Once upon a time, like in 1992, the conventional wisdom was that the wives of presidential candidates should shut up and stay in the kitchen baking cookies. Wives of candidates who transgressed this commandment were harshly rebuked.
But 2007 is a very different year. In fact, it is now acceptable not only for a candidate to be divorced and married to a woman 24 years his junior, but it is also now wildly popular that said wife be a prominent force in the campaign, or at least so says famed op-edder and Republican insider Robert Novak:
Speaking at his $1,000-a-ticket fundraiser at the J.W. Marriott Hotel in downtown Washington on Monday night, Fred Thompson began by introducing "my campaign manager -- oh, I mean my wife." That little joke about Jeri Thompson reveals how the prospective Republican presidential candidate regards the attack on his intelligent, beautiful wife.
As the actor-lawyer-politician nears his long-awaited official announcement, Mrs. Thompson is slurred as a "trophy wife" -- privately by her husband's opponents for the Republican nomination and publicly by the media. Even Thompson supporters grumble that Jeri, 40, is too alluring, that she should modify the way she dresses and that, even then, she should not practice her skills as a professional political operative on behalf of her 64-year-old husband.
------
Well, yeah, that was the line back when Bill Clinton was running for President and the warnings were directed at his wife, Hillary. But I guess so long as the candidate and spouse are Republicans, than it's OK.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Fundy Bamboozlement
Reports of the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis were barely going out over the Intertubes when the fundy scaremongers seized on the tragedy to recite a "sinners in the hands of an angry god" sermon from four centuries ago:
The people who drove onto that bridge had no advance warning of its collapse. They made no conscious decision to embrace danger or to put their lives on the line. Experience and reason have trained us all to trust what looks solid and stable -- and that bridge looked solid and stable up until it fell.
This is a metaphor for our lives and spiritual peril, as Jonathan Edwards so clearly understood. In his famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," Edwards made this point with clarity and power:
-------
Actually I was thinking the falling bridge was punishment from god for electing a Democrat U.S. Senator last fall. Maybe someone will make that connection before the tragedy moves off the front pages.
The people who drove onto that bridge had no advance warning of its collapse. They made no conscious decision to embrace danger or to put their lives on the line. Experience and reason have trained us all to trust what looks solid and stable -- and that bridge looked solid and stable up until it fell.
This is a metaphor for our lives and spiritual peril, as Jonathan Edwards so clearly understood. In his famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," Edwards made this point with clarity and power:
-------
Actually I was thinking the falling bridge was punishment from god for electing a Democrat U.S. Senator last fall. Maybe someone will make that connection before the tragedy moves off the front pages.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
More Bamboozlement in California
Republicans trying to get California's 53 electoral votes allocated by Congressional District (two would go to the state-wide winner equaling the state's 55 EV total).
I can't believe this hasn't gotten more attention.
I can't believe this hasn't gotten more attention.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Fear
I think Andrew Sullivan is on to something here:
One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in thier defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars.
(snip)
Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.
---------------
The recent dust up between Obama and HRC over diplomacy is a case in point. And it applies not just to HRC, but to any GOP candidate Obama would face.
One of the Republicans playing cards for the last several decades has been their perceived "toughness" in foreign policy. But this apparent toughness is in many cases just a cloak for fear.
Consider the fear phrase HRC uttered in response to Obama during the debate: I don't want to be used as a propaganda tool. That's a statement rooted in fear. It's not a statement of confidence, particularly the statement of confidence that should emenate from the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. It demonstrates fear, a skittishness about political engagements of all kinds. It's severely risk-avoidant, perhaps neurotically so.
One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in thier defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars.
(snip)
Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.
---------------
The recent dust up between Obama and HRC over diplomacy is a case in point. And it applies not just to HRC, but to any GOP candidate Obama would face.
One of the Republicans playing cards for the last several decades has been their perceived "toughness" in foreign policy. But this apparent toughness is in many cases just a cloak for fear.
Consider the fear phrase HRC uttered in response to Obama during the debate: I don't want to be used as a propaganda tool. That's a statement rooted in fear. It's not a statement of confidence, particularly the statement of confidence that should emenate from the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. It demonstrates fear, a skittishness about political engagements of all kinds. It's severely risk-avoidant, perhaps neurotically so.
Monday, July 30, 2007
NAACP and Vick
I may be unduly influenced by my love of pets, but the NAACP is out of line here:
The president of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP criticized the prosecution of Vick at a news conference Monday morning. Dr. R.L. White, Jr., accused the government of "piling on."
"There's a penalty in football for piling on," White told reporters. "After a player has been tackled and somebody piles on, they're penalized for unnecessary roughness. Today, the NAACP blows the whistle and warns the powers that be that you are piling on."
Please.
But there's more:
NAACP leaders urged public restraint Monday in judging Michael Vick before he has his day in court.
R.L. White, president of the Atlanta chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the Atlanta Falcons quarterback has been vilified by animal rights groups, talk radio and the news media and prematurely punished by his team and corporate sponsors.
"If Mr. Vick is guilty, he should pay for his crime, but to treat him as he is being treated now is also a crime," White said at a news conference.
No, it is not.
"Be restrained in your premature judgment until the legal process is completed."
Premature judgments like saying that the government is "piling on" and that the powers that be are being "warned"?
...White plans to contact Vick to see what assistance the Atlanta NAACP chapter can offer.
Vick's a millionaire many times over. The NAACP would be better off helping those with far fewer advantages in life than Vick.
White predicted that public opinion may worsen in the wake of Taylor's plea deal.
Until then, he said he would keep an open mind and encouraged others to do the same.
Georgia NAACP President Edward Dubose thanked Vick for his community service and the money and excitement he has brought to Georgia as a Falcon. Dubose said Vick is being prosecuted in the court of public opinion before he has had a chance to defend himself.
"We're not condoning bad behavior, but Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty," Dubose said.
So that's it, huh? As long as he puts in community service hours and has brought "excitement" to Georgia as a Falcon, he gets a pass?
Atlanta chapter member Bernadette Allen attended the news conference and also a rally Sunday to support Vick.
Attend a rally to support Vick? Why? Doesn't sound like Ms. Allen is impartial. Does the "keep an open mind" apply to those charging that the government is "piling on" and those attending rallies in support of Michael Vick?
"The man is entitled to due process under the law, as is any citizen," Allen said.
Thanks for the civics lesson.
The president of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP criticized the prosecution of Vick at a news conference Monday morning. Dr. R.L. White, Jr., accused the government of "piling on."
"There's a penalty in football for piling on," White told reporters. "After a player has been tackled and somebody piles on, they're penalized for unnecessary roughness. Today, the NAACP blows the whistle and warns the powers that be that you are piling on."
Please.
But there's more:
NAACP leaders urged public restraint Monday in judging Michael Vick before he has his day in court.
R.L. White, president of the Atlanta chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the Atlanta Falcons quarterback has been vilified by animal rights groups, talk radio and the news media and prematurely punished by his team and corporate sponsors.
"If Mr. Vick is guilty, he should pay for his crime, but to treat him as he is being treated now is also a crime," White said at a news conference.
No, it is not.
"Be restrained in your premature judgment until the legal process is completed."
Premature judgments like saying that the government is "piling on" and that the powers that be are being "warned"?
...White plans to contact Vick to see what assistance the Atlanta NAACP chapter can offer.
Vick's a millionaire many times over. The NAACP would be better off helping those with far fewer advantages in life than Vick.
White predicted that public opinion may worsen in the wake of Taylor's plea deal.
Until then, he said he would keep an open mind and encouraged others to do the same.
Georgia NAACP President Edward Dubose thanked Vick for his community service and the money and excitement he has brought to Georgia as a Falcon. Dubose said Vick is being prosecuted in the court of public opinion before he has had a chance to defend himself.
"We're not condoning bad behavior, but Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty," Dubose said.
So that's it, huh? As long as he puts in community service hours and has brought "excitement" to Georgia as a Falcon, he gets a pass?
Atlanta chapter member Bernadette Allen attended the news conference and also a rally Sunday to support Vick.
Attend a rally to support Vick? Why? Doesn't sound like Ms. Allen is impartial. Does the "keep an open mind" apply to those charging that the government is "piling on" and those attending rallies in support of Michael Vick?
"The man is entitled to due process under the law, as is any citizen," Allen said.
Thanks for the civics lesson.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Real Change
I didn't watch the YouTube debate last night, but I was intrigued by one of the issues that emerged from it--Obama appearing to offer to meet with any foreign leader and HRC's and Edwards' more conventional pushback that they wouldn't want to be used for propaganda purposes (another GOP line--remember Pelosi in Syria?) or that they would agree to do so only after substantial changes were made in certain countries or only after their underlings had properly laid a foundation and made appropriate contacts, etc.
First, I think foreign affairs has gotten short thrift in the debates and coverage of the Democratic candidates, and truth be told, has not been given high visibility by the candidates themselves. So I was pleased to see an issue such as this emerge as a point of contention among the candidates.
Second, this seems to be another example of how different an Obama presidency might be. And by different I mean, different in a good way.
Denouncing certain countries and leaders has been a staple of both Republican and Democratic candidacies for years. Castro's Cuba has in particular been a favorite bipartisan target for five decades. And by their responses, HRC and Edwards don't give any indication that they would try to alter any of America's most entrenched and dubious policies or would be willing to stick their necks out to antagonize any minority but vocal interests.
Whether Obama just goofed in making the response (he's been defending it today) or whether it reflects an accurate guage of his foreign policy approach remains to be seen. But unlike his more timid peers, Obama appears more willing to challenge old assumptions and long-standing biases in foreign affairs.
First, I think foreign affairs has gotten short thrift in the debates and coverage of the Democratic candidates, and truth be told, has not been given high visibility by the candidates themselves. So I was pleased to see an issue such as this emerge as a point of contention among the candidates.
Second, this seems to be another example of how different an Obama presidency might be. And by different I mean, different in a good way.
Denouncing certain countries and leaders has been a staple of both Republican and Democratic candidacies for years. Castro's Cuba has in particular been a favorite bipartisan target for five decades. And by their responses, HRC and Edwards don't give any indication that they would try to alter any of America's most entrenched and dubious policies or would be willing to stick their necks out to antagonize any minority but vocal interests.
Whether Obama just goofed in making the response (he's been defending it today) or whether it reflects an accurate guage of his foreign policy approach remains to be seen. But unlike his more timid peers, Obama appears more willing to challenge old assumptions and long-standing biases in foreign affairs.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
They Say, We Say
Atrios Says--
What Was That Word?
It's quite impressive how when the minority party's name began with D regular Senate actions were described as "obstructionism" or as "filibusters," while since the minority party's name started to begin with an R all the news consuming public has learned that fact of life that every Senate action requires 60 votes.
