia of political drama and be able to ascertain and consistently maintain a vision of things and the country.
2. Political Values. Next to this, at least for us hyper-partisans, is someone who brings the right values to the position. For progressive/liberal Democrats, the ideals that come to mind are those relating to the preservation of fundamental civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of association, and the freedom of and need for an independent press); protecting the individual from the coercision and abuses of centralized power (church, business, and the state itself) through the enforcement of civil rights, consumer and worker safety, and labor (right to unionize) laws; and helping to ensure that the opportunities, benefits and prosperity of a free society are made available to all those who share with us the gift of humanity, and who by their support and contribution to that society, are entitled to its benefits--in other words, recognizing not just the visible movers and shakers, the privileged of our society, but all those who through their business consumption and civic association, participate in the affairs of the nation (which is all of us).
3. Communication Skills. Another attribute democrats and Democrats should look for in choosing their executive leadership is someone who can navigate the minefields of political opposition, particularly those with deep pockets or those having media and information control (and the likelihood that these political sources of power are frequently one and the same and bound up within single institutions). Can the candidate and presidential hopeful speak above the noise machine, and appeal directly to the mass public?
4. Paradigm Changing Aptitude. Finally, of especial importance for progressives, can the candidate fundamentally alter the country's political dynamics? Is, or can, he or she be a paradigm-buster?
5. Character. Is the candidate trustworthy, capable of exercising reason, and possessing of reasonably impeccable moral credentials?
With these qualifications and considerations in mind, it is clear to me that the best choice Democrats have is Barack Obama. The first term Illinois Senator of mixed racial heritage is not only the best choice this year, he may be the best choice Democrats have had in a generation, and maybe the most audacious candidate the party will have put forward ever.
In Part Two of this Audacious Endorsement, I will attempt to outline the reasons I believe this to be so.
Friday, March 09, 2007
What We've Been Missing
The Shrill One:
For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.
The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.
Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.
In fact, it’s becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.
For now, the nation’s focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he “would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons.” But it’s already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons — some because they wouldn’t use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.
In the last few days we’ve also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.
The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.
Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.
How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: “We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.”
And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.”
Fortunately, Mr. Rove’s smear-and-fear tactics fell short last November. I say fortunately, because without Democrats in control of Congress, able to hold hearings and issue subpoenas, the prosecutor purge would probably have become yet another suppressed Bush-era scandal — a huge abuse of power that somehow never became front-page news.
Before the midterm election, I wrote that what the election was really about could be summed up in two words: subpoena power. Well, the Democrats now have that power, and the hearings on the prosecutor purge look like the shape of things to come.
In the months ahead, we’ll hear a lot about what’s really been going on these past six years. And I predict that we’ll learn about abuses of power that would have made Richard Nixon green with envy.
Of course, all of this investigatin' is terribly, hyperpartisan:
Meantime, the House, after a fast start rushing through noncontroversial items, has slowed to a crawl, filling time with investigations.
So, Wiseman David Broder says "investigations" are about "filling time". In other words, investigations are very UnSerious.
TPM:
What USAgate tells us? Without congressional oversight, bad acts never see the light of day.
For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.
The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.
Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.
In fact, it’s becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.
For now, the nation’s focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he “would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons.” But it’s already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons — some because they wouldn’t use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.
In the last few days we’ve also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.
The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.
Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.
How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: “We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.”
And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.”
Fortunately, Mr. Rove’s smear-and-fear tactics fell short last November. I say fortunately, because without Democrats in control of Congress, able to hold hearings and issue subpoenas, the prosecutor purge would probably have become yet another suppressed Bush-era scandal — a huge abuse of power that somehow never became front-page news.
Before the midterm election, I wrote that what the election was really about could be summed up in two words: subpoena power. Well, the Democrats now have that power, and the hearings on the prosecutor purge look like the shape of things to come.
In the months ahead, we’ll hear a lot about what’s really been going on these past six years. And I predict that we’ll learn about abuses of power that would have made Richard Nixon green with envy.
Of course, all of this investigatin' is terribly, hyperpartisan:
Meantime, the House, after a fast start rushing through noncontroversial items, has slowed to a crawl, filling time with investigations.
So, Wiseman David Broder says "investigations" are about "filling time". In other words, investigations are very UnSerious.
TPM:
What USAgate tells us? Without congressional oversight, bad acts never see the light of day.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Making Lemonade out of Lemons
George Will has a new op-ed out today, basically offering an apologia for the relatively non-conservative front-runners for the presidential nomination of the nation's more conservative party.
Most of the column is what you might expect: go easy on Rudy, McCain and Romney because Reagan wasn't a conservative purist while governor of Caleefornya in the '60's; all that really matters for conservatives is the court system, which Rudy, the liberal former mayor of New York City pledges to bolster with "strict constructivists"; Although wishy washy on tax cuts in the past, the new McCain is now committed to making Bush's estate tax and other tax cuts permanent and besides, his conservative scorecard is pretty good; and blah, blah, blah.
But Will's apologia for Romney is the most striking in its blatant disinterest in political principle:
Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience -- on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?
Yes, indeed. Although my head's still spinning from the endless right-wing spin about the need for and essentiality of "character" in our presidents during the Clinton '90's, and from the endless right-wing spin about Kerry flip-flopping not even three short years ago in the most recent presidential election cycle, Will now says that whether Romney's conservative conversion is "political calculation" or "moral epiphany" should not bother conservative primary voters, and presumably, neither should it trouble general election voters later on.
OK. Whatever.
Fortunately, for the first in many years, Democrats have two very good candidates in the race, and several other just "good" ones, from which to choose. Who will receive the much-coveted Senator Jay Billington Bulworth endorsement? You'll have to stay tuned. But for now, rest assured the choice will be an audacious one.
Most of the column is what you might expect: go easy on Rudy, McCain and Romney because Reagan wasn't a conservative purist while governor of Caleefornya in the '60's; all that really matters for conservatives is the court system, which Rudy, the liberal former mayor of New York City pledges to bolster with "strict constructivists"; Although wishy washy on tax cuts in the past, the new McCain is now committed to making Bush's estate tax and other tax cuts permanent and besides, his conservative scorecard is pretty good; and blah, blah, blah.
But Will's apologia for Romney is the most striking in its blatant disinterest in political principle:
Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience -- on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?
Yes, indeed. Although my head's still spinning from the endless right-wing spin about the need for and essentiality of "character" in our presidents during the Clinton '90's, and from the endless right-wing spin about Kerry flip-flopping not even three short years ago in the most recent presidential election cycle, Will now says that whether Romney's conservative conversion is "political calculation" or "moral epiphany" should not bother conservative primary voters, and presumably, neither should it trouble general election voters later on.
OK. Whatever.
Fortunately, for the first in many years, Democrats have two very good candidates in the race, and several other just "good" ones, from which to choose. Who will receive the much-coveted Senator Jay Billington Bulworth endorsement? You'll have to stay tuned. But for now, rest assured the choice will be an audacious one.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Focus on your own family
Harold Meyerson:
Yet the very conservatives who marvel at the efficiency of our new, more mobile economy and extol the "flexibility" of our workforce decry the flexibility of the personal lives of American workers. The right-wing ideologues who have championed outsourcing, offshoring and union-busting, who have celebrated the same changes that have condemned American workers to lives of financial instability, piously lament the decline of family stability that has followed these economic changes as the night the day.
American conservatism is a house divided against itself. It applauds the radicalism of the economic changes of the past four decades -- the dismantling, say, of the American steel industry (and the job and income security that it once provided) in the cause of greater efficiency. It decries the decline of social and familial stability over that time -- the traditional, married working-class families, say, that once filled all those churches in the hills and hollows in what is now the smaller, post-working-class Pittsburgh.
Problem is, disperse a vibrant working-class community in America and you disperse the vibrant working-class family.
Which is how American conservatism became the primary author of the very social disorder that it routinely rails against, and that Republicans have the gall to run against.
Yet the very conservatives who marvel at the efficiency of our new, more mobile economy and extol the "flexibility" of our workforce decry the flexibility of the personal lives of American workers. The right-wing ideologues who have championed outsourcing, offshoring and union-busting, who have celebrated the same changes that have condemned American workers to lives of financial instability, piously lament the decline of family stability that has followed these economic changes as the night the day.
American conservatism is a house divided against itself. It applauds the radicalism of the economic changes of the past four decades -- the dismantling, say, of the American steel industry (and the job and income security that it once provided) in the cause of greater efficiency. It decries the decline of social and familial stability over that time -- the traditional, married working-class families, say, that once filled all those churches in the hills and hollows in what is now the smaller, post-working-class Pittsburgh.
Problem is, disperse a vibrant working-class community in America and you disperse the vibrant working-class family.
Which is how American conservatism became the primary author of the very social disorder that it routinely rails against, and that Republicans have the gall to run against.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
You ought to be happy, you liberal SOBs, that I am only a talk-show host. You ought to thank God that I have no avariciousness in my soul. You ought to thank God that I'm not power mad like you liberals, because if I ever ran for office, I can guarantee you, you wouldn't be in business too long. I can guarantee you you'd be arrested for sedition within six months of my taking power. I'd have you people licking lead paint, what you did to this country.
----------
Conservative Talk Show Host, Michael Savage
He may be a bit, um, unhinged, but if you'll pony up two million more signatures, he'll run for president. (h/t Atrios)
Did You Get That Memo?
Talking Points Memo has been covering the "fired prosecutors" hearing on Capitol Hill.