-------------
Actually, Atrios, and all who may be concerned, the new word or words for "obstructionism" and "filibuster" and "up and down vote" is "Republican procedural hurdle".
From Reuters (h/t Josh Marshall):
Democrats have all but publicly acknowledged that they will be unable to pass their end-the-war amendment because opposition Republicans are insisting on 60 votes for a victory.
Reid said that without the Republicans' procedural hurdle, a simple majority of the 100-member Senate would vote for the troop withdrawal, with "a number of Republicans" supporting it.
--------------
The way Reuters wrote up the story, it appears as if it is Harry Reid who is identifying the Republican filibuster and obstructionism as a "procedural hurdle". But is that what Reid actually said?
From Think Progress: (h/t Atrios)
Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.
They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.
I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.
If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.
The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.
----------
As Josh Marshall accurately notes, the media's (non) response to Republican filibustering and obstructionism is a classic case of bamboozlement:
This is pretty funny. This article from Reuters manages to get through an entire article on the filibuster the Democrats are going to force senate Republicans to go through with without ever actually using the word 'filibuster'. It's almost a thing of beauty in its negative capacity of bamboozlement.
----------------
Finally, Bob Geiger, gives us a practical, one-sentence summary response of the issues involved: (h/t Atrios)
And I'm sure more than one Democratic Senator will remind the public that Republicans screamed at the top of their lungs last year when it came to getting up-or-down votes on Bush's right-wing judicial nominees, but expressing the sentiments of most Americans and protecting America's troops gets no such treatment from them.
What Was That Word?
It's quite impressive how when the minority party's name began with D regular Senate actions were described as "obstructionism" or as "filibusters," while since the minority party's name started to begin with an R all the news consuming public has learned that fact of life that every Senate action requires 60 votes.
-------------
Actually, Atrios, and all who may be concerned, the new word or words for "obstructionism" and "filibuster" and "up and down vote" is "Republican procedural hurdle".
From Reuters (h/t Josh Marshall):
Democrats have all but publicly acknowledged that they will be unable to pass their end-the-war amendment because opposition Republicans are insisting on 60 votes for a victory.
Reid said that without the Republicans' procedural hurdle, a simple majority of the 100-member Senate would vote for the troop withdrawal, with "a number of Republicans" supporting it.
--------------
The way Reuters wrote up the story, it appears as if it is Harry Reid who is identifying the Republican filibuster and obstructionism as a "procedural hurdle". But is that what Reid actually said?
From Think Progress: (h/t Atrios)
Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.
They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.
I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.
If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.
The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.
----------
As Josh Marshall accurately notes, the media's (non) response to Republican filibustering and obstructionism is a classic case of bamboozlement:
This is pretty funny. This article from Reuters manages to get through an entire article on the filibuster the Democrats are going to force senate Republicans to go through with without ever actually using the word 'filibuster'. It's almost a thing of beauty in its negative capacity of bamboozlement.
----------------
Finally, Bob Geiger, gives us a practical, one-sentence summary response of the issues involved: (h/t Atrios)
And I'm sure more than one Democratic Senator will remind the public that Republicans screamed at the top of their lungs last year when it came to getting up-or-down votes on Bush's right-wing judicial nominees, but expressing the sentiments of most Americans and protecting America's troops gets no such treatment from them.
Friday, July 13, 2007
They Send Emails
An Andrew Sullivan reader writes in to say:
This president often mentions his oath but never talks about protecting the constitution. On the contrary, he regularly talks about his oath to protect the people, or to protect America. But it's possible to justify any number of tyrannies in the name of protecting the people.
The framers were aware of that danger and so wrote an oath of office that demands the constitution be protected, not the people. It would be much harder for a president to claim dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the constitution. "I had to destroy the constitution to save it" wouldn't fly. Or so you'd think. Yet Dubya has gotten away with it nearly unchallenged, as far as I can see. This slip by a functionary already has received much more attention than Dubya's frequent use of the same construction — perhaps because any Senator or presidential candidate who dared say "The president's oath is not to protect the people, and in the name of a vow he never took he has deliberately violated the oath he did take, to protect the constitution" would be pilloried by the Bushies for "not understanding the threat" or having a "pre-9/11 mindset."
Maybe. But it needs to be said, loudly and often, by patriots of any political stripe.
-------------------------------------
Meanwhile, a TPM reader has a query:
Remember the War Czar? Anyone heard anything from him lately? Shouldn't he be pretty prominent what with all the news from Iraq and the surge in full swing now? Oh, maybe he's off "coordinating" or something. Here's, arguably, the most powerful military man in the country and I'll bet 9 out of 10 Americans (even the informed ones) don't even know the guy's name (it's Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute). Talk about another brilliant idea.
This president often mentions his oath but never talks about protecting the constitution. On the contrary, he regularly talks about his oath to protect the people, or to protect America. But it's possible to justify any number of tyrannies in the name of protecting the people.
The framers were aware of that danger and so wrote an oath of office that demands the constitution be protected, not the people. It would be much harder for a president to claim dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the constitution. "I had to destroy the constitution to save it" wouldn't fly. Or so you'd think. Yet Dubya has gotten away with it nearly unchallenged, as far as I can see. This slip by a functionary already has received much more attention than Dubya's frequent use of the same construction — perhaps because any Senator or presidential candidate who dared say "The president's oath is not to protect the people, and in the name of a vow he never took he has deliberately violated the oath he did take, to protect the constitution" would be pilloried by the Bushies for "not understanding the threat" or having a "pre-9/11 mindset."
Maybe. But it needs to be said, loudly and often, by patriots of any political stripe.
-------------------------------------
Meanwhile, a TPM reader has a query:
Remember the War Czar? Anyone heard anything from him lately? Shouldn't he be pretty prominent what with all the news from Iraq and the surge in full swing now? Oh, maybe he's off "coordinating" or something. Here's, arguably, the most powerful military man in the country and I'll bet 9 out of 10 Americans (even the informed ones) don't even know the guy's name (it's Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute). Talk about another brilliant idea.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Broder Comes Clean
Sort of. In today's op-ed The Dean realizes that the much-maligned and totally unserious Harry Reid managed to get 33 of his guys to vote for the president's immigration reform bill, but the Republican leader only got 12, and couldn't even convince himself. So, Broder comes around late in recognizing the role Republicans played in the immigration bill's demise. It isn't all Harry Reid's fault after all.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Josh Marshall Speak
You listen.
There aren't many subjects on which I claim expertise. But this is one of them. I think I know the details of this one -- both the underlying story of the forgeries and their provenance and the epi-story of Wilson and Plame -- as well as any journalist who's written about the story...
And with that knowledge, I have to say that the claim that Wilson's charges have been discredited, disproved or even meaningfully challenged is simply false. What he said on day one is all true. It's really as simple as that. ..
No one is perfect. The key dividing line is who's telling the truth and who's lying. Wilson is on the former side, his critics the latter. Everything else is triviality...
--------------------------------------------------
For the life of me, I've never understood the attacks against Wilson, the persistency of the meme that somehow Wilson wasn't credible. I could understand them from the Administration's vantage point--what Wilson reported severely discredited their case.
But I don't get the bitterness Wilson's op-ed spawned in the editorial offices of the Washington Post and elsewhere throughout media land. Are they mad because he has a beautiful wife? The great untold story of the past six years--maybe the past 12 years or more, is why (not whether), the country's media elite threw itself prostrate before the Republican Party, first in Congress, and later when it took the White House, and enlisted in the conservative movement's various smear campaigns.
There aren't many subjects on which I claim expertise. But this is one of them. I think I know the details of this one -- both the underlying story of the forgeries and their provenance and the epi-story of Wilson and Plame -- as well as any journalist who's written about the story...
And with that knowledge, I have to say that the claim that Wilson's charges have been discredited, disproved or even meaningfully challenged is simply false. What he said on day one is all true. It's really as simple as that. ..
No one is perfect. The key dividing line is who's telling the truth and who's lying. Wilson is on the former side, his critics the latter. Everything else is triviality...
--------------------------------------------------
For the life of me, I've never understood the attacks against Wilson, the persistency of the meme that somehow Wilson wasn't credible. I could understand them from the Administration's vantage point--what Wilson reported severely discredited their case.
But I don't get the bitterness Wilson's op-ed spawned in the editorial offices of the Washington Post and elsewhere throughout media land. Are they mad because he has a beautiful wife? The great untold story of the past six years--maybe the past 12 years or more, is why (not whether), the country's media elite threw itself prostrate before the Republican Party, first in Congress, and later when it took the White House, and enlisted in the conservative movement's various smear campaigns.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
There They Go Again, Vol. XX458
Talk Radio, controlled by conservatives, is teh good.
The Internets, not controlled by anybody, but heavily populated by dirty, pinko, latte-sipping, hippies, is bringing an end to civilization as we know it.
The Internets, not controlled by anybody, but heavily populated by dirty, pinko, latte-sipping, hippies, is bringing an end to civilization as we know it.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Knowing Dick
I don't mean to take anything away from the otherwise excellent four-part Washington Post expose on Vice, but there were a couple of items that stood out from part three that seemed a little under-whelming to me.
In Tuesday's "Dominating Budget Decisions" segment, the post writers relate this account from the halls of the WH:
Perhaps more important than Cheney's influence in pushing policies is his power to stop them before they reach the Oval Office.
When Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, broached the idea of limiting the popular mortgage tax deduction, he said he quickly dropped it after Cheney told him it would never fly with Congress. "He's a big timesaver for us in that he takes off the table a lot of things he knows aren't going to go anywhere," Lazear said.
--------------
Does anyone see the problem here? Any sixth-grader could tell you that fiddling with the "popular" mortgage tax deduction was gonna be a non-starter. I wouldn't credit Dick too much with having stifled that idea before it reached the President.
Then there's this matter of Vice chairing something called the budget review board, which, according to the Post writers, was--
....a panel the Bush administration created to set spending priorities and serve as arbiter when Cabinet members appeal decisions by White House budget officials. The White House has portrayed the board as a device to keep Bush from wasting time on petty disagreements, but previous administrations have seldom seen Cabinet-level disputes in that light. Cheney's leadership of the panel gives him direct and indirect power over the federal budget -- and over those who must live within it. [Read then-OMB Director Joshua Bolten's memo about the review board.]
----------------------
At first glance this sounds pretty impressive, particularly that bit about arbitering budget disputes between cabinet heads and WH staff.
But then just a few paragraphs down we read
Cheney shared conservative trepidations about the president's signature education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, which gave the federal government more control over K-12 education. He has griped privately to confidants, such as economist and CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow, about the administration's failure to control spending. And in robust internal White House discussions, he raised concerns about the cost of the administration's decision to expand Medicare to include a new multibillion-dollar drug entitlement, but bowed to the political reality that the president had to fulfill a campaign promise.