An enterprising commenter notes that one of the fired prosecutors apparently failed to put cover letters on his TPS reports.
Should've known. That'll get ya every time.
An enterprising commenter notes that one of the fired prosecutors apparently failed to put cover letters on his TPS reports.
Should've known. That'll get ya every time.
"Where are these other guys?"
The jurors who convicted I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby believed Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff was set up as a fall guy, a juror said Tuesday, but they had no alternative to finding him guilty in the leak of the identity of a classified CIA operative.
“I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,” said the juror, Dennis Collins, a former newspaper reporter.
“It was said a number of times: ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ ” Collins said, referring to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who was identified during the investigation as one of the senior officials who revealed the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame, to journalists.
-------
Where are these other guys? In the White House I think.
“I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,” said the juror, Dennis Collins, a former newspaper reporter.
“It was said a number of times: ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ ” Collins said, referring to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who was identified during the investigation as one of the senior officials who revealed the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame, to journalists.
-------
Where are these other guys? In the White House I think.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Lame Duck
Although Ann Coulter was warmly received, there apparently wasn't much mention of the CiC at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) festivities.
From the Sydney Morning Herald (h/p TPM);
There was a lot of fervour and a lot of talk of recapturing the spirit of Ronald Reagan, by consensus the greatest of US presidents. Young men and women who would have been babies during the Reagan presidency talked in small groups about America becoming great again if only conservatives would go back to basics, back to Reagan's emphasis on American strength and American greatness.
But what was most striking about this conservative jamboree was that President George Bush was hardly mentioned. The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, gave the speech at the official dinner on Friday night and, at the conference at least, Cheney remains a hero.
Not so, it seems, the President. Not only was there hardly any mention of his name, but there were no photographs of Bush on display - and everyone from Cheney to the disgraced former House majority leader Tom Delay received their photographic due.
As for the Iraq war, it was virtually ignored. Giuliani and Romney both half-heartedly said they supported the Bush troop increase and then they both quickly went on to say mistakes had been made in Iraq. That was more or less it.
Conservatives know who the villains are - Clinton and Obama and Gore and the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi - but who their heroes are is far from clear. Except that George Bush is no longer one of them.
And Tom Schaller:
I attended CPAC today to hear two of the "big three" Republican contenders (Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) and one of the second-tier candidates who hopes to break through (Sam Brownback). I'll say more about them, especially Giuliani, later. But some quick observations about CPAC that simply need to be noted.
First, you almost never George W. Bush's name. Not among attendees, not in the speeches by candidates or others. It's as if there is no Republican president in the White House about three miles from the hotel where the conservatives who elected him are meeting. Fascinating, and revealing.
Second, it's also as if there's no war in Iraq. By my unofficial count, Giuliani mentioned Iraq just once by name -- and that in an offhand reference to a criticism of Democrats' non-binding resolutions. (A fair enough criticism, at that.) Brownback? Two references. Romney mentioned Iraq the most, taking it head-on by advocating for Bush's escalation plan. At CPAC, such Bush-and-Iraq double-mentions are as common as safeties in football.)
It's painfully obvious that conservatives are in near-total denial. There is a Republican president, and he is -- as everyone from The New Republic's Peter Beinart a few weeks ago to then-Washington Monthly's Josh Green a few years ago -- more, not less, conservative than Ronald Reagan. And there is an Iraq war going on, which has killed 4,000 Americans (counting contractors) already and will almost assuredly have a total, long-term price tag of at least $1 trillion.
Pretending these are not realities doesn't make them go away. But, boy, are the conservatives doing their level best to avoid the two big elephants in the room.
Who'd a thunk it? W and Operation Iraqi Freedom were once endless sources of pride for the conservative faithful. I wonder why that's changed. At least they still have Ann Coulter.
From the Sydney Morning Herald (h/p TPM);
There was a lot of fervour and a lot of talk of recapturing the spirit of Ronald Reagan, by consensus the greatest of US presidents. Young men and women who would have been babies during the Reagan presidency talked in small groups about America becoming great again if only conservatives would go back to basics, back to Reagan's emphasis on American strength and American greatness.
But what was most striking about this conservative jamboree was that President George Bush was hardly mentioned. The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, gave the speech at the official dinner on Friday night and, at the conference at least, Cheney remains a hero.
Not so, it seems, the President. Not only was there hardly any mention of his name, but there were no photographs of Bush on display - and everyone from Cheney to the disgraced former House majority leader Tom Delay received their photographic due.
As for the Iraq war, it was virtually ignored. Giuliani and Romney both half-heartedly said they supported the Bush troop increase and then they both quickly went on to say mistakes had been made in Iraq. That was more or less it.
Conservatives know who the villains are - Clinton and Obama and Gore and the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi - but who their heroes are is far from clear. Except that George Bush is no longer one of them.
And Tom Schaller:
I attended CPAC today to hear two of the "big three" Republican contenders (Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) and one of the second-tier candidates who hopes to break through (Sam Brownback). I'll say more about them, especially Giuliani, later. But some quick observations about CPAC that simply need to be noted.
First, you almost never George W. Bush's name. Not among attendees, not in the speeches by candidates or others. It's as if there is no Republican president in the White House about three miles from the hotel where the conservatives who elected him are meeting. Fascinating, and revealing.
Second, it's also as if there's no war in Iraq. By my unofficial count, Giuliani mentioned Iraq just once by name -- and that in an offhand reference to a criticism of Democrats' non-binding resolutions. (A fair enough criticism, at that.) Brownback? Two references. Romney mentioned Iraq the most, taking it head-on by advocating for Bush's escalation plan. At CPAC, such Bush-and-Iraq double-mentions are as common as safeties in football.)
It's painfully obvious that conservatives are in near-total denial. There is a Republican president, and he is -- as everyone from The New Republic's Peter Beinart a few weeks ago to then-Washington Monthly's Josh Green a few years ago -- more, not less, conservative than Ronald Reagan. And there is an Iraq war going on, which has killed 4,000 Americans (counting contractors) already and will almost assuredly have a total, long-term price tag of at least $1 trillion.
Pretending these are not realities doesn't make them go away. But, boy, are the conservatives doing their level best to avoid the two big elephants in the room.
Who'd a thunk it? W and Operation Iraqi Freedom were once endless sources of pride for the conservative faithful. I wonder why that's changed. At least they still have Ann Coulter.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Lose Your Senate Seat, Get an Op-Ed Column
Michael Tomasky and David Sirota are flabbergasted that Rick Santorum, the Pittsburgh-bred, former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who lost his fight for re-election last fall by Reagan-landslide proportions and who now lives in VA, is being handed a platform for his views by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the newspaper for a city that voted 84-16 against Santorum just four short months ago. It's about as god-awful goofy as inviting some liberal Senator from a big city to write an op-ed for a small-town, regular American newspaper.
But I don't find this surprising at all. For one thing, teh Republic Party is popular. It's the president's party after all. B, the media is liberal; hence the need for outspoken conservative voices, which we are in dire need of today when our country faces existential challenges from radical Islamicists. III, Santorum was recently selected to head up an important new program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a non-partisan, Opus Dei Catholic, neoconservative "think tank" in Washington, D.C., our nation's capital. The important new program will be known as America's Enemies. According to the Center's webpage, America's Enemies will
work to identify, study, and heighten awareness of the threats to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces and states that increasingly cast a shadow over our future and that violate religious liberty around the world.
And it isn't just the Islamacistics we have to worry about either.
“It’s a stark name,” says Santorum. “But we wanted to be candid about the fact that America really does have enemies and to point out that the nature of these enemies is much more complex than what people realize. It’s not just Islamic fascism, but also Venezuela, North Korea, and, increasingly in my opinion, Russia.”
So, it's clear that without any radio stations to speak of, and no cable teevee stations from which to carry their vital message, and unfairly under-represented in the nation's capital, today's conservatives are vastly marginalized in the media and government. In this environment, it's only fitting that a defeated standard bearer be granted a podium on behalf of teh Republic Party. This is especially true when the subject is America's Enemies. The only problem I see so far is a reluctance on the part of the former Senator to direct his and his Center's energies at the full range of America's Enemies--namely American Liberals, Old Europe and other traitors among the renegade injured soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital who have been opening their yaps to the liberal media.
Maybe the former Pennsylvania Senator who only won 16% of the vote in the city of the newspaper for which he'll now be writing will be quick to link up with the Victory Caucus, another new ideological juggernaut of patriotism and chicken-hawkism that is aiming its rhetorical weapons at America's internal enemiesm, rather than its foreign enemies who after all, live really far away and speak other languages. And since he gets to stay in the city he used to work in, Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, he'll benefit from the presence of one of his former Senate colleagues, Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who could give him some tips about getting guest gigs at the Wall Street Journal and who might also encourage Santorum to link up with one of Joe's favorite outfits, the Committee on the Present Danger.
Anyway, with a little more thoughtful, civil consideration, I'm sure Michael Tomasky, David Sirota, and other mean liberals will welcome the former Senator to the liberal media kingdom. Even if he is from western Pennsylvania, now lives in VA, works in Washington, D.C. and will publish in a Philadelphia newspaper.
But I don't find this surprising at all. For one thing, teh Republic Party is popular. It's the president's party after all. B, the media is liberal; hence the need for outspoken conservative voices, which we are in dire need of today when our country faces existential challenges from radical Islamicists. III, Santorum was recently selected to head up an important new program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a non-partisan, Opus Dei Catholic, neoconservative "think tank" in Washington, D.C., our nation's capital. The important new program will be known as America's Enemies. According to the Center's webpage, America's Enemies will
work to identify, study, and heighten awareness of the threats to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces and states that increasingly cast a shadow over our future and that violate religious liberty around the world.
And it isn't just the Islamacistics we have to worry about either.
“It’s a stark name,” says Santorum. “But we wanted to be candid about the fact that America really does have enemies and to point out that the nature of these enemies is much more complex than what people realize. It’s not just Islamic fascism, but also Venezuela, North Korea, and, increasingly in my opinion, Russia.”
So, it's clear that without any radio stations to speak of, and no cable teevee stations from which to carry their vital message, and unfairly under-represented in the nation's capital, today's conservatives are vastly marginalized in the media and government. In this environment, it's only fitting that a defeated standard bearer be granted a podium on behalf of teh Republic Party. This is especially true when the subject is America's Enemies. The only problem I see so far is a reluctance on the part of the former Senator to direct his and his Center's energies at the full range of America's Enemies--namely American Liberals, Old Europe and other traitors among the renegade injured soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital who have been opening their yaps to the liberal media.
Maybe the former Pennsylvania Senator who only won 16% of the vote in the city of the newspaper for which he'll now be writing will be quick to link up with the Victory Caucus, another new ideological juggernaut of patriotism and chicken-hawkism that is aiming its rhetorical weapons at America's internal enemiesm, rather than its foreign enemies who after all, live really far away and speak other languages. And since he gets to stay in the city he used to work in, Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, he'll benefit from the presence of one of his former Senate colleagues, Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who could give him some tips about getting guest gigs at the Wall Street Journal and who might also encourage Santorum to link up with one of Joe's favorite outfits, the Committee on the Present Danger.
Anyway, with a little more thoughtful, civil consideration, I'm sure Michael Tomasky, David Sirota, and other mean liberals will welcome the former Senator to the liberal media kingdom. Even if he is from western Pennsylvania, now lives in VA, works in Washington, D.C. and will publish in a Philadelphia newspaper.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
No Access For You
TPM points to this report in the Army Times that the soldiers at Walter Reed have been told by the brass to stop talking to the press regarding conditions at the hospital, the status of their medical evaluation paper work, and one presumes, anything else of substance.
But it also appears that recovering soldiers at Walter Reed won't be encountering any media anyway. The AT report says that--
The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,” referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed.
So, a media that hasn't been able or willing in most cases to do its job holding the government accountable, is now being super-double secret probation stifled from investigating how the military and this administration treats its injured vets.
Perfect.
But it also appears that recovering soldiers at Walter Reed won't be encountering any media anyway. The AT report says that--
The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,” referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed.
So, a media that hasn't been able or willing in most cases to do its job holding the government accountable, is now being super-double secret probation stifled from investigating how the military and this administration treats its injured vets.
Perfect.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Why Our News Media Sucks
Ezra Klein
Why Punditry Sucks in 96
This is nothing personal to Jonah, but why is he going on NPR today to talk about global warming? Does he actually, uh, know anything about global warming? Forget whether his opinion on it is accurate, given the universe of possible participants in a debate about climatological science, a generalist political journalist from The National Review doesn't sound like the most enlightening choice. Indeed, I shouldn't be on talking about global warming either. Not only haven't I read, but I can't even understand, most of the scientific literature on the issue. NPR's listeners deserve better.
This is, in fact, a pretty generalized problem. I was on CNBC recently talking about the President's health care proposals, and not only did the host have no clue what she was talking about, but the generic political consultant I was matched against was similarly out of his element. The difference between a standard deduction and a tax credit seemed totally misunderstood, and no one had any clue what reform plans were floating around Congress. It was embarrassing. There's no way the audience was elevated by that discussion. And yet, these shows can attract experts. And they can choose journalists, non-profiteers, and others who focus in the relevant issue area. But all too often, they just choose...anybody. Balance overwhelms expertise, media skills -- a function of being repeatedly broadcast on the media -- trump analytical ones. It's a shame.
Why Punditry Sucks in 96
This is nothing personal to Jonah, but why is he going on NPR today to talk about global warming? Does he actually, uh, know anything about global warming? Forget whether his opinion on it is accurate, given the universe of possible participants in a debate about climatological science, a generalist political journalist from The National Review doesn't sound like the most enlightening choice. Indeed, I shouldn't be on talking about global warming either. Not only haven't I read, but I can't even understand, most of the scientific literature on the issue. NPR's listeners deserve better.
This is, in fact, a pretty generalized problem. I was on CNBC recently talking about the President's health care proposals, and not only did the host have no clue what she was talking about, but the generic political consultant I was matched against was similarly out of his element. The difference between a standard deduction and a tax credit seemed totally misunderstood, and no one had any clue what reform plans were floating around Congress. It was embarrassing. There's no way the audience was elevated by that discussion. And yet, these shows can attract experts. And they can choose journalists, non-profiteers, and others who focus in the relevant issue area. But all too often, they just choose...anybody. Balance overwhelms expertise, media skills -- a function of being repeatedly broadcast on the media -- trump analytical ones. It's a shame.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Uh, we got a little problem here. Yeah (Updated)
Seems you totally fabricated that Lincoln quote. Yeah.
Glenn Greenwald: (subscription required)
Frank Gaffney, one of the country's most influential and well-connected neoconservatives, has a column in today's Washington Times in which he argues that the debate taking place in Congress over the war in Iraq constitutes treason. Gaffney specifically argues that the condemnations of Douglas Feith from Levin "really should be a hanging offense."
Gaffney begins his column by purporting to quote Abraham Lincoln. Gaffney claims that Lincoln said:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
This quote has become a favorite weapon for those who want to criminalize criticism of the Leader and the War. Jack Murtha's opponent in the last election, Diana Irey, cited this quote while discussing Murtha's opposition to the war.
But this quote is completely invented. Lincoln never said it. This "quote" was first attributed to Lincoln by J. Michael Waller in Insight Magazine, in a 2003 article revealingly entitled: Democrats Usher in an Age of Treason. But as Waller himself now admits, the quote attributed to Lincoln is completely fraudulent. Waller wrote in an e-mail to FactCheck.org (h/t William Wolfrum):
The supposed quote in question is not a quote at all, and I never intended it to be construed as one. It was my lead sentence in the article that a copy editor mistakenly turned into a quote by incorrectly inserting quotation marks.
It was Waller, in The Washington Times' Insight Magazine, urging that anti-war Congressmen be hanged -- not Abraham Lincoln. But to justify their plainly un-American assault on our most basic constitutional liberties, neoconservatives like Gaffney simply invent quotes, attribute them to Abraham Lincoln, and continue to use them long after they have been debunked.
(snip)
UPDATE III: It is notable that the Gaffney Op-Ed still remains unchanged, with no retraction or acknowledgment of error. It seems highly likely (though admittedly not definite) that The Washington Times is now aware of the fictitious nature of the Lincoln quote. Multiple readers here have indicated that they sent e-mails to the Times. I also called the Times and left a voice mail message (a couple of hours ago) for Commentary Page Editor Mary Lou Forbes, detailing the error and directing her to this post as well other sources for finding the proof that the quote is fake. And yet, the quote remains.
UPDATE IV: I spoke with Mary Lou Forbes, the Commentary Page Editor of the Times, who said that she contacted Gaffney about the e-mails she received and that he has now confirmed that the quote is fictitious. Forbes said Gaffney intends to "run a correction at the bottom of his next column."
When I pointed out that this did not really seem to be a sufficient correction, and suggested that they ought at least to append a correction to the top of the online version, she said that she had not thought of that -- pointing out that she was "an old print journalist" -- but said that perhaps it was a good idea and that they might do that.
-------
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Yeah. We'll get right on that. Yeah, our columnist lied through his keyboard and we haven't corrected it. But there's really no problem. Yeah.
--------
Update: the link to the inflammatory Gaffney "column" is now directing web surfers to an equally proposterous but older Gaffney column from February 6, but his most recent column leading with the bogus Abe Lincoln quote isn't showing up. Don't know if it has just been moved or if rather than correcting the record the paper's website has just decided to delete the stupid thing altogether.
"Weak is as weak does"
At TAPPED Tom Schaller says
One more, non-Post observation: Peter Beinart makes an interesting case that weakness (thought of in the sense of the most basic stereotypical gender norms) is, ironically, more of an asset today than it was back in 2002. Still, weakness is as weakness does. And the 2002 war vote, instead of making her look tough on defense, makes Hillary look like somebody too weak to stand up to a president and, thus, perhaps, too weak to be one. [emphasis mine-SJB)
I don't think the issue of "weakness" and the 2002 Iraq war vote was a matter of not being able to stand up to the president.
The issue was the member's voting calculation in light of media pressure and their own presidential ambitions amidst a time of fear and war-mongering. To the extent a Senate member's "yes" vote on the war was driven more by these calculations than their own independent judgment, then that member in my view demonstrated a profound "weakness" in their vote.
One more, non-Post observation: Peter Beinart makes an interesting case that weakness (thought of in the sense of the most basic stereotypical gender norms) is, ironically, more of an asset today than it was back in 2002. Still, weakness is as weakness does. And the 2002 war vote, instead of making her look tough on defense, makes Hillary look like somebody too weak to stand up to a president and, thus, perhaps, too weak to be one. [emphasis mine-SJB)
I don't think the issue of "weakness" and the 2002 Iraq war vote was a matter of not being able to stand up to the president.