------------------------------
So, while Vice has been chairing this budget review board, and serving as the administration's conservative conscience on spending matters, the administration has still managed to let spending spiral and enacted an expensive new drug entitlement to boot along the way.
Finally, let's think about taxes, particularly the president's tax cut packages. The Post writers are eager to give Dick a lot of credit for the president's tax policies, especially since Vice really wanted both a capital gains cut and a special write-off for business investment.
Says the Post writers--
Bush sided with Cheney on the dividends tax but thought it would be better to eliminate it altogether. The president was cooler on the capital gains tax, according to Conda and others. And having campaigned on a platform of compassionate conservatism, he expressed doubts about giving another income tax break to the wealthiest Americans, particularly because they would benefit the most from the elimination of the dividends tax, Hubbard said.
---------------------
Hey, number 1, Bush campaigned on tax cuts and knew tax cuts would go to the highest income folks, so the Post writers inserting, and apparently buying, this line about Bush being cautious about proving more tax cuts for the rich doesn't ring true. Number 2, the Bush administration entered office with a budget surplus and given both the 2000 recession and the economic effects of 9/11, weren't likely to be directed off course from their tax cutting goals in any event. With or without Cheney, Bush was going to favor a tax cutting policy. And the signature item of the tax cuts were first, the income tax cuts, and second, the inheritence tax cut. The dividend and capital gains cuts, while important, were peripheral in the overall scheme of things.
In Tuesday's "Dominating Budget Decisions" segment, the post writers relate this account from the halls of the WH:
Perhaps more important than Cheney's influence in pushing policies is his power to stop them before they reach the Oval Office.
When Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, broached the idea of limiting the popular mortgage tax deduction, he said he quickly dropped it after Cheney told him it would never fly with Congress. "He's a big timesaver for us in that he takes off the table a lot of things he knows aren't going to go anywhere," Lazear said.
--------------
Does anyone see the problem here? Any sixth-grader could tell you that fiddling with the "popular" mortgage tax deduction was gonna be a non-starter. I wouldn't credit Dick too much with having stifled that idea before it reached the President.
Then there's this matter of Vice chairing something called the budget review board, which, according to the Post writers, was--
....a panel the Bush administration created to set spending priorities and serve as arbiter when Cabinet members appeal decisions by White House budget officials. The White House has portrayed the board as a device to keep Bush from wasting time on petty disagreements, but previous administrations have seldom seen Cabinet-level disputes in that light. Cheney's leadership of the panel gives him direct and indirect power over the federal budget -- and over those who must live within it. [Read then-OMB Director Joshua Bolten's memo about the review board.]
----------------------
At first glance this sounds pretty impressive, particularly that bit about arbitering budget disputes between cabinet heads and WH staff.
But then just a few paragraphs down we read
Cheney shared conservative trepidations about the president's signature education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, which gave the federal government more control over K-12 education. He has griped privately to confidants, such as economist and CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow, about the administration's failure to control spending. And in robust internal White House discussions, he raised concerns about the cost of the administration's decision to expand Medicare to include a new multibillion-dollar drug entitlement, but bowed to the political reality that the president had to fulfill a campaign promise.
------------------------------
So, while Vice has been chairing this budget review board, and serving as the administration's conservative conscience on spending matters, the administration has still managed to let spending spiral and enacted an expensive new drug entitlement to boot along the way.
Finally, let's think about taxes, particularly the president's tax cut packages. The Post writers are eager to give Dick a lot of credit for the president's tax policies, especially since Vice really wanted both a capital gains cut and a special write-off for business investment.
Says the Post writers--
Bush sided with Cheney on the dividends tax but thought it would be better to eliminate it altogether. The president was cooler on the capital gains tax, according to Conda and others. And having campaigned on a platform of compassionate conservatism, he expressed doubts about giving another income tax break to the wealthiest Americans, particularly because they would benefit the most from the elimination of the dividends tax, Hubbard said.
---------------------
Hey, number 1, Bush campaigned on tax cuts and knew tax cuts would go to the highest income folks, so the Post writers inserting, and apparently buying, this line about Bush being cautious about proving more tax cuts for the rich doesn't ring true. Number 2, the Bush administration entered office with a budget surplus and given both the 2000 recession and the economic effects of 9/11, weren't likely to be directed off course from their tax cutting goals in any event. With or without Cheney, Bush was going to favor a tax cutting policy. And the signature item of the tax cuts were first, the income tax cuts, and second, the inheritence tax cut. The dividend and capital gains cuts, while important, were peripheral in the overall scheme of things.
3 Signs
the apocalypse is upon us:
1. CNN's Paula Zahn show at 8 pm includes a countdown clock to Paris Hilton's Larry King appearance at 9 pm
2. CNN's Larry King plays host to Paris Hilton for a full hour from 9-10
3. at 10 pm CNN's Anderson Cooper plays host to an expert panel convened to discuss Paris Hilton's Larry King appearance during the prior hour and to discuss all things Paris Hilton
I can understand number two somewhat, but numbers 1 and 3 make me remember fondly the days of Ted Turner, Frank Sesno and Bernard Shaw.
1. CNN's Paula Zahn show at 8 pm includes a countdown clock to Paris Hilton's Larry King appearance at 9 pm
2. CNN's Larry King plays host to Paris Hilton for a full hour from 9-10
3. at 10 pm CNN's Anderson Cooper plays host to an expert panel convened to discuss Paris Hilton's Larry King appearance during the prior hour and to discuss all things Paris Hilton
I can understand number two somewhat, but numbers 1 and 3 make me remember fondly the days of Ted Turner, Frank Sesno and Bernard Shaw.
Dealing with Ann Coulter
As some of you may have noticed, Tweety had his favorite guest, Ann Coulter, on Hardball the other night. Only this time, Elizabeth Edwards called in to confront Coulter and her hateful comments regarding the Edwards' deceased son and Coulter's expression of support for Edwards' assassination.
This is of course all in addition to Coulter's "Edwards is a faggot" slur at a conservative hatefest (when was that--just a few months ago??) which resulted in Coulter's "column" being dropped from some newspapers and coming in for some, very limited, criticism by her conservative peers, who were mostly offended that Coulter may be dragging the conservative movement down into the slime with her. Not to mention that the "Edwards is a faggot" slur was supposed to be evidence that, at last, Coulter had really, really gone too far this time, really, and that this would surely result, really, in her not getting the usual slew of bookings in the future by respectful media outlets who had finally tired of her antics and had seen the light. Well.
But there is one angle it seems to me that has been curiously underplayed by liberals in the Ann Coulter culture wars; namely that Coulter passes herself off as a Christian, yet continues to say, and bases her entire faux fame on, deliriously hateful comments towards all sorts of people, and is by all visible evidence, completely devoid of any principle--in other words, while she passes herself off as a "Christian" her antics, words and behavior are anything but.
So, instead of asking Coulter to please stop her public displays of vulgarity and hate (although in Elizabeth Edwards' case, it was probably the right approach to start off with), why not take her at her word that she cares a great deal about the Christian faith and confront her with the words of the One she professes to follow, and the vast discrepancy between the admonitions of her faith and how she treats others, particularly those she disagrees with? Are her words and actions really Christian? She claims to want to advance the interests and values of Christianity, but what about Ann Coulter--and her legion of supporters--is Christian?
That would be my approach. And since I'm unlikely to be invited on any shows opposite Coulter, it is what I would recommend to Democratic bloggers, pundits and politicians who might have the opportunity to do so.
This is of course all in addition to Coulter's "Edwards is a faggot" slur at a conservative hatefest (when was that--just a few months ago??) which resulted in Coulter's "column" being dropped from some newspapers and coming in for some, very limited, criticism by her conservative peers, who were mostly offended that Coulter may be dragging the conservative movement down into the slime with her. Not to mention that the "Edwards is a faggot" slur was supposed to be evidence that, at last, Coulter had really, really gone too far this time, really, and that this would surely result, really, in her not getting the usual slew of bookings in the future by respectful media outlets who had finally tired of her antics and had seen the light. Well.
But there is one angle it seems to me that has been curiously underplayed by liberals in the Ann Coulter culture wars; namely that Coulter passes herself off as a Christian, yet continues to say, and bases her entire faux fame on, deliriously hateful comments towards all sorts of people, and is by all visible evidence, completely devoid of any principle--in other words, while she passes herself off as a "Christian" her antics, words and behavior are anything but.
So, instead of asking Coulter to please stop her public displays of vulgarity and hate (although in Elizabeth Edwards' case, it was probably the right approach to start off with), why not take her at her word that she cares a great deal about the Christian faith and confront her with the words of the One she professes to follow, and the vast discrepancy between the admonitions of her faith and how she treats others, particularly those she disagrees with? Are her words and actions really Christian? She claims to want to advance the interests and values of Christianity, but what about Ann Coulter--and her legion of supporters--is Christian?
That would be my approach. And since I'm unlikely to be invited on any shows opposite Coulter, it is what I would recommend to Democratic bloggers, pundits and politicians who might have the opportunity to do so.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Who Is This?
I thought at first she might be that actress from CSI. All the NYT tells us is she wrote a book called If They Only Listened To Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear.
Now, it so happens I frequent book stores a lot. A lot. Sometimes I buy. Sometimes I just browse. And I've never, never seen or heard of this book or her.
So why is this person being granted a valuable NYT op-ed spot to vent about Democrats and abortion, especially since her argument seems strangely so pre-2006. For that matter, it seems so strangely pre-2003. Does she know about Iraq? And ya know, the Democrats actually won the last election. But for Henneberger, the sky is still falling for Democrats, and apparently abortion is the problem.
Sigh. It also appears she spends too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh, or watching Hardball, because she somehow thinks it's the Republicans and Real American "pro-life" voters who are famously nuanced about this abortion business.
Very strange column, very strange timing, very strange argument. But whoever she is, it sounds like she'd be a perfect Fox "News" faux-Democrat.
Now, it so happens I frequent book stores a lot. A lot. Sometimes I buy. Sometimes I just browse. And I've never, never seen or heard of this book or her.
So why is this person being granted a valuable NYT op-ed spot to vent about Democrats and abortion, especially since her argument seems strangely so pre-2006. For that matter, it seems so strangely pre-2003. Does she know about Iraq? And ya know, the Democrats actually won the last election. But for Henneberger, the sky is still falling for Democrats, and apparently abortion is the problem.
Sigh. It also appears she spends too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh, or watching Hardball, because she somehow thinks it's the Republicans and Real American "pro-life" voters who are famously nuanced about this abortion business.
Very strange column, very strange timing, very strange argument. But whoever she is, it sounds like she'd be a perfect Fox "News" faux-Democrat.
Fool Me Once, Shame on Me, Shame Me Twice, Fool on...