The issue was the member's voting calculation in light of media pressure and their own presidential ambitions amidst a time of fear and war-mongering. To the extent a Senate member's "yes" vote on the war was driven more by these calculations than their own independent judgment, then that member in my view demonstrated a profound "weakness" in their vote.
Tim "I Hate Gay People" Hardaway: Just Shut Up
Well, maybe he doesn't really 'hate' gay people. Maybe he meant to say he 'hates' the sin but not the sinner.
Listening to his remarks on ESPN's Mike and Mike this morning I first thought the person speaking was mimicking what a person who hates gays would say; It sounded like a caricature of someone speaking, not the real comments of a sane, humane person.
Listening to his remarks on ESPN's Mike and Mike this morning I first thought the person speaking was mimicking what a person who hates gays would say; It sounded like a caricature of someone speaking, not the real comments of a sane, humane person.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Our Media Stenographers
I was milling around on the Internets last night when a headline scrolled across the top of my screen that said something like "Ant-American Cleric Flees to Iran". When I clicked on the link, the story told me that the "anti-American cleric" in question was Al-Sadr, one of the most influential Shiite leaders in Iraq.
Wow, I thought, this has to be considered good news, right? Highly interested in this development, I surfed the liberal swamp of dirty, commie hippy web-blogs for further info but no one had anything to say yet, given how recent the story appeared to be. Even Juan Cole hadn't reported or analyzed this report yet.
Then this morning I see a headline that provides a twist to last night's original account. Now the headline was saying that the U.S. military was asserting that Al-Sadr had indeed fled to Iran even though there were now some counter-reports disputing this claim.
Oh.
And then I turn to Juan Cole who had by this time gotten on the story.
And it seems that, with a little depth of investigating, things may be a little more complicated than they at first appeared:
This USG report about Muqtada broke after midnight Baghdad time, so there has not been time for the Arabic or Persian press to react. I'll know more Thursday morning.
Sadr aides denied to the LA Times that Muqtada is in Iran, saying he is in hiding in Iraq.
Some are taking exception to the word "fled."
The press record I assembled, below, does not support Muqtada's disappearance to Iran. It is possible but not likely that Muqtada would go to Iran. He and his family have endlessly made fun of the al-Hakim clerical leaders for fleeing to Iran to escape persecution by Saddam Hussein, when the al-Sadrs insisted on staying in Iraq. Muqtada's father was killed in 1999 by Saddam's agents because he stayed and gave defiant sermons. So it would be a lot of crow to eat for Muqtada to go to Iran to escape the Americans. Plus, there is nothing in the Iranian press about him showing up in Qom, and an Iranian diplomat denied the story. Without more and better evidence, this account strikes me as suspect, and I would guess that if Muqtada disappeared, it is inside Iraq.
It might be useful to construct a timeline for Muqtada's recent activities.
Read the whole thing.
Aren't you glad there are people besides the Very Serious People in our Media Elite to evaluate this kind of stuff?
Wow, I thought, this has to be considered good news, right? Highly interested in this development, I surfed the liberal swamp of dirty, commie hippy web-blogs for further info but no one had anything to say yet, given how recent the story appeared to be. Even Juan Cole hadn't reported or analyzed this report yet.
Then this morning I see a headline that provides a twist to last night's original account. Now the headline was saying that the U.S. military was asserting that Al-Sadr had indeed fled to Iran even though there were now some counter-reports disputing this claim.
Oh.
And then I turn to Juan Cole who had by this time gotten on the story.
And it seems that, with a little depth of investigating, things may be a little more complicated than they at first appeared:
This USG report about Muqtada broke after midnight Baghdad time, so there has not been time for the Arabic or Persian press to react. I'll know more Thursday morning.
Sadr aides denied to the LA Times that Muqtada is in Iran, saying he is in hiding in Iraq.
Some are taking exception to the word "fled."
The press record I assembled, below, does not support Muqtada's disappearance to Iran. It is possible but not likely that Muqtada would go to Iran. He and his family have endlessly made fun of the al-Hakim clerical leaders for fleeing to Iran to escape persecution by Saddam Hussein, when the al-Sadrs insisted on staying in Iraq. Muqtada's father was killed in 1999 by Saddam's agents because he stayed and gave defiant sermons. So it would be a lot of crow to eat for Muqtada to go to Iran to escape the Americans. Plus, there is nothing in the Iranian press about him showing up in Qom, and an Iranian diplomat denied the story. Without more and better evidence, this account strikes me as suspect, and I would guess that if Muqtada disappeared, it is inside Iraq.
It might be useful to construct a timeline for Muqtada's recent activities.
Read the whole thing.
Aren't you glad there are people besides the Very Serious People in our Media Elite to evaluate this kind of stuff?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Off to a Good Start
So Obama went live this weekend, with thousands of Illini and other fans and interested observers packing the Illinois state-house lawn in Springfield in single-digit weather to hear the first-term Senator launch his bid for the WH.
And to cap it all off, it appears Obama has signed on Australian PM John Howard to support his campaign. How else to explain this perfect set-up? (h/t Atrios)
Senator Obama, who is aiming to become the first black US president, has introduced a bill to remove US combat forces from Iraq by March 31 next year.
But the legislation has virtually no chance of becoming law while George W. Bush is president, and the presidential election is not until November 2008.
Australia's Prime Minister John Howard blasted Senator Obama's policy on the Iraq war and said al-Qaeda would "be praying as many times as possible for a victory for not only Obama but also for the Democrats".
And just so you don't think Obama's all bland platitudes and bipartisanship, he took the opportunity provided by Howard's challenge to layeth the smacketh down, the Chicago Way:
"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," [Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs] said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Damn. Wonder how much the Obama campaign paid Howard to serve up that softball.
Next?
Bring it on.
And to cap it all off, it appears Obama has signed on Australian PM John Howard to support his campaign. How else to explain this perfect set-up? (h/t Atrios)
Senator Obama, who is aiming to become the first black US president, has introduced a bill to remove US combat forces from Iraq by March 31 next year.
But the legislation has virtually no chance of becoming law while George W. Bush is president, and the presidential election is not until November 2008.
Australia's Prime Minister John Howard blasted Senator Obama's policy on the Iraq war and said al-Qaeda would "be praying as many times as possible for a victory for not only Obama but also for the Democrats".
And just so you don't think Obama's all bland platitudes and bipartisanship, he took the opportunity provided by Howard's challenge to layeth the smacketh down, the Chicago Way:
"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," [Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs] said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Damn. Wonder how much the Obama campaign paid Howard to serve up that softball.
Next?
Bring it on.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Pretty Weak
John Edwards today
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
And therefore....?????
It sounds like Edwards is keeping them on but took them to the woodshed in agreeing to do so.
Democrats need to learn how Republicans "apologize": issue a non-apology-apology that attacks the messenger. Edwards needed to do an "up-yours" here, and whiffed.
While I'm glad that Amanda and Melissa were not thrown overboard for the sake of a balding, pompous, in-your-face loudmouth who I can only describe as thoroughly contemptible, this just won't cut it. The Bill Donahue's of the world are bullies who need to be cut down to size.
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
And therefore....?????
It sounds like Edwards is keeping them on but took them to the woodshed in agreeing to do so.
Democrats need to learn how Republicans "apologize": issue a non-apology-apology that attacks the messenger. Edwards needed to do an "up-yours" here, and whiffed.
While I'm glad that Amanda and Melissa were not thrown overboard for the sake of a balding, pompous, in-your-face loudmouth who I can only describe as thoroughly contemptible, this just won't cut it. The Bill Donahue's of the world are bullies who need to be cut down to size.
Is "The Catholic League" an Astro-Turf Group?
From AmericaBlog
Check out who this "Catholic group" is affiliated with.
Members of the Catholic League's board of advisers include conservative author and media analyst L. Brent Bozell III; conservative radio host and syndicated columnist Linda Chavez; right-wing pundit and author Dinesh D'Souza; former Republican presidential and senatorial candidate Alan Keyes; and National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne.
Yeah, some Catholic group. It reads like the board of the Heritage Foundation.
So what really happened here is that the Associated Press got a call from a bunch of conservative longtime Republican party activists criticizing a lead Democratic candidate, but didn't suspect a partisan motive, and didn't bother informing its readers.
---------
And among Bill Donahue's greatest hits list are
Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the messiah. Hollywood likes anal sex.
I don't know what about -- the queer-bashing is all about. I'm pretty good about picking out who queers are and I didn't see any in the movie. I'm usually pretty good at that.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue said lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly" when he spoke to Justice Sunday, a gathering of far-right evangelical Christian activists.
h/t to AmericaBlog and Atrios for the above gems. Keep 'em comin'.
Meanwhile, the Edwards campaign still hasn't said what it intends to do regarding the employment of Amanda and Melissa. There are, however, already a number of diaries on the Edwards website imploring the campaign not to let the right-wing determine its personnel policies or its policies period.
What's worse is, apparently Donahue's astro-turf hate group has punked the Democrats before, as recently as 2004 when Edwards was the VP nominee:
A more recent -- and relevant -- example was when the Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign pushed aside the DNC's religious outreach coordinator in response to pressure from -- wait for it -- Bill Donohue's Catholic League. The National Catholic Reporter's 2004 assessment of that situation:
The Kerry campaign has a gang-that-can’t-shoot-straight quality when it comes to outreach to the religious community, the net result of which is that they hurt their friends and give credibility to their critics.
The August 4 resignation of Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson from her post as Director of Religious Outreach at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the most recent example. Soon after her appointment, the New York-based Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights revealed that Peterson had joined 31 other religious leaders in filing a friend of the court brief in support of removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. (Kerry, by the way, supports keeping “under God” in the Pledge.)
Officially Peterson jumped, telling Religious News Service that it was “no longer possible for me to do my job effectively.” But it sure sounds like she was pushed.
Previously, the Kerry campaign silenced religious outreach coordinator Mara Vanderslice after the Catholic League issued press releases which labeled her soft on anti-Catholicism because she had engaged in civil disobedience with, among others, the AIDS activist organization, Act-UP.
Perhaps the DNC and the Kerry campaign should have never hired Peterson or Vanderslice. And, God knows, there’s truth to the idea that Kerry doesn’t need more distractions related to religion. But to give the press-release-machine of the Catholic League veto power over Democratic campaign staff strikes some as, at best, an overreaction; to others, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the Catholic community and its influential players.
No one who signs up for a presidential campaign should be surprised if they get turned into an issue, and no one hiring people for such a campaign should be surprised if staffers get attacked. That's how things roll. Also: No one should be surprised that Donohue is again creating a controversy about a Democratic staffer, since it worked out so well for him just two and a half years ago. The issue is whether Democrats can figure out how to fight off such attacks.
In the meantime, why not drop the Edwards campaign a line supporting Amanda and Melissa, and letting the campaign know if it doesn't already, who the person is who's demanding the campaign bow to its wishes.
Check out who this "Catholic group" is affiliated with.
Members of the Catholic League's board of advisers include conservative author and media analyst L. Brent Bozell III; conservative radio host and syndicated columnist Linda Chavez; right-wing pundit and author Dinesh D'Souza; former Republican presidential and senatorial candidate Alan Keyes; and National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne.
Yeah, some Catholic group. It reads like the board of the Heritage Foundation.
So what really happened here is that the Associated Press got a call from a bunch of conservative longtime Republican party activists criticizing a lead Democratic candidate, but didn't suspect a partisan motive, and didn't bother informing its readers.
---------
And among Bill Donahue's greatest hits list are
Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the messiah. Hollywood likes anal sex.
I don't know what about -- the queer-bashing is all about. I'm pretty good about picking out who queers are and I didn't see any in the movie. I'm usually pretty good at that.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue said lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly" when he spoke to Justice Sunday, a gathering of far-right evangelical Christian activists.
h/t to AmericaBlog and Atrios for the above gems. Keep 'em comin'.
Meanwhile, the Edwards campaign still hasn't said what it intends to do regarding the employment of Amanda and Melissa. There are, however, already a number of diaries on the Edwards website imploring the campaign not to let the right-wing determine its personnel policies or its policies period.
What's worse is, apparently Donahue's astro-turf hate group has punked the Democrats before, as recently as 2004 when Edwards was the VP nominee:
A more recent -- and relevant -- example was when the Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign pushed aside the DNC's religious outreach coordinator in response to pressure from -- wait for it -- Bill Donohue's Catholic League. The National Catholic Reporter's 2004 assessment of that situation:
The Kerry campaign has a gang-that-can’t-shoot-straight quality when it comes to outreach to the religious community, the net result of which is that they hurt their friends and give credibility to their critics.
The August 4 resignation of Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson from her post as Director of Religious Outreach at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the most recent example. Soon after her appointment, the New York-based Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights revealed that Peterson had joined 31 other religious leaders in filing a friend of the court brief in support of removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. (Kerry, by the way, supports keeping “under God” in the Pledge.)
Officially Peterson jumped, telling Religious News Service that it was “no longer possible for me to do my job effectively.” But it sure sounds like she was pushed.
Previously, the Kerry campaign silenced religious outreach coordinator Mara Vanderslice after the Catholic League issued press releases which labeled her soft on anti-Catholicism because she had engaged in civil disobedience with, among others, the AIDS activist organization, Act-UP.
Perhaps the DNC and the Kerry campaign should have never hired Peterson or Vanderslice. And, God knows, there’s truth to the idea that Kerry doesn’t need more distractions related to religion. But to give the press-release-machine of the Catholic League veto power over Democratic campaign staff strikes some as, at best, an overreaction; to others, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the Catholic community and its influential players.
No one who signs up for a presidential campaign should be surprised if they get turned into an issue, and no one hiring people for such a campaign should be surprised if staffers get attacked. That's how things roll. Also: No one should be surprised that Donohue is again creating a controversy about a Democratic staffer, since it worked out so well for him just two and a half years ago. The issue is whether Democrats can figure out how to fight off such attacks.
In the meantime, why not drop the Edwards campaign a line supporting Amanda and Melissa, and letting the campaign know if it doesn't already, who the person is who's demanding the campaign bow to its wishes.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
How Does This Stuff Get Printed?
Several people have already commented on the David Broder column in which he repeats Republican talking points about Democrats and the military. Here is the money paragraph in what is otherwise a rather vanilla "I'm mailin' this in" article:
One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military. The larger disaster was the long harangue of former Alaska senator Mike Gravel, a strident critic of almost everything and promoter of a folly -- a national initiative process -- that not even a deranged blogger could love. Someone has to give him the hook before the real debates begin.
So, "few" in this Democratic crowd have much "experience" with the military? What kind of ass-clown do you have to be to type this and not be struck by the ludicrous irony; I mean how many times do we keep having to go to the well and report the fact that among Democratics in Congress, for starters, a far greater share of them have military "experience" than their Republican colleagues? And, um, how about those brave souls sitting in the WH who have no trouble sending other people's kids off to war but couldn't find time themselves to serve when there was a war going on in their prime-war years, and when there was a draft no less?
Broder used to be a "journalist". In the old days that involved, you know, investigating and stuff about what was going on. Today, all J-school grads have to do is go to Google. Apparently Broder feels himself beyond the need to stoop to such low levels of drudgery.
And then he references someone I've never heard of, Mike Gravel, and his apparently loony idea of a national initiative process, which, as Broder summarizes, is so goofy that not even a "deranged blogger" could love it. WTF?
Meanwhile, I'm sure Broder continues to think that Very Serious people like Joe Lieberman and John McCain are Still Serious and constitute the only people who's ideas are worth offering the public.
Yes, we're deranged alright.
One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military. The larger disaster was the long harangue of former Alaska senator Mike Gravel, a strident critic of almost everything and promoter of a folly -- a national initiative process -- that not even a deranged blogger could love. Someone has to give him the hook before the real debates begin.
So, "few" in this Democratic crowd have much "experience" with the military? What kind of ass-clown do you have to be to type this and not be struck by the ludicrous irony; I mean how many times do we keep having to go to the well and report the fact that among Democratics in Congress, for starters, a far greater share of them have military "experience" than their Republican colleagues? And, um, how about those brave souls sitting in the WH who have no trouble sending other people's kids off to war but couldn't find time themselves to serve when there was a war going on in their prime-war years, and when there was a draft no less?
Broder used to be a "journalist". In the old days that involved, you know, investigating and stuff about what was going on. Today, all J-school grads have to do is go to Google. Apparently Broder feels himself beyond the need to stoop to such low levels of drudgery.
And then he references someone I've never heard of, Mike Gravel, and his apparently loony idea of a national initiative process, which, as Broder summarizes, is so goofy that not even a "deranged blogger" could love it. WTF?
Meanwhile, I'm sure Broder continues to think that Very Serious people like Joe Lieberman and John McCain are Still Serious and constitute the only people who's ideas are worth offering the public.
Yes, we're deranged alright.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Rethinking the Afghanistan War
It's an almost common article of faith among liberals that while we opposed the invasion of Iraq we humbly submit that the American invasion of Afghanistan was justified. The Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked us on 911. So we're not against all wars, we're really not soft, we don't just automatically reject the extension of American military power and the use of force, and so on.
But was the invasion of Afghanistan a risk free choice, an option without more troubling and widespread implications?
I'm beginning to think not. Or at least not in the manner it was executed and especially in the form of authorization it gave the administration.
Consider the administration's rationale in the on-going treatment of detainees. In particular, consider the case of Ali al-Marri, who was in the news last week.
A Bush administration lawyer urged the panel to dismiss al-Marri's appeal, arguing that under the Military Commissions Act, the courts have no jurisdiction to hear cases of detained aliens who are declared enemy combatants.
David B. Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, also argued that the government properly classified al-Marri as an enemy combatant, citing what the government said is evidence that he trained at an al-Qaida camp and met with Osama bin Laden and suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Judge Diana G. Motz asked Salmons what would stop the president from declaring anyone an enemy combatant, including those who are citizens of nations not at war with the U.S., including al-Marri.
"What I don't understand is how you make one an enemy combatant," she said. "What did the president look to, to call someone an enemy combatant?"
Salmons said that Congress and the Supreme Court have given the president the authority to fight terrorism and prevent additional attacks on the nation, including declaring those with suspected al-Qaida links as enemy combatants. Furthermore, Salmons argued, al-Marri is "clearly an al-Qaida operative and qualifies as an enemy combatant."
"If the U.S. can do this, it's contrary to the Constitution," Motz said. "It would give other nations the ability to do that by declaring a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant."
Salmons responded: "It's different; we're responding to the attacks of September 11." He added that the government doesn't make such declarations lightly and that al-Marri will receive a combatant status review tribunal in the District of Columbia federal court.
So, the assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, who's arguing the federal government's case with regards to al-Marri, says "Congress" gave the president "the authority to fight terrorism...". And when might that authority have been given? Certainly long before the vote to authorize force against Iraq. In other words, according to the administration, "Congress" ceded this authority to the president in the initial package of legislative responses to 911. And included in this legislative package and central to the treatment of "detainees" was the invasion of Afghanistan.