Is anybody else besides me less than riveted by the increasing tendency on the part of the administration and the media to label any and all insurgents in Iraq, or people with guns, or anyone who just happens to look suspicious, as being full-fledged members of Al-Qaeda (either the Iraq franchise or the global one), who by the very label, must be committed to endless, suicidal war with the U.S. and who will no doubt jump on airplanes and fly over here to kill us all should we ever withdraw our military from Mesopotamia?
Is anybody buying this at all?
Update: Glenn Greenwald and other bloggers have noticed it, too.
Is anybody buying this at all?
Update: Glenn Greenwald and other bloggers have noticed it, too.
Bob Kerrey Back to the Senate?
I was surprised to read that former 9/11 Commission member and former Senator of Nebraska, Bob Kerrey is being recruited for, and is apparently highly interested in, another Senatorial run. I didn't think he even still lived in Nebraska. I suppose this should be counted as good news, although I wonder about his prospects. And even though he's a bit of a gadfly for progressives, having an extra vote for majority leader wouldn't be bad.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
They Get Radio Station Gigs
In this op-ed by guest-columnist Timothy Egan, we learn what the infamous, blowhard, got-his-ass-bounced-outta-Congress-last-fall, non-white-immigrant-hatin', former House Rep, J.D. Hayworth is doing with his time to pay the rent--hosting a conservative talk radio show. Gee, what a surprise. Guess conservative hate radio is never so saturated that another pretentious, has-been rageaholic can't get a spot. "Whateva it takes" I suppose.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Keeping the Lights Off
Although I agree with Glenn Greenwald here, I think there's something besides a general media-government camradarie that explains the ambivalence about, if not outright objection to, the trial and conviction of Scooter Libby among media people, like the "liberal" Wash Post columnist, Richard Cohen.
Mainly, as Cohen alludes to, the positive vibe towards Libby by even "liberal" media people stems from Fitzpatrick's jailing, and threats to jail, their fellow media buddies:
The special counsel used the immense power of the government to jail Judith Miller and to compel other journalists, including Time's Matt Cooper, to suspend their various and sacred vows of silence just so they could, understandably, avoid jail.
This is the gut of the whole thing: Fitzpatrick didn't play by the rules when he ignored the media's "sacred vows of silence" in dealing with sources, like special, high-up government people. And this Fitzpatrick fellow, runaway train driver, put one of their own in jail and threatened another fellow journalist with jail. This is the crux of the matter, why "journalists" like Cohen are giving Libby a pass and in doing so, demonstrate their hostility for Fitzpatrick.
But let's continue:
For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.
And finally:
Accountability is one thing. By all means, let Congress investigate and conduct oversight hearings with relish and abandon. But a prosecution is a different matter. It entails the government at its most coercive -- a power so immense and sometimes so secretive that it poses much more of a threat to civil liberties, including freedom of the press, than anything in the interstices of the scary Patriot Act. The mere arrival of a form letter from the IRS will give any sane person a touch of angina.
So there you have it. Maybe this helps answer Digby's question.
Mainly, as Cohen alludes to, the positive vibe towards Libby by even "liberal" media people stems from Fitzpatrick's jailing, and threats to jail, their fellow media buddies:
The special counsel used the immense power of the government to jail Judith Miller and to compel other journalists, including Time's Matt Cooper, to suspend their various and sacred vows of silence just so they could, understandably, avoid jail.
This is the gut of the whole thing: Fitzpatrick didn't play by the rules when he ignored the media's "sacred vows of silence" in dealing with sources, like special, high-up government people. And this Fitzpatrick fellow, runaway train driver, put one of their own in jail and threatened another fellow journalist with jail. This is the crux of the matter, why "journalists" like Cohen are giving Libby a pass and in doing so, demonstrate their hostility for Fitzpatrick.
But let's continue:
For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.
And finally:
Accountability is one thing. By all means, let Congress investigate and conduct oversight hearings with relish and abandon. But a prosecution is a different matter. It entails the government at its most coercive -- a power so immense and sometimes so secretive that it poses much more of a threat to civil liberties, including freedom of the press, than anything in the interstices of the scary Patriot Act. The mere arrival of a form letter from the IRS will give any sane person a touch of angina.
So there you have it. Maybe this helps answer Digby's question.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Why Won't Dems Agree to A Fox "News" Sponsored Debate?
I don't know.
But maybe this is a reason:
Yesterday, the far-right side of the blogosphere was delirious with joy over Dennis Miller’s two-minute diatribe on Fox News condemning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. At last count, I found over 400 conservative blogs praising the attack, characterizing it as the most devastating take-down in political monologue history.
You can watch the clip for yourself, but I have to admit, if this is the most insightful, stinging criticism the right can come up with, Reid should be fairly pleased. Miller’s rant had four basic parts to it:
1. Reid is physically unattractive.
2. Reid’s voice is “whinny” and unpleasant to listen to.
3. Reid’s rhetoric on the war has been “bleak.”
4. Reid is irrelevant (specifically, he has “delude[d] himself into thinking that he matters”).
-------------------------------
No, I can't imagine why Democrats would question Fox's professionalism on something like this. Can you?
But maybe this is a reason:
Yesterday, the far-right side of the blogosphere was delirious with joy over Dennis Miller’s two-minute diatribe on Fox News condemning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. At last count, I found over 400 conservative blogs praising the attack, characterizing it as the most devastating take-down in political monologue history.
You can watch the clip for yourself, but I have to admit, if this is the most insightful, stinging criticism the right can come up with, Reid should be fairly pleased. Miller’s rant had four basic parts to it:
1. Reid is physically unattractive.
2. Reid’s voice is “whinny” and unpleasant to listen to.
3. Reid’s rhetoric on the war has been “bleak.”
4. Reid is irrelevant (specifically, he has “delude[d] himself into thinking that he matters”).
-------------------------------
No, I can't imagine why Democrats would question Fox's professionalism on something like this. Can you?
Tom Schaller is Unbelievably Awesome
FERGUSON'S FACT-LESS CHECK OF GORE. In Sunday's Washington Post, Weekly Standard senior editor Andrew Ferguson had a little hit job on Al Gore's new book, built around Gore's citation of an Abraham Lincoln quote which, according to Ferguson, has been falsely attributed to The Great Emancipator. Here's how Ferguson opens the piece:
You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, "The Assault on Reason." It's a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver.
Still, I'd love to know where he found the scary quote from Abraham Lincoln that he uses on page 88. [emphasis added]
Well, Mr. Ferguson, the answer to that is quite easily to be found on p. 282 of the book where, in the endnotes, Gore provides the citation. (The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Macmillan: 1950, Andrew Ward, ed., page 40.) Is Ferguson so manipulative that he is using the endnote/footnote difference to mislead the readers into believing there is no sourcing whatsoever in Gore's book?
Or is Ferguson so damn lazy he didn't even bother to notice that Gore's book includes endnotes? Though I'm willing to give Ferguson the benefit of the doubt (he can email me at schaller67@hotmail.com to clarify), either way it looks bad for him. And if his point is merely to dispute Gore's use of The Lincoln Encyclopedia as a source or, worse, that the publisher's stylistic choice of endnotes rather than footnotes is intended to obscure the sourcing of the quote, are these complaints really worthy of space in the Post's Sunday section?
As for the Post's editors, did they, too, fail to fact check Ferguson's "not using footnotes" assertion which, had they done so, they would have discovered it to be true merely in the very misleading, endnote-v-footnote definitional sense?
To borrow a phrase from Ferguson, his piece and the Post's editing of it turns out to be a rather "sprawling, untidy blast" of misinformation.
Makes one wonder what the criterion is to make "senior editor" over at the Standard, eh? If all of this is not galling and ironic enough for you, the Post's choice for title of the op-ed is ... wait for it ... "Fact Check."
UPDATE: The Post has up a correction now ... though, as a commenter notes, it's hardly a complete one.
You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, "The Assault on Reason." It's a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver.
Still, I'd love to know where he found the scary quote from Abraham Lincoln that he uses on page 88. [emphasis added]
Well, Mr. Ferguson, the answer to that is quite easily to be found on p. 282 of the book where, in the endnotes, Gore provides the citation. (The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Macmillan: 1950, Andrew Ward, ed., page 40.) Is Ferguson so manipulative that he is using the endnote/footnote difference to mislead the readers into believing there is no sourcing whatsoever in Gore's book?
Or is Ferguson so damn lazy he didn't even bother to notice that Gore's book includes endnotes? Though I'm willing to give Ferguson the benefit of the doubt (he can email me at schaller67@hotmail.com to clarify), either way it looks bad for him. And if his point is merely to dispute Gore's use of The Lincoln Encyclopedia as a source or, worse, that the publisher's stylistic choice of endnotes rather than footnotes is intended to obscure the sourcing of the quote, are these complaints really worthy of space in the Post's Sunday section?
As for the Post's editors, did they, too, fail to fact check Ferguson's "not using footnotes" assertion which, had they done so, they would have discovered it to be true merely in the very misleading, endnote-v-footnote definitional sense?
To borrow a phrase from Ferguson, his piece and the Post's editing of it turns out to be a rather "sprawling, untidy blast" of misinformation.
Makes one wonder what the criterion is to make "senior editor" over at the Standard, eh? If all of this is not galling and ironic enough for you, the Post's choice for title of the op-ed is ... wait for it ... "Fact Check."
UPDATE: The Post has up a correction now ... though, as a commenter notes, it's hardly a complete one.
Republican Pseudo Populism. Fading.
Peter Beinert has an op-ed in the Washington Post today. And it kinda sorta makes sense, even if it's conclusions are not terribly groundbreaking.
As an aside, I tend to read Beinert's columns like I read those of David Brooks--with interest but still looking for the subtle incongruities beneath the parts I find myself agreeing with. With Brooks it's the illiberal notions he's purposely cloaking in genial tones. With Beinert it's more a matter of uncritically passing off some myth or piece of conventional wisdom.
His topic today is Republican "populism", which he says is in iminent danger now that the GOP has held the reigns of power for the past couple of decades, and as a result, has become the government elite it has long claimed to battle for the benefit of Real Americans. And now, Beinert says, the movement's populism is turning against itself. Like in the case of immigration for instance, where the party's nativist grassroots is in conflict with the party's corporatist cash cows and smoke-filled room decisionmakers. Add the problems presented by an unpopular president and an unpopular war, the party's in a fix.
Now, while I appreciate Beinert's upbeatedness here, the point really is that the Republican Party is not and has never been in any real, meaningful sense, populist. I can't tell if Beinert recognizes this and just doesn't make hay out of it, or if he recognizes that Republican "populism" has been rhetorical rather than substantive for four decades, or if he in some way believes that the Republican Party has genuinely been the populist party all these years, and now, regrettably, having dethroned and replaced the country's governing elite, it's balking at going all the way to challenge and dismantle the corporate elite, too.