I recognize I'm not the first liberal or concerned citizen to express concern about this. But in the weeks and months after 911, Congress ceded to the president not just the authority to invade another country, but also the authority to conduct a global war on terrorism with extra-Constitutional implications at home as well as abroad. Obviously, the many Democrats who supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban probably didn't believe they were also granting such unique, troubling, and wide-ranging authority to the president in regards to the imprisonment of those who would soon be called "enemy combatants". Nonetheless, in the rush to allow the invasion of Afghanistan to proceed with their blessing (and no doubt faced with the demand for action by voters), much else was also "allowed".
And we are still in the midst of trying to ascertain, much less evaluate and undo, the damaging implications for civil liberties and Constitutional protections that resulted from the seemingly "no-brainer" dimensions of the vote to authorize the war in Afghanistan the broader global war on terrorism.
But was the invasion of Afghanistan a risk free choice, an option without more troubling and widespread implications?
I'm beginning to think not. Or at least not in the manner it was executed and especially in the form of authorization it gave the administration.
Consider the administration's rationale in the on-going treatment of detainees. In particular, consider the case of Ali al-Marri, who was in the news last week.
A Bush administration lawyer urged the panel to dismiss al-Marri's appeal, arguing that under the Military Commissions Act, the courts have no jurisdiction to hear cases of detained aliens who are declared enemy combatants.
David B. Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, also argued that the government properly classified al-Marri as an enemy combatant, citing what the government said is evidence that he trained at an al-Qaida camp and met with Osama bin Laden and suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Judge Diana G. Motz asked Salmons what would stop the president from declaring anyone an enemy combatant, including those who are citizens of nations not at war with the U.S., including al-Marri.
"What I don't understand is how you make one an enemy combatant," she said. "What did the president look to, to call someone an enemy combatant?"
Salmons said that Congress and the Supreme Court have given the president the authority to fight terrorism and prevent additional attacks on the nation, including declaring those with suspected al-Qaida links as enemy combatants. Furthermore, Salmons argued, al-Marri is "clearly an al-Qaida operative and qualifies as an enemy combatant."
"If the U.S. can do this, it's contrary to the Constitution," Motz said. "It would give other nations the ability to do that by declaring a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant."
Salmons responded: "It's different; we're responding to the attacks of September 11." He added that the government doesn't make such declarations lightly and that al-Marri will receive a combatant status review tribunal in the District of Columbia federal court.
So, the assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, who's arguing the federal government's case with regards to al-Marri, says "Congress" gave the president "the authority to fight terrorism...". And when might that authority have been given? Certainly long before the vote to authorize force against Iraq. In other words, according to the administration, "Congress" ceded this authority to the president in the initial package of legislative responses to 911. And included in this legislative package and central to the treatment of "detainees" was the invasion of Afghanistan.
I recognize I'm not the first liberal or concerned citizen to express concern about this. But in the weeks and months after 911, Congress ceded to the president not just the authority to invade another country, but also the authority to conduct a global war on terrorism with extra-Constitutional implications at home as well as abroad. Obviously, the many Democrats who supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban probably didn't believe they were also granting such unique, troubling, and wide-ranging authority to the president in regards to the imprisonment of those who would soon be called "enemy combatants". Nonetheless, in the rush to allow the invasion of Afghanistan to proceed with their blessing (and no doubt faced with the demand for action by voters), much else was also "allowed".
And we are still in the midst of trying to ascertain, much less evaluate and undo, the damaging implications for civil liberties and Constitutional protections that resulted from the seemingly "no-brainer" dimensions of the vote to authorize the war in Afghanistan the broader global war on terrorism.
Four Wars
Mo Dowd:
At a Pentagon briefing yesterday, Bob Gates rebuffed the idea of a civil war, saying: “I think that the words ‘civil war’ oversimplify a very complex situation in Iraq. I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq. One is Shia on Shia, principally in the south. The second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely. Third is the insurgency, and fourth is Al Qaeda.”
That’s a relief, all right — we’re in four wars in Iraq and threatening another with Iran.
I intended to add something to this, but I am at a loss.
At a Pentagon briefing yesterday, Bob Gates rebuffed the idea of a civil war, saying: “I think that the words ‘civil war’ oversimplify a very complex situation in Iraq. I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq. One is Shia on Shia, principally in the south. The second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely. Third is the insurgency, and fourth is Al Qaeda.”
That’s a relief, all right — we’re in four wars in Iraq and threatening another with Iran.
I intended to add something to this, but I am at a loss.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
2008 and Iran
In his most recent NYT column last Thursday, David Brooks said this:
Today, Americans are disillusioned with the war in Iraq, and many around the world predict that an exhausted America will turn inward again. Some see a nation in permanent decline and an end to American hegemony. At Davos, some Europeans apparently envisioned a post-American world.
Forget about it. Americans are having a debate about how to proceed in Iraq, but we are not having a strategic debate about retracting American power and influence...
As Robert Kagan writes in his masterful book “Dangerous Nation,” America has never really been an isolationist or aloof nation. The United States has always exercised as much power as it could. It has always coupled that power with efforts to spread freedom. And Americans have always fought over how best to fulfill their mission as the vanguard of progress...
What’s happening today is just another chapter in that long expansionist story...
When you look further into the future, you see that the next president’s big efforts will not be about retrenchment, but about expansion. They’ll be about expanding the U.S. military, expanding the diplomatic corps, asking for more shared sacrifice, creating new interagency bureaus that will give America more nation-building capacity.
While you might have spit up your orange juice after reading "asking for more shared sacrifice", and while you might disagree with Brooks' reading of history, and while you might not share Brooks' reading of the American mind, he does point out something that, as Glenn Greenwald notes, is both "true and important" --
Look at the leaders emerging amid this crisis. The two major Republican presidential contenders are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the most aggressive internationalists in a party that used to have an isolationist wing.
The Democrats, meanwhile, campaigned for Congress in 2006 by promising to increase the size of the military. The presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton, is the leader of the party’s hawkish wing and recently called for a surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan. John Edwards, the most “leftward” major presidential contender, just delivered a bare-knuckled speech in which he castigated the Bush administration for not being tough enough with Iran. “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table,” Edwards warned.
Meanwhile Greenwald's been reading the NYCity tabloids which reported and discussed a recent suck-up fest to the American Israeli Political Action Committee attended by Hilary! and John Edwards. And apparently, Hilary!'s idea of engaging in diplomacy with Iran before dropping the bombs didn't go over well.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free. . .
Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause, and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate. "This is the wrong crowd to do that with," said one person at the dinner, noting the pro-Israel crowd wanted to hear tougher rhetoric...
Heather Robinson, who attended the AIPAC event [sic] is angry over Hillary's suggestion that war with Iran may not be necessary: "But while Hillary’s rhetoric of 'engagement' may sound good, the community of anti-terror activists and Israel-supporters must realize that, at the most basic level, engaging with people who wish your destruction–and are actively working to achieve it–means strengthening a pernicious enemy."
Fabulous.
Of course the whole whoring after campaign dollars from the self-described "ATM for American politicians" that is NYC's Jewish and particularly AIPAC community is in inverse proportion to the views of large majorities of American Jews.
So, we're left with the most troubling of all questions in American politics today: how is it that Big Money continues to exercise a role disproportionate to its popular support?
If three-quarters of the Jewish community voted for John Kerry, and if there is money to be had from other donors, both small and large, one wonders why presidential candidates, especially Democratic ones that are supposed to care about public opinion, continue to prostitute themselves in front of audiences and on behalf of causes that are both demonstratably foolhardy as well as unpopular (or at least unsought by the American public)?
Meanwhile, although I hate to speak ill of other liberal bloggers, two popular netroots folks of our persuasion have joined the John Edwards campaign. Here is what Shakespeare's Sister, one of said netrooters, had to say about that:
As for The Big Question: Why Edwards? A lot of reasons, none of which I've been too shy about sharing as my personal support for him has increased over the last months, although you can read more in my first Edwards blog post here. I will, however, mention the three little words that ultimately got me: "I was wrong." That's how John Edwards started his Nov. 13 op-ed in the Washington Post, referring to his Iraq war vote. "I was wrong," he said, and more than that: "I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake—the men and women of our armed forces and their families—have performed heroically and paid a dear price. … [A] key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong—and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right." I don't need a president who never makes mistakes; those don't even exist. I need a president who's willing to admit them. Those have been in short order as of late, you may have noticed.
Quite some time ago, a staffer for another then-potential presidential candidate called me to pick my brain about what it would take to get my support. One of the things about which I was most adamant was that the candidate had to say, quite plainly, that s/he was wrong on Iraq. The staffer ran a couple of options by me: "What if s/he said this? What if s/he said that?" I said what I wanted to hear was "I was wrong."
John Edwards gave me what I wanted. And I believe he offers America what it needs.
So Shakes, as she is affectionately called, heard the magic words about one war and felt good enough to sign on. But what about Iran? And what about the broader question of, as David Brooks referred to it, the "strategic debate about [sic] American power and influence"?
Well, Shakes has responded, sort of --
Earlier today, Ezra interviewed him, with an evident objective of getting some clarification on that speech—and enough people had specifically referenced it here that I thought the follow-up warranted posting here, too, particularly since, as Ezra notes, "His position here is more thoughtful and nuanced than his comments at the Herzliya conference revealed." [emphasis mine--Bulworth]
Anyway, Hilary! and Edwards have already sucked up to the war lobby's next ingenius idea and as Glenn Greenwald sadly documents, one other potential contender, Wes Clark, has already been taken to the woodshed for his attempt to address the issue honestly and competently and has returned very much the worse for wear after his penance.
So as Greenwald asks, what's left for us, and what Democratic candidates, if any, are going to rebuff the siren's call of war with Iran, given all that's transpired and continues to transpire in Iraq?
Well, TPM tells us that James Fallows says forget challenging the surge in Congress and concentrate on denying the Administration any wiggle room for warring on Iran.
It would be nice if our presidential candidates would, after they've fallen all over themselves repenting of their Iraq-war vote, which is now a politically safe call to make, and demonstrate they've actually learned something over the past four years by calling bullshit ahead of time in the already emerging propaganda designed to lure us into bombing another Muslim country that hasn't attacked us or anyone else yet, and which is not a "clear and present danger" to the United States or our allies.
Today, Americans are disillusioned with the war in Iraq, and many around the world predict that an exhausted America will turn inward again. Some see a nation in permanent decline and an end to American hegemony. At Davos, some Europeans apparently envisioned a post-American world.
Forget about it. Americans are having a debate about how to proceed in Iraq, but we are not having a strategic debate about retracting American power and influence...
As Robert Kagan writes in his masterful book “Dangerous Nation,” America has never really been an isolationist or aloof nation. The United States has always exercised as much power as it could. It has always coupled that power with efforts to spread freedom. And Americans have always fought over how best to fulfill their mission as the vanguard of progress...
What’s happening today is just another chapter in that long expansionist story...
When you look further into the future, you see that the next president’s big efforts will not be about retrenchment, but about expansion. They’ll be about expanding the U.S. military, expanding the diplomatic corps, asking for more shared sacrifice, creating new interagency bureaus that will give America more nation-building capacity.
While you might have spit up your orange juice after reading "asking for more shared sacrifice", and while you might disagree with Brooks' reading of history, and while you might not share Brooks' reading of the American mind, he does point out something that, as Glenn Greenwald notes, is both "true and important" --
Look at the leaders emerging amid this crisis. The two major Republican presidential contenders are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the most aggressive internationalists in a party that used to have an isolationist wing.
The Democrats, meanwhile, campaigned for Congress in 2006 by promising to increase the size of the military. The presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton, is the leader of the party’s hawkish wing and recently called for a surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan. John Edwards, the most “leftward” major presidential contender, just delivered a bare-knuckled speech in which he castigated the Bush administration for not being tough enough with Iran. “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table,” Edwards warned.
Meanwhile Greenwald's been reading the NYCity tabloids which reported and discussed a recent suck-up fest to the American Israeli Political Action Committee attended by Hilary! and John Edwards. And apparently, Hilary!'s idea of engaging in diplomacy with Iran before dropping the bombs didn't go over well.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free. . .
Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause, and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate. "This is the wrong crowd to do that with," said one person at the dinner, noting the pro-Israel crowd wanted to hear tougher rhetoric...
Heather Robinson, who attended the AIPAC event [sic] is angry over Hillary's suggestion that war with Iran may not be necessary: "But while Hillary’s rhetoric of 'engagement' may sound good, the community of anti-terror activists and Israel-supporters must realize that, at the most basic level, engaging with people who wish your destruction–and are actively working to achieve it–means strengthening a pernicious enemy."
Fabulous.
Of course the whole whoring after campaign dollars from the self-described "ATM for American politicians" that is NYC's Jewish and particularly AIPAC community is in inverse proportion to the views of large majorities of American Jews.
So, we're left with the most troubling of all questions in American politics today: how is it that Big Money continues to exercise a role disproportionate to its popular support?
If three-quarters of the Jewish community voted for John Kerry, and if there is money to be had from other donors, both small and large, one wonders why presidential candidates, especially Democratic ones that are supposed to care about public opinion, continue to prostitute themselves in front of audiences and on behalf of causes that are both demonstratably foolhardy as well as unpopular (or at least unsought by the American public)?
Meanwhile, although I hate to speak ill of other liberal bloggers, two popular netroots folks of our persuasion have joined the John Edwards campaign. Here is what Shakespeare's Sister, one of said netrooters, had to say about that:
As for The Big Question: Why Edwards? A lot of reasons, none of which I've been too shy about sharing as my personal support for him has increased over the last months, although you can read more in my first Edwards blog post here. I will, however, mention the three little words that ultimately got me: "I was wrong." That's how John Edwards started his Nov. 13 op-ed in the Washington Post, referring to his Iraq war vote. "I was wrong," he said, and more than that: "I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake—the men and women of our armed forces and their families—have performed heroically and paid a dear price. … [A] key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong—and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right." I don't need a president who never makes mistakes; those don't even exist. I need a president who's willing to admit them. Those have been in short order as of late, you may have noticed.
Quite some time ago, a staffer for another then-potential presidential candidate called me to pick my brain about what it would take to get my support. One of the things about which I was most adamant was that the candidate had to say, quite plainly, that s/he was wrong on Iraq. The staffer ran a couple of options by me: "What if s/he said this? What if s/he said that?" I said what I wanted to hear was "I was wrong."
John Edwards gave me what I wanted. And I believe he offers America what it needs.
So Shakes, as she is affectionately called, heard the magic words about one war and felt good enough to sign on. But what about Iran? And what about the broader question of, as David Brooks referred to it, the "strategic debate about [sic] American power and influence"?
Well, Shakes has responded, sort of --
Earlier today, Ezra interviewed him, with an evident objective of getting some clarification on that speech—and enough people had specifically referenced it here that I thought the follow-up warranted posting here, too, particularly since, as Ezra notes, "His position here is more thoughtful and nuanced than his comments at the Herzliya conference revealed." [emphasis mine--Bulworth]
Anyway, Hilary! and Edwards have already sucked up to the war lobby's next ingenius idea and as Glenn Greenwald sadly documents, one other potential contender, Wes Clark, has already been taken to the woodshed for his attempt to address the issue honestly and competently and has returned very much the worse for wear after his penance.
So as Greenwald asks, what's left for us, and what Democratic candidates, if any, are going to rebuff the siren's call of war with Iran, given all that's transpired and continues to transpire in Iraq?
Well, TPM tells us that James Fallows says forget challenging the surge in Congress and concentrate on denying the Administration any wiggle room for warring on Iran.
It would be nice if our presidential candidates would, after they've fallen all over themselves repenting of their Iraq-war vote, which is now a politically safe call to make, and demonstrate they've actually learned something over the past four years by calling bullshit ahead of time in the already emerging propaganda designed to lure us into bombing another Muslim country that hasn't attacked us or anyone else yet, and which is not a "clear and present danger" to the United States or our allies.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Tom Menino, Ed Markey, and Fox "News": Just Shut Up
We have another winner(s).
I'm still trying to get my head around what all the fuss was about in Boston over the "signs".
So these "suspicious packages" were actually "magnetic lights" placed in ten different cities on behalf of a cartoon company? (h/t Steve Gilliard)
And Edward Markey (among others) is being a dope.
...Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey placed the blame on Adult Swim. "Scaring an entire region, tying up the T and major roadways, and forcing first responders to spend 12 hours chasing down trinkets instead of terrorists is marketing run amok," Markey, a Democrat, said in a written statement. "It would be hard to dream up a more appalling publicity stunt." The problem with this is that it was the paranoia of the police department that created the crisis, not Aqua Teen's creators down at Williams Street in Atlanta.
Ed Markey, you are a suck-up to the "we have everything to fear including fear itself" crowd.
And once again, perhaps spurring on and spurred on by the budding, if rapidly extinguished "crisis" the freepers went wild.
As Pollack says,
1. Attorney General Martha Coakley needs to shut up and stop using the word "hoax." There was no hoax. Hoax implies Turner Networks and the ATHF people were trying to defraud or confuse people as to what they were doing. Hoax implies they were trying to make their signs look like bombs. They weren't. They made Lite-Brite signs of a cartoon character giving the finger.
2. It bears repeating again that Turner, and especially Berdovsky, did absolutely nothing illegal. The devices were not bombs. They did not look like bombs. They were all placed in public spaces and caused no obstruction to traffic or commerce. At most, Berdovsky is guilty of littering or illegal flyering.
3. The "devices" were placed in ten cities, and have been there for over two weeks. No other city managed to freak out and commit an entire platoon of police officers to scaring their own city claiming they might be bombs. No other mayor agreed to talk to Fox News with any statement beyond "no comment" when spending the day asking if this was a "terrorist dry run."
4. There is nothing, not a single thing, remotely suggesting that Turner or the guerilla marketing firm they hired intended to cause a public disturbance. Many have claimed the signs were "like saying 'fire' in a crowded theater." Wrong. This was like taping a picture of a fire to the wall of a theater and someone freaked out and called the fire department.
So, please, Tom Menino, Ed Markey, Shepherd Smith, Just Shut Up.
I'm still trying to get my head around what all the fuss was about in Boston over the "signs".
So these "suspicious packages" were actually "magnetic lights" placed in ten different cities on behalf of a cartoon company? (h/t Steve Gilliard)
And Edward Markey (among others) is being a dope.
...Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey placed the blame on Adult Swim. "Scaring an entire region, tying up the T and major roadways, and forcing first responders to spend 12 hours chasing down trinkets instead of terrorists is marketing run amok," Markey, a Democrat, said in a written statement. "It would be hard to dream up a more appalling publicity stunt." The problem with this is that it was the paranoia of the police department that created the crisis, not Aqua Teen's creators down at Williams Street in Atlanta.