See what I mean?
Most troubling is Beinert's assertion that the Bush Administration's NSA spying and other civil liberty violations is to be regarded as "populism". Fortunately, Beinert acknowledges that this scheme finally failed in 2006 and likely won't work next year either. And Beinert puts down in print the conundrum that is the Bush Administration, and the conservative movement's, "war on terror" politics: without actual events and catastrophes confirming the threat, the party's electoral prospects will be undermined and the work needed to craft something like a policy or governing agenda all the more put off. And without a galvenizing issue, the party's faux populism is fracturing the party.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
As an aside, I tend to read Beinert's columns like I read those of David Brooks--with interest but still looking for the subtle incongruities beneath the parts I find myself agreeing with. With Brooks it's the illiberal notions he's purposely cloaking in genial tones. With Beinert it's more a matter of uncritically passing off some myth or piece of conventional wisdom.
His topic today is Republican "populism", which he says is in iminent danger now that the GOP has held the reigns of power for the past couple of decades, and as a result, has become the government elite it has long claimed to battle for the benefit of Real Americans. And now, Beinert says, the movement's populism is turning against itself. Like in the case of immigration for instance, where the party's nativist grassroots is in conflict with the party's corporatist cash cows and smoke-filled room decisionmakers. Add the problems presented by an unpopular president and an unpopular war, the party's in a fix.
Now, while I appreciate Beinert's upbeatedness here, the point really is that the Republican Party is not and has never been in any real, meaningful sense, populist. I can't tell if Beinert recognizes this and just doesn't make hay out of it, or if he recognizes that Republican "populism" has been rhetorical rather than substantive for four decades, or if he in some way believes that the Republican Party has genuinely been the populist party all these years, and now, regrettably, having dethroned and replaced the country's governing elite, it's balking at going all the way to challenge and dismantle the corporate elite, too.
See what I mean?
Most troubling is Beinert's assertion that the Bush Administration's NSA spying and other civil liberty violations is to be regarded as "populism". Fortunately, Beinert acknowledges that this scheme finally failed in 2006 and likely won't work next year either. And Beinert puts down in print the conundrum that is the Bush Administration, and the conservative movement's, "war on terror" politics: without actual events and catastrophes confirming the threat, the party's electoral prospects will be undermined and the work needed to craft something like a policy or governing agenda all the more put off. And without a galvenizing issue, the party's faux populism is fracturing the party.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
College May Be Out For The Summer...
But the collegiate softball Worldseries, or whatever it is calling itself, is still going on. And you know what? It's pretty interesting stuff to watch, if not downright captivating.
I had the Bosox-Yankees game on Sunday night and between one of the innings I flipped around the dial and stumbled across ESPN2's coverage of game one of Arizona-Tennessee. For the fellow-uninitiated, Arizona is the defending champ, and the series is the best of three. Tennessee won on Sunday night, Arizona last night, bringing us game three tonight. What's different about softball is that the same pitcher pitches the whole game and every game. Tennessee's Monica Abbott and Arizona's Taryn Mowatt pitched complete games in games one and two, and are scheduled to take the mound tonight, too.
For fans of lots of scoring, you might be disappointed, because the pitchers are so dominating. But somehow the game is nevertheless riveting to watch. Sunday night's matchup won me over, leaving the Bosox-Yanks for Monday's sports page wrapup.
Last night's game had me hooked as it went to extra innings tied at zero, but Arizona scored a run in the top of the tenth and Mowatt held on in the bottom half of the inning to send the series to a game three.
Oh yeah, the girls are also, ahem, pretty foxy in most cases. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the game's draw. Really.
You should check it and them out. And if the Seattle Mariners are paying attention, Tennessee's Monica Abbott is graduating this year. I'm not an official scout, but here's a tip, Mariners' management: how about adding Abbott to your sorry starting staff?
I had the Bosox-Yankees game on Sunday night and between one of the innings I flipped around the dial and stumbled across ESPN2's coverage of game one of Arizona-Tennessee. For the fellow-uninitiated, Arizona is the defending champ, and the series is the best of three. Tennessee won on Sunday night, Arizona last night, bringing us game three tonight. What's different about softball is that the same pitcher pitches the whole game and every game. Tennessee's Monica Abbott and Arizona's Taryn Mowatt pitched complete games in games one and two, and are scheduled to take the mound tonight, too.
For fans of lots of scoring, you might be disappointed, because the pitchers are so dominating. But somehow the game is nevertheless riveting to watch. Sunday night's matchup won me over, leaving the Bosox-Yanks for Monday's sports page wrapup.
Last night's game had me hooked as it went to extra innings tied at zero, but Arizona scored a run in the top of the tenth and Mowatt held on in the bottom half of the inning to send the series to a game three.
Oh yeah, the girls are also, ahem, pretty foxy in most cases. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the game's draw. Really.
You should check it and them out. And if the Seattle Mariners are paying attention, Tennessee's Monica Abbott is graduating this year. I'm not an official scout, but here's a tip, Mariners' management: how about adding Abbott to your sorry starting staff?
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Who's Pro-Life? Part 2
Amanda's probably right to minimize any importance stemming from the dispute and dustup between the National "Right to Life" Committee and the James Dobson wing of the Republican Party, on the one side, and other anti-abortion groups as it relates to the recent SC ruling on "partial birth abortion".
Still, I couldn't help but be pleased in seeing at least some among the anti-abortion crowd calling out the obstensibly "pro-life" but practically "pro-Republican" groups for catering to party politics more than any real "pro-life" agenda.
In Rohrbough's view, partisan politics is also involved.
"What happened in the abortion world is that groups like National Right to Life, they're really a wing of the Republican Party, and they're not geared to push for personhood for an unborn child -- they're geared to getting Republicans elected," he said. "So we're seeing these ridiculous laws like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban put forward, and then we're deceived about what they really do."
Still, I couldn't help but be pleased in seeing at least some among the anti-abortion crowd calling out the obstensibly "pro-life" but practically "pro-Republican" groups for catering to party politics more than any real "pro-life" agenda.
In Rohrbough's view, partisan politics is also involved.
"What happened in the abortion world is that groups like National Right to Life, they're really a wing of the Republican Party, and they're not geared to push for personhood for an unborn child -- they're geared to getting Republicans elected," he said. "So we're seeing these ridiculous laws like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban put forward, and then we're deceived about what they really do."
Who's Pro-Life?
Pro-choice Republican Rudy getting the business from a Roman Catholic bishop:
"...As Catholics, we are called, indeed required to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death..."
I hate to wade in with a word of discord, but the Roman Catholic church wants to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift from God? I wonder what John Huss and other victims of the Inquisition think of this?
"...As Catholics, we are called, indeed required to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death..."
I hate to wade in with a word of discord, but the Roman Catholic church wants to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift from God? I wonder what John Huss and other victims of the Inquisition think of this?
Monday, June 04, 2007
Waiting For Thompson
Although I may never have mentioned it on this blog, I'd always thought Fred Thompson would be one of the better, one of the "tougher" candidates the Republicans could run for President. I've been somewhat surprised over the years that he never ran. Until now. Now it appears all but certain that Thompson will enter the race soon, and given the various problems associated with the present leaders of the field, it also seems highly certain that Thompson will vault to the top of the polls when he does so.
Even so, I found Robert Novak's recent gushing over Thompson rather unusual.
First, Novak makes the rather vapid point that Americans feel alienated from Washington, that bumbling, corrupt politicians have rendered Americans cynical, etc. And aside from being mush, it's an odd statement to make, coming as it does from a GOP operative and pundit, given the fact that the GOP has controlled DC for 12 years, and the presidency for the past six.
But then Novak goes on to offer a reason why American feel cynical and why Thompson represents the cure--the (unnecessary and unjust) trial and conviction of Scooter Libby.
He implied at Stamford that Republicans, along with Democrats, are responsible for making Americans cynical. While not spelling this out publicly, he deplores ethical abuses, profligate spending and incompetent management of the Iraq war. He becomes incandescent when considering abysmal CIA and Justice Department performance under the Bush administration. He is enraged by Justice's actions in decisions leading to Scooter Libby's prison sentence.
So, Novak tells us, Thompson would make Americans feel better about their government by...being more partisan and less transparent and accountable. By being even more partisan and less transparent and accountable than George W. Bush.
Yeah, that sounds like the ticket.
Even so, I found Robert Novak's recent gushing over Thompson rather unusual.
First, Novak makes the rather vapid point that Americans feel alienated from Washington, that bumbling, corrupt politicians have rendered Americans cynical, etc. And aside from being mush, it's an odd statement to make, coming as it does from a GOP operative and pundit, given the fact that the GOP has controlled DC for 12 years, and the presidency for the past six.
But then Novak goes on to offer a reason why American feel cynical and why Thompson represents the cure--the (unnecessary and unjust) trial and conviction of Scooter Libby.
He implied at Stamford that Republicans, along with Democrats, are responsible for making Americans cynical. While not spelling this out publicly, he deplores ethical abuses, profligate spending and incompetent management of the Iraq war. He becomes incandescent when considering abysmal CIA and Justice Department performance under the Bush administration. He is enraged by Justice's actions in decisions leading to Scooter Libby's prison sentence.
So, Novak tells us, Thompson would make Americans feel better about their government by...being more partisan and less transparent and accountable. By being even more partisan and less transparent and accountable than George W. Bush.
Yeah, that sounds like the ticket.
RIP, Steve Gilliard
Steve Gilliard, who hosted the Newsblog, passed away at age 41. Steve had been ill and hospitalized for the past several months. His death is terrible news. The Newsblog has been for me one of the four to six essential must reads of the day. I never met him but we did exchange a few emails. He will be greatly missed.
Dem Debate Impressions
For the hype CNN made about this debate (and the GOP one on Tuesday), CNN made a slop of the thing. The format for one thing. There's a panel of NH journalists and pundits asking questions...and also the Beard jumping in with questions. I couldn't figure out what this was about. Pick a format and stick with it. Use a panel or lose it. And then there was a problem with one of the panelist's mikes, where none of the candidates could hear the question. Good work guys.
However, I did appreciate the Beard's rather confrontational style of questioning, trying to put the Dems on the spot on the "war on terra", the lack of new attacks since 9/11, etc. It will be the kind of thing Democrats will face a lot more of next year. And better to try to deal with it now, because nobody up there particularly looked all that good responding. Edwards looked like he was squinting, like there was something in his eyes.
Too much time given to HRC, Obama and Edwards. In the lead up to the debate, CNN's pundits talked about the problems faced by "bottom tier" candidates in getting attention, whether at some point some of the bottom tier candidates should be denied the privilege of debate participation, etc. Then CNN went ahead and made sure that none of the "bottom tier" candidates got much exposure.