Ed Markey, you are a suck-up to the "we have everything to fear including fear itself" crowd.
And once again, perhaps spurring on and spurred on by the budding, if rapidly extinguished "crisis" the freepers went wild.
As Pollack says,
1. Attorney General Martha Coakley needs to shut up and stop using the word "hoax." There was no hoax. Hoax implies Turner Networks and the ATHF people were trying to defraud or confuse people as to what they were doing. Hoax implies they were trying to make their signs look like bombs. They weren't. They made Lite-Brite signs of a cartoon character giving the finger.
2. It bears repeating again that Turner, and especially Berdovsky, did absolutely nothing illegal. The devices were not bombs. They did not look like bombs. They were all placed in public spaces and caused no obstruction to traffic or commerce. At most, Berdovsky is guilty of littering or illegal flyering.
3. The "devices" were placed in ten cities, and have been there for over two weeks. No other city managed to freak out and commit an entire platoon of police officers to scaring their own city claiming they might be bombs. No other mayor agreed to talk to Fox News with any statement beyond "no comment" when spending the day asking if this was a "terrorist dry run."
4. There is nothing, not a single thing, remotely suggesting that Turner or the guerilla marketing firm they hired intended to cause a public disturbance. Many have claimed the signs were "like saying 'fire' in a crowded theater." Wrong. This was like taping a picture of a fire to the wall of a theater and someone freaked out and called the fire department.
So, please, Tom Menino, Ed Markey, Shepherd Smith, Just Shut Up.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
"Conservativism Wasn't Rejected; It Was Betrayed"
Maybe by now you've heard how Jeb! brought a recent GOP gathering cheering to its feet by declaring--
"Don't take offense personally if I get mad at Congress," the Republican former Florida governor began. "It's important for us to realize we lost, and there are significant reasons that happened, but it isn't because conservatives were rejected. But it's because we rejected the conservative philosophy in this country."
He added, “If the promise of pork and more programs is the way Republicans think they’ll regain the majority, then they’ve got a problem.”
Bush's speech prompted three standing ovations from the audience of hundreds at the National Review Institute's conference at the JW Marriott Hotel, reflecting the widespread concern among conservatives that exorbitant government spending led to the loss of majorities in the House and Senate and concern about whether Republicans would again embrace the traditional principles.
If so, you might want to read Glenn Greenwald's response to this claim, as well as to the claim recently put forward by Andrew Sullivan amounting more or less to the same.
When he was popular, George Bush was the Embodiment of Conservatism. Now that he is rejected on a historic scale, he is the Betrayer of Conservatism. That is because "Conservatism" -- while definable on a theoretical plane -- has come to have no practical meaning in this country other than a quest for ever-expanding government power for its own sake. When George Bush enabled those ends, he was The Great Conservative. Now that he impedes them, he is the Judas of the Conservative Movement. It is just that simple and transparent.
(snip)
All of the attributes which have made the Bush presidency so disastrous are not in conflict with political conservatism as it exists in reality. Those attributes -- vast expansions of federal power to implement moralistic agendas and to perpetuate political power, along with authoritarian faith in the Leader -- are not violations of "conservative principles." Those have become the defining attributes of the Conservative Movement in this country.
That is why the warnings from Sullivan and others that the Republican Party was acting in violation of "conservative principles" fell on deaf ears and even prompted such hostility -- until, that is, Bush's popularity collapsed. "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. Sullivan's principal argument that the Bush presidency never adhered to conservative principles is true enough, but the same can be said of the entire American conservative political movement. That is why they bred and elevated George Bush for six years, and suddenly "realized" that he was "not a conservative" only once political expediency required it.
But now, from the files of "when you're at the bottom of a hole, stop digging" comes this set of "principles" from the geniuses at RedState.org (h/t LG&M):
In an age when so much of what is called conservatism seems to consist of a tenacious defense of the structures of thought which have ushered in our decline — when, in short, conservatives make their boldest efforts to conserve the Liberalism that paralyzes us — there is just cause in adopting the label “reactionary.”
(snip)
Below is A Reactionary’s Shorter Catechism, hammered out by myself and long-time Redstate reader Maximos, with input from many others. It is offered in the spirit of More’s further remarks: “If any young man, feeling now within himself the power of accomplishment, hesitates to be called a reactionary . . . let him take courage. The world is not contradicted with impunity, and he who sets himself against the world’s belief will have need of all a man’s endurance and all a man’s strength.” Herewith, we contradict the world:
[selections--ed]
¶ A healthy polity will have a majority population and culture; contemporary orthodoxy on diversity tends towards anarchy and strife.
¶ The right of a community to maintain its identity, autonomy, and independence is among the first principles of a free polity.[...]
¶ Tradition and custom need not constantly explain or justify themselves as practice or policy. The presumption is in their favor. To drag them before the bar of a rigid rationalism is profound impiety.
¶ Men, and societies of men, are ultimately more apt to maintain loyalties among those who are like them. This is natural and not to be either deplored or extirpated, but rather disciplined by civic virtue.[...]
¶ Indiscriminate blending of cultures is thus undesirable, and more often than not an at least implicit act of aggression against the existing majority culture.[...]
¶ Voting is not a right but a privilege. Its abuse is rampant, and to contain it is a valid object of public policy. More damaging to a republic than corrupt politicians are corrupt voters.[...]
¶ The American traditions of federalism, states’ rights, and localism deserve the deepest respect and cultivation: for in them is the truest protection of liberty.
The folks at RedState miss the good-ole-days of Segregation.
More of this please. Maybe Sean Hannity will include this in his latest cable teevee act.
"Don't take offense personally if I get mad at Congress," the Republican former Florida governor began. "It's important for us to realize we lost, and there are significant reasons that happened, but it isn't because conservatives were rejected. But it's because we rejected the conservative philosophy in this country."
He added, “If the promise of pork and more programs is the way Republicans think they’ll regain the majority, then they’ve got a problem.”
Bush's speech prompted three standing ovations from the audience of hundreds at the National Review Institute's conference at the JW Marriott Hotel, reflecting the widespread concern among conservatives that exorbitant government spending led to the loss of majorities in the House and Senate and concern about whether Republicans would again embrace the traditional principles.
If so, you might want to read Glenn Greenwald's response to this claim, as well as to the claim recently put forward by Andrew Sullivan amounting more or less to the same.
When he was popular, George Bush was the Embodiment of Conservatism. Now that he is rejected on a historic scale, he is the Betrayer of Conservatism. That is because "Conservatism" -- while definable on a theoretical plane -- has come to have no practical meaning in this country other than a quest for ever-expanding government power for its own sake. When George Bush enabled those ends, he was The Great Conservative. Now that he impedes them, he is the Judas of the Conservative Movement. It is just that simple and transparent.
(snip)
All of the attributes which have made the Bush presidency so disastrous are not in conflict with political conservatism as it exists in reality. Those attributes -- vast expansions of federal power to implement moralistic agendas and to perpetuate political power, along with authoritarian faith in the Leader -- are not violations of "conservative principles." Those have become the defining attributes of the Conservative Movement in this country.
That is why the warnings from Sullivan and others that the Republican Party was acting in violation of "conservative principles" fell on deaf ears and even prompted such hostility -- until, that is, Bush's popularity collapsed. "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. Sullivan's principal argument that the Bush presidency never adhered to conservative principles is true enough, but the same can be said of the entire American conservative political movement. That is why they bred and elevated George Bush for six years, and suddenly "realized" that he was "not a conservative" only once political expediency required it.
But now, from the files of "when you're at the bottom of a hole, stop digging" comes this set of "principles" from the geniuses at RedState.org (h/t LG&M):
In an age when so much of what is called conservatism seems to consist of a tenacious defense of the structures of thought which have ushered in our decline — when, in short, conservatives make their boldest efforts to conserve the Liberalism that paralyzes us — there is just cause in adopting the label “reactionary.”
(snip)
Below is A Reactionary’s Shorter Catechism, hammered out by myself and long-time Redstate reader Maximos, with input from many others. It is offered in the spirit of More’s further remarks: “If any young man, feeling now within himself the power of accomplishment, hesitates to be called a reactionary . . . let him take courage. The world is not contradicted with impunity, and he who sets himself against the world’s belief will have need of all a man’s endurance and all a man’s strength.” Herewith, we contradict the world:
[selections--ed]
¶ A healthy polity will have a majority population and culture; contemporary orthodoxy on diversity tends towards anarchy and strife.
¶ The right of a community to maintain its identity, autonomy, and independence is among the first principles of a free polity.[...]
¶ Tradition and custom need not constantly explain or justify themselves as practice or policy. The presumption is in their favor. To drag them before the bar of a rigid rationalism is profound impiety.
¶ Men, and societies of men, are ultimately more apt to maintain loyalties among those who are like them. This is natural and not to be either deplored or extirpated, but rather disciplined by civic virtue.[...]
¶ Indiscriminate blending of cultures is thus undesirable, and more often than not an at least implicit act of aggression against the existing majority culture.[...]
¶ Voting is not a right but a privilege. Its abuse is rampant, and to contain it is a valid object of public policy. More damaging to a republic than corrupt politicians are corrupt voters.[...]
¶ The American traditions of federalism, states’ rights, and localism deserve the deepest respect and cultivation: for in them is the truest protection of liberty.
The folks at RedState miss the good-ole-days of Segregation.
More of this please. Maybe Sean Hannity will include this in his latest cable teevee act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)