And how exactly to we even get a "top tier", "bottom tier" set of designations? Polling? But how do members of the public know who to support or even consider? Um, well, probably by seeing who gets all the media attention? A vicious, stupid circle.
However, I did appreciate the Beard's rather confrontational style of questioning, trying to put the Dems on the spot on the "war on terra", the lack of new attacks since 9/11, etc. It will be the kind of thing Democrats will face a lot more of next year. And better to try to deal with it now, because nobody up there particularly looked all that good responding. Edwards looked like he was squinting, like there was something in his eyes.
Too much time given to HRC, Obama and Edwards. In the lead up to the debate, CNN's pundits talked about the problems faced by "bottom tier" candidates in getting attention, whether at some point some of the bottom tier candidates should be denied the privilege of debate participation, etc. Then CNN went ahead and made sure that none of the "bottom tier" candidates got much exposure.
And how exactly to we even get a "top tier", "bottom tier" set of designations? Polling? But how do members of the public know who to support or even consider? Um, well, probably by seeing who gets all the media attention? A vicious, stupid circle.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Random Thoughts From Last Night's GOP Debate
I didn't think Iraq got much attention.
I don't think any of the lower or second-tier candidates got themselves into the top tier by last night's performance, although of the bottom seven, I suspect Mike Huckabee might have faired the best of them and could manage to hang around a while in this race, if dis-satisfaction with the top tier continues.
Guliani probably had a good night, and I think he handled the abortion issue well, highlighting the need to restrict the coercive power of government, and the need to reduce abortion, rather than just condemn them (which is of course a Democratic argument--funny how many of those popped up during the debate--see Paul, Ron; McCain, John). It'd be nice if a candidate from either party would say a good word about the Right to Privacy. But I guess that's expecting a lot.
None of the candidates is campaigning on continuing and building on the great progress made by this administration. All speak as if government is "broken", in McCain's words, although neither he nor any of the others enlightened us as to why government was "broken" even though Republicans held the House and much of the Congress for the past 12 years and the presidency for the last six.
I thought McCain and Paul deserve kudos for boldness. Paul obviously committed the greatest sin of the evening by suggesting that 911 was a result of "blowback" (another liberal, dirty commy hippy argument held only by the Democrat Party which hates America). McCain highlighted how excess money flowing into Washington has corrupted "his own party". I thought that was a pretty strong statement given the audience.
I thought the Fox crew actually did a decent job, following up candidates' responses and holding candidates accountable for not answering questions by repeating them after a candidate had answered a question with a sound bite speech unrelated and unresponsive to the question asked. More of this please.
I thought Gilmore and Thompson did poorly. Thompson was asked what government program he was prepared to eliminate and he mumbled something about "stockpiles" of something at the CDC. Paul followed this up with advocating the elimination of the Depart of Ed, Energy and a few others. Gilmore fumbled a number of times. Not sure why he's in this race. Thompson showed he knew a lot about stem cell research--probably too much. He needed a simple, values based answer here and he went into policy wonkism.
Duncan Hunter seemed to me to be the candidate least inclined to posture. He never looked at the audience but only looked at the questioner (something I noticed Dick Cheney do with some effectiveness in the VP debate with Lieberman in 2000). Hunter was serious. Maybe too serious.
Some of the questioning seemed tailored to the candidates' known policy concerns (immigration for Tancredo, trade with China for Hunter) which makes a certain kind of sense, but I thought it would have been more interesting to here some of these lower tier or single issue candidates hold forth on abortion or Iraq.
Romney makes my skin crawl.
And McCain still looks stiff and old, although he did manage to appear cheery, optimistic and principled, a return to form of sorts to his 2000 persona.
As it appears now, though, Rudy could win this thing. How about that, a pro-choice GOP nominee. Who'd a thunk it?
I don't think any of the lower or second-tier candidates got themselves into the top tier by last night's performance, although of the bottom seven, I suspect Mike Huckabee might have faired the best of them and could manage to hang around a while in this race, if dis-satisfaction with the top tier continues.
Guliani probably had a good night, and I think he handled the abortion issue well, highlighting the need to restrict the coercive power of government, and the need to reduce abortion, rather than just condemn them (which is of course a Democratic argument--funny how many of those popped up during the debate--see Paul, Ron; McCain, John). It'd be nice if a candidate from either party would say a good word about the Right to Privacy. But I guess that's expecting a lot.
None of the candidates is campaigning on continuing and building on the great progress made by this administration. All speak as if government is "broken", in McCain's words, although neither he nor any of the others enlightened us as to why government was "broken" even though Republicans held the House and much of the Congress for the past 12 years and the presidency for the last six.
I thought McCain and Paul deserve kudos for boldness. Paul obviously committed the greatest sin of the evening by suggesting that 911 was a result of "blowback" (another liberal, dirty commy hippy argument held only by the Democrat Party which hates America). McCain highlighted how excess money flowing into Washington has corrupted "his own party". I thought that was a pretty strong statement given the audience.
I thought the Fox crew actually did a decent job, following up candidates' responses and holding candidates accountable for not answering questions by repeating them after a candidate had answered a question with a sound bite speech unrelated and unresponsive to the question asked. More of this please.
I thought Gilmore and Thompson did poorly. Thompson was asked what government program he was prepared to eliminate and he mumbled something about "stockpiles" of something at the CDC. Paul followed this up with advocating the elimination of the Depart of Ed, Energy and a few others. Gilmore fumbled a number of times. Not sure why he's in this race. Thompson showed he knew a lot about stem cell research--probably too much. He needed a simple, values based answer here and he went into policy wonkism.
Duncan Hunter seemed to me to be the candidate least inclined to posture. He never looked at the audience but only looked at the questioner (something I noticed Dick Cheney do with some effectiveness in the VP debate with Lieberman in 2000). Hunter was serious. Maybe too serious.
Some of the questioning seemed tailored to the candidates' known policy concerns (immigration for Tancredo, trade with China for Hunter) which makes a certain kind of sense, but I thought it would have been more interesting to here some of these lower tier or single issue candidates hold forth on abortion or Iraq.
Romney makes my skin crawl.
And McCain still looks stiff and old, although he did manage to appear cheery, optimistic and principled, a return to form of sorts to his 2000 persona.
As it appears now, though, Rudy could win this thing. How about that, a pro-choice GOP nominee. Who'd a thunk it?
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Let Us Remember
In the most critical periods of our Nation's history, there have always been those on the fringes of our society who have sought to escape their own responsibility by finding a simple solution, an appealing slogan or a convenient scapegoat.
Financial crises could be explained by the presence of too many immigrants or too few greenbacks.
War could be attributed to munitions makers or international bankers. Peace conferences failed because we were duped by the British, or tricked by the French, or deceived by the Russians. It was not the presence of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe that drove it to communism, it was the sellout at Yalta. It was not a civil war that removed China from the Free World, it was treason in high places. At times these fanatics have achieved a temporary success among those who lack the will or the wisdom to face unpleasant facts or unsolved problems. But in time the basic good sense and stability of the great American consensus has always prevailed.
Now we are face to face once again with a period of heightened peril. The risks are great, the burdens heavy, the problems incapable of swift or lasting solution. And under the strains and frustrations imposed by constant tension and harassment, the discordant voices of extremism are once again heard in the land. Men who are unwilling to face up to the danger from without are convinced that the real danger is from within.
They look suspiciously at their neighbors and their leaders. They call for "a man on horseback" because they do not trust the people. They find treason in our churches, in our highest court, in our treatment of water. They equate the Democratic Party with the welfare state, the welfare state with socialism, socialism with communism. They object quite rightly to politics intruding on the military - but they are very anxious for the military to engage in their kind of politics.
But you and I - most Americans, soldiers and civilians - take a different view of our peril. We know it comes from without, not within. It must be met by quiet preparedness, not provocative speeches. And the steps taken this year to bolster our defenses - to increase our missile forces, to put more planes on alert, to provide more airlift and sealift and ready divisions - to make more certain than ever before that this nation has all the power that it will need to deter any attack of any kind - these steps constitute the most effective answer that can be made to those who would sow the seeds of doubt and of hate.
So let us not heed these counsels of fear and suspicion. Let us concentrate more on keeping enemy bombers and missiles away from our shores, and concentrate less on keeping neighbors away from our shelters. Let us devote more energy to organizing the free and friendly nations of the world, with common trade and strategic goals, and devote less energy to organizing armed bands of civilian guerrillas that are more likely to supply local vigilantes than national vigilance.
Let our patriotism be reflected in the creation of confidence in one another, rather than in crusades of suspicion. Let us prove we think our country great, by striving to make it greater. And, above all, let us remember, however serious the outlook, however harsh the task, the one great irreversible trend in the history of the world is on the side of liberty - and we, for all time to come, are on the same side.
------------------------------
These remarks were taken from this speech by JFK on November 18, 1961, amidst a chorus of criticism from insubordinate military officials and right-wing quacks like the John Birch Society who wanted to wage "pre-emptive war" on the Soviet Union.
I've been reading Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, by David Talbot, which just came out. I was suprised to read of this speech in this book, and the war-mongering, fear-driven scapegoating and red-baiting of the times. It's easy to sort of gloss over the craziness that existed in what we have sometimes thought of as calmer times. Kind of sounded familiar. Somewhat. But it makes me realize just how weak the descendents of Curtis LeMay and Bob Welch were and are in the aftermath of 911 and the Iraq invasion of March 2003. They blustered a lot and tried to intimidate us, who they regard as their enemies, but their bluster and bark was considerably worse than their bite.
Financial crises could be explained by the presence of too many immigrants or too few greenbacks.
War could be attributed to munitions makers or international bankers. Peace conferences failed because we were duped by the British, or tricked by the French, or deceived by the Russians. It was not the presence of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe that drove it to communism, it was the sellout at Yalta. It was not a civil war that removed China from the Free World, it was treason in high places. At times these fanatics have achieved a temporary success among those who lack the will or the wisdom to face unpleasant facts or unsolved problems. But in time the basic good sense and stability of the great American consensus has always prevailed.
Now we are face to face once again with a period of heightened peril. The risks are great, the burdens heavy, the problems incapable of swift or lasting solution. And under the strains and frustrations imposed by constant tension and harassment, the discordant voices of extremism are once again heard in the land. Men who are unwilling to face up to the danger from without are convinced that the real danger is from within.
They look suspiciously at their neighbors and their leaders. They call for "a man on horseback" because they do not trust the people. They find treason in our churches, in our highest court, in our treatment of water. They equate the Democratic Party with the welfare state, the welfare state with socialism, socialism with communism. They object quite rightly to politics intruding on the military - but they are very anxious for the military to engage in their kind of politics.
But you and I - most Americans, soldiers and civilians - take a different view of our peril. We know it comes from without, not within. It must be met by quiet preparedness, not provocative speeches. And the steps taken this year to bolster our defenses - to increase our missile forces, to put more planes on alert, to provide more airlift and sealift and ready divisions - to make more certain than ever before that this nation has all the power that it will need to deter any attack of any kind - these steps constitute the most effective answer that can be made to those who would sow the seeds of doubt and of hate.
So let us not heed these counsels of fear and suspicion. Let us concentrate more on keeping enemy bombers and missiles away from our shores, and concentrate less on keeping neighbors away from our shelters. Let us devote more energy to organizing the free and friendly nations of the world, with common trade and strategic goals, and devote less energy to organizing armed bands of civilian guerrillas that are more likely to supply local vigilantes than national vigilance.
Let our patriotism be reflected in the creation of confidence in one another, rather than in crusades of suspicion. Let us prove we think our country great, by striving to make it greater. And, above all, let us remember, however serious the outlook, however harsh the task, the one great irreversible trend in the history of the world is on the side of liberty - and we, for all time to come, are on the same side.
------------------------------
These remarks were taken from this speech by JFK on November 18, 1961, amidst a chorus of criticism from insubordinate military officials and right-wing quacks like the John Birch Society who wanted to wage "pre-emptive war" on the Soviet Union.
I've been reading Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, by David Talbot, which just came out. I was suprised to read of this speech in this book, and the war-mongering, fear-driven scapegoating and red-baiting of the times. It's easy to sort of gloss over the craziness that existed in what we have sometimes thought of as calmer times. Kind of sounded familiar. Somewhat. But it makes me realize just how weak the descendents of Curtis LeMay and Bob Welch were and are in the aftermath of 911 and the Iraq invasion of March 2003. They blustered a lot and tried to intimidate us, who they regard as their enemies, but their bluster and bark was considerably worse than their bite.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Our Liberal Media
Digby provides us this nugget from last night's GOP debate coverage on MSNBC:
FINEMAN: Keith, if you look at that picture and took away all of the writing and all of the words, and just had the image, could the American people tell that those were Republicans? I think the answer is yes. There is a hierarchical, there is, dare I say it, male, there is an old-line quality to them that some voters, indeed a lot of voters, find reassuring. And this is something that the Democrats need to understand. The Democrats are the “we are family” party, which is great, but this is the other side of the conversation and this is their home here. We really are in Reagan country.
-----------------------------------------
Does anyone even know what this means?
FINEMAN: Keith, if you look at that picture and took away all of the writing and all of the words, and just had the image, could the American people tell that those were Republicans? I think the answer is yes. There is a hierarchical, there is, dare I say it, male, there is an old-line quality to them that some voters, indeed a lot of voters, find reassuring. And this is something that the Democrats need to understand. The Democrats are the “we are family” party, which is great, but this is the other side of the conversation and this is their home here. We really are in Reagan country.
-----------------------------------------
Does anyone even know what this means?
Thursday, May 03, 2007
I Really Don't Know Why
Democrats Back Down on (non-binding) Timetable
Yet, the article goes on to insist that Democrats want to insist that the supplemental spending bill still include "benchmarks" and other language that "influences war policy".
Huh?
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.
Anyone who thinks that any of these so-called "benchmarks" can be enforced, please raise your hands.
Does anyone think the President would allow, or this Congress would agree to cut-off financial aid of any kind, let alone non-military aid to Iraq in the event that violence in the capital and throughout the country continues to escalate, just because Iraq didn't come through on some "benchmarks", which the president would most likely ignore or disallow through a signing statement (yeah, remember those?)?
If I was an optimistic sort, I might think about how the president's veto actually represents an opportunity of sorts to skuddle the whole supplemental war funding bill. It would, that is, if enough Democrats who weren't particularly thrilled with the continued funding request to begin with, decide that the lack of a timetable, however symbolic and meaningless it ever was, is an invitation to oppose the process and intent of a permanent war and eternal occupation of a Middle Eastern country.
Yet, the article goes on to insist that Democrats want to insist that the supplemental spending bill still include "benchmarks" and other language that "influences war policy".
Huh?
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.
Anyone who thinks that any of these so-called "benchmarks" can be enforced, please raise your hands.
Does anyone think the President would allow, or this Congress would agree to cut-off financial aid of any kind, let alone non-military aid to Iraq in the event that violence in the capital and throughout the country continues to escalate, just because Iraq didn't come through on some "benchmarks", which the president would most likely ignore or disallow through a signing statement (yeah, remember those?)?
If I was an optimistic sort, I might think about how the president's veto actually represents an opportunity of sorts to skuddle the whole supplemental war funding bill. It would, that is, if enough Democrats who weren't particularly thrilled with the continued funding request to begin with, decide that the lack of a timetable, however symbolic and meaningless it ever was, is an invitation to oppose the process and intent of a permanent war and eternal occupation of a Middle Eastern country.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
I Know It's Been Said Before, But...
Glenn Greenwald on Harvey Mansfield's plea for establishing "One Man Rule":
I just want to add one related point here. Much of the intense dissatisfaction I have with the American media arises out of the fact that these extraordinary developments -- the dominant political movement advocating lawlessness and tyranny out in the open in The Wall St. Journal and Weekly Standard -- receive almost no attention.
While the Bush administration expressly adopts these theories to detain American citizens without charges, engage in domestic surveillance on Americans in clear violation of the laws we enacted to limit that power, and asserts a general right to disregard laws which interfere with the President's will, our media still barely discusses those issues.
They write about John Edwards' haircut and John Kerry's windsurfing and which political consultant has whispered what gossip to them about some painfully petty matter, but the extraordinary fact that our nation's dominant political movement is openly advocating the most radical theories of tyranny -- that "liberties are dangerous and law does not apply" -- is barely noticed by our most prestigious and self-loving national journalists. Merely to take note of that failure is to demonstrate how profoundly dysfunctional our political press is.
And Kevin Drum finds NRO's Thomas Sowell pining for a military coup--here:
BANANA REPUBLICANISM, CONT'D....Quote of the day, from Thomas Sowell:
When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.
Now that's a comforting, conservative thought, isn't it? I wonder what Buckley thinks of NRO publishing stuff like this?
(And in case you're wondering, there's no further context. That's the whole quote. It's one bullet point in a long series of dyspeptic observations about how liberals have ruined the country.)
I just want to add one related point here. Much of the intense dissatisfaction I have with the American media arises out of the fact that these extraordinary developments -- the dominant political movement advocating lawlessness and tyranny out in the open in The Wall St. Journal and Weekly Standard -- receive almost no attention.
While the Bush administration expressly adopts these theories to detain American citizens without charges, engage in domestic surveillance on Americans in clear violation of the laws we enacted to limit that power, and asserts a general right to disregard laws which interfere with the President's will, our media still barely discusses those issues.
They write about John Edwards' haircut and John Kerry's windsurfing and which political consultant has whispered what gossip to them about some painfully petty matter, but the extraordinary fact that our nation's dominant political movement is openly advocating the most radical theories of tyranny -- that "liberties are dangerous and law does not apply" -- is barely noticed by our most prestigious and self-loving national journalists. Merely to take note of that failure is to demonstrate how profoundly dysfunctional our political press is.
And Kevin Drum finds NRO's Thomas Sowell pining for a military coup--here:
BANANA REPUBLICANISM, CONT'D....Quote of the day, from Thomas Sowell:
When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.
Now that's a comforting, conservative thought, isn't it? I wonder what Buckley thinks of NRO publishing stuff like this?
(And in case you're wondering, there's no further context. That's the whole quote. It's one bullet point in a long series of dyspeptic observations about how liberals have ruined the country.)
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
I Loathe These People, Too
Greenwald:
We have been treated in the last 48 hours to an extremely vivid illustration of how conventional political Beltway wisdom is created. It all began with The Politico's in-house gossip, Ben Smith, who on consecutive days published a gossipy, petty article designed to fuel right-wing caricatures of the personality traits of John Edwards and Barack Obama, respectively.
First was a story on Monday about the costs of Edwards' haircuts and visits to a spa, plainly intended to fuel the principal right-wing anti-Edwards caricature -- his effeminate obsession with his hair.
That was followed by another Smith story yesterday ripping out of context a small part of Obama's speech -- in which he spoke of various types of "violence" (beyond physical violence) that create divisions in America. Attaching himself to the prevailing anti-Obama cliche, Smith asserts that these excerpts illustrate Obama's "instinct for abstraction and large themes, and his sense that America's problems have at their root solutions that have as much to do with hope and process as with any specific course of action."
Obama's crime? Instead of proposing specific policies to "solve" the problem of school shootings (as though such problems can be "solved"), Obama "moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life." In the rotted world of Beltway media cynicism, any talk of "root solutions" or "ideas" or "abstract concepts" is automatically insincere, irrelevant and merely a tactic for avoiding "real substance."
Predictably, both Politico items were immediately trumpeted by Drudge, almost certainly the real goal of Smith's stories. Thereafter, the standard right-wing hacks then dutifully followed along, reciting the exact storyline manufactured by Smith and Drudge. The conventional wisdom-spewing internet gossip Mickey Kaus then joined in with an item entitled "Barack the Hack," which claims -- in an act of extreme projection -- that the speech reflects "a mindset that tries to fit every event into a familiar, comforting framework he can spoon-feed his audience without disturbing them." Kaus says the Obama excerpts are "not exactly evidence of a fresh intelligence, or even basic common sense" -- but that "Democratic primary campaigns will do that to you."
The Associated Press then does its part, churning out a story, published by CNN (among others), that begins with this sentence: "Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies." The Associated Press then interviewed Edwards' hair stylist, and reported that he admitted this: "'I do cut his hair and I have cut it for quite a while,' Torrenueva said. 'We've been friends a long time.'"
All of that leads The New Republic, a day late but right on script, to lament the effeminate and vain Edwards and the shallow and empty Obama. Eve Fairbanks posts an item she headlines "He Feels Pretty and Witty and . . . ." in which she let's us know that she (of course) is far too sophisticated and serious to "give a damn that Edwards went to the Pink Sapphire." It is striking how they all use the word "pretty" to describe how John Edwards wants to look. She then links to the three-year-old You Tube clip of Edwards brushing his hair. Is any of this, at its core, any different than the oh-so-aberrational-and-universally-condemned Ann Coulter remark about Edwards?
Fairbanks revealingly justifies her post by claiming that "the fact that the haircut and the Pink Sapphire is a CNN top headline on a huge news day suggests that, sadly, plenty of people still think of Edwards like this." In her world, the media's chatter -- in which (as she herself was doing) they repeat Drudge gossip -- is proof of how "plenty of people" think. As always, Drudge rules their world -- if he selects a story to trumpet, and the media (as they always do) dutifully follow, that is proof, by itself, of the story's importance.
Not to be outdone, The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner follows with a post entitled "Obama Hits Bottom," which also cites Smith's Politico piece and warns Obama supporters they "have to face up to the fact that his speeches can be really, really grating." He then labels the parts of the speech cited by Smith as "disappointing" and "obnoxious."
Needless to say, it is perfectly fine to criticize all candidates running for president. That is something that ought to be done, vigorously and frequently -- obviously including Obama and Edwards. There are plenty of grounds to question both of them. And, admittedly, a candidate's speech is obviously far more legitimate grounds for such criticism than the costs of his haircut or which spas he visits.
But none of this is substantive criticism. It is just petty, cheap personality-based mockery of the strain that dominates (and degrades and destroys) our political discourse -- it is Al Gore inventing the Internet and claiming to be the inspiration for Love Story, and John Kerry wind-surfing and speaking French. It is all just mindless gossipy shorthand intended to fuel right-wing caricatures and platitudes that have nothing to do with substance and everything to do with demonizing the personality of these political figures in order to render them ugly and embarrassing -- hence, Edwards is a girlish fop and Obama is an intellectual lightweight who relies on empty fancy-sounding buzzphrases in lieu of substance.
What is notable here is not so much the specific petty attacks, but the method of how they are disseminated and engrained as conventional wisdom among our Really Smart Political Insiders.
This is the process that occurred here, and it is the process that repeats itself endlessly:
STEP 1: A new right-wing gossip (Ben Smith) at a new substance-free political rag (The Politico) seizes on some petty, manufactured incident to fuel personality caricatures of Democratic candidates.
STEP 2: The old right-wing gossip (Drudge) uses his old substance-free political rag (The Drudge Report) to amplify the inane personality caricatures.
STEP 3: Right-wing hacks with pretenses of respectability -- like Mickey Kaus and others -- follow the script by "analyzing" the gossip and embracing it.
STEP 4: National media outlets -- such as AP and CNN -- whose world is ruled by Drudge, turn the gossip into "news stories."
STEP 5: Our Serious Beltway Political Analysts -- in this case, the very somber and smart Substantive Journalists at The New Republic -- mindlessly repeat all of it, thereby solidifying it as conventional wisdom, showing that "even Democrats and liberals are embarrassed by their candidates."
One should note here that Step 5, the Final Stage, is almost always sponsored by those who endlessly proclaim how irresponsible and substance-free and unserious political bloggers are, and who thereafter write pieces which do nothing other than repeat the latest Drudge gossip.
(snip)
But this is the process that generates our country's petty conventional political wisdom. And it these type of personality stories which are often outcome-determinative. The 2004 presidential election (and the one before it) were not determined by an ideological choice between fundamentally different competing political philosophies, but instead, was largely the by-product of personality-based cultural preferences -- the swaggering, strong, resolute, protective cowboy over the mewling, wind-surfing, effete French fop. In our Drudge-ruled media world, these are the storylines which dominate our political process.
Those who live in the World Ruled by Drudge -- such as Eve Fairbanks, Mickey Kaus and the other Serious, Sober, Important Journalists -- ceaselessly tout their own substance and seriousness and pompously lament how irresponsible and "simplistic" everyone else is. Meanwhile, most of what they write is barely disguised political cliches and personality gossip that have nothing to do with any actual substance, and it is fed to them by the lowest and sleaziest sources around.
We have been treated in the last 48 hours to an extremely vivid illustration of how conventional political Beltway wisdom is created. It all began with The Politico's in-house gossip, Ben Smith, who on consecutive days published a gossipy, petty article designed to fuel right-wing caricatures of the personality traits of John Edwards and Barack Obama, respectively.
First was a story on Monday about the costs of Edwards' haircuts and visits to a spa, plainly intended to fuel the principal right-wing anti-Edwards caricature -- his effeminate obsession with his hair.
That was followed by another Smith story yesterday ripping out of context a small part of Obama's speech -- in which he spoke of various types of "violence" (beyond physical violence) that create divisions in America. Attaching himself to the prevailing anti-Obama cliche, Smith asserts that these excerpts illustrate Obama's "instinct for abstraction and large themes, and his sense that America's problems have at their root solutions that have as much to do with hope and process as with any specific course of action."
Obama's crime? Instead of proposing specific policies to "solve" the problem of school shootings (as though such problems can be "solved"), Obama "moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life." In the rotted world of Beltway media cynicism, any talk of "root solutions" or "ideas" or "abstract concepts" is automatically insincere, irrelevant and merely a tactic for avoiding "real substance."
Predictably, both Politico items were immediately trumpeted by Drudge, almost certainly the real goal of Smith's stories. Thereafter, the standard right-wing hacks then dutifully followed along, reciting the exact storyline manufactured by Smith and Drudge. The conventional wisdom-spewing internet gossip Mickey Kaus then joined in with an item entitled "Barack the Hack," which claims -- in an act of extreme projection -- that the speech reflects "a mindset that tries to fit every event into a familiar, comforting framework he can spoon-feed his audience without disturbing them." Kaus says the Obama excerpts are "not exactly evidence of a fresh intelligence, or even basic common sense" -- but that "Democratic primary campaigns will do that to you."
The Associated Press then does its part, churning out a story, published by CNN (among others), that begins with this sentence: "Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies." The Associated Press then interviewed Edwards' hair stylist, and reported that he admitted this: "'I do cut his hair and I have cut it for quite a while,' Torrenueva said. 'We've been friends a long time.'"
All of that leads The New Republic, a day late but right on script, to lament the effeminate and vain Edwards and the shallow and empty Obama. Eve Fairbanks posts an item she headlines "He Feels Pretty and Witty and . . . ." in which she let's us know that she (of course) is far too sophisticated and serious to "give a damn that Edwards went to the Pink Sapphire." It is striking how they all use the word "pretty" to describe how John Edwards wants to look. She then links to the three-year-old You Tube clip of Edwards brushing his hair. Is any of this, at its core, any different than the oh-so-aberrational-and-universally-condemned Ann Coulter remark about Edwards?
Fairbanks revealingly justifies her post by claiming that "the fact that the haircut and the Pink Sapphire is a CNN top headline on a huge news day suggests that, sadly, plenty of people still think of Edwards like this." In her world, the media's chatter -- in which (as she herself was doing) they repeat Drudge gossip -- is proof of how "plenty of people" think. As always, Drudge rules their world -- if he selects a story to trumpet, and the media (as they always do) dutifully follow, that is proof, by itself, of the story's importance.
Not to be outdone, The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner follows with a post entitled "Obama Hits Bottom," which also cites Smith's Politico piece and warns Obama supporters they "have to face up to the fact that his speeches can be really, really grating." He then labels the parts of the speech cited by Smith as "disappointing" and "obnoxious."
Needless to say, it is perfectly fine to criticize all candidates running for president. That is something that ought to be done, vigorously and frequently -- obviously including Obama and Edwards. There are plenty of grounds to question both of them. And, admittedly, a candidate's speech is obviously far more legitimate grounds for such criticism than the costs of his haircut or which spas he visits.
But none of this is substantive criticism. It is just petty, cheap personality-based mockery of the strain that dominates (and degrades and destroys) our political discourse -- it is Al Gore inventing the Internet and claiming to be the inspiration for Love Story, and John Kerry wind-surfing and speaking French. It is all just mindless gossipy shorthand intended to fuel right-wing caricatures and platitudes that have nothing to do with substance and everything to do with demonizing the personality of these political figures in order to render them ugly and embarrassing -- hence, Edwards is a girlish fop and Obama is an intellectual lightweight who relies on empty fancy-sounding buzzphrases in lieu of substance.
What is notable here is not so much the specific petty attacks, but the method of how they are disseminated and engrained as conventional wisdom among our Really Smart Political Insiders.
This is the process that occurred here, and it is the process that repeats itself endlessly:
STEP 1: A new right-wing gossip (Ben Smith) at a new substance-free political rag (The Politico) seizes on some petty, manufactured incident to fuel personality caricatures of Democratic candidates.
STEP 2: The old right-wing gossip (Drudge) uses his old substance-free political rag (The Drudge Report) to amplify the inane personality caricatures.
STEP 3: Right-wing hacks with pretenses of respectability -- like Mickey Kaus and others -- follow the script by "analyzing" the gossip and embracing it.
STEP 4: National media outlets -- such as AP and CNN -- whose world is ruled by Drudge, turn the gossip into "news stories."
STEP 5: Our Serious Beltway Political Analysts -- in this case, the very somber and smart Substantive Journalists at The New Republic -- mindlessly repeat all of it, thereby solidifying it as conventional wisdom, showing that "even Democrats and liberals are embarrassed by their candidates."
One should note here that Step 5, the Final Stage, is almost always sponsored by those who endlessly proclaim how irresponsible and substance-free and unserious political bloggers are, and who thereafter write pieces which do nothing other than repeat the latest Drudge gossip.
(snip)
But this is the process that generates our country's petty conventional political wisdom. And it these type of personality stories which are often outcome-determinative. The 2004 presidential election (and the one before it) were not determined by an ideological choice between fundamentally different competing political philosophies, but instead, was largely the by-product of personality-based cultural preferences -- the swaggering, strong, resolute, protective cowboy over the mewling, wind-surfing, effete French fop. In our Drudge-ruled media world, these are the storylines which dominate our political process.
Those who live in the World Ruled by Drudge -- such as Eve Fairbanks, Mickey Kaus and the other Serious, Sober, Important Journalists -- ceaselessly tout their own substance and seriousness and pompously lament how irresponsible and "simplistic" everyone else is. Meanwhile, most of what they write is barely disguised political cliches and personality gossip that have nothing to do with any actual substance, and it is fed to them by the lowest and sleaziest sources around.
I Loathe These People
Atrios, via Think Progress, uncovered this gem from the very manly men at Human Events Online and National Review Online:
College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut. Meanwhile, an old man hurled his body at the shooter to save others.
Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that. …
Like Derb, I don’t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn’t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don’t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary.
To these people I say--
You are nothing but a piece of crap.
A piece of crap.
I find you extremely ugly.
You emit a foul and unpleasant odour...
I *loathe* you...
I *loathe* you.
College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut. Meanwhile, an old man hurled his body at the shooter to save others.
Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that. …
Like Derb, I don’t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn’t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don’t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary.
To these people I say--
You are nothing but a piece of crap.
A piece of crap.
I find you extremely ugly.
You emit a foul and unpleasant odour...
I *loathe* you...
I *loathe* you.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Another Reason to Just Say No to Fox "News"
Do any of you find it strange that in this day, in this era, of political scandal, an era of big ole messes as far as the eye can see over the last six years, the embarassment and disgrace of Katrina, of an open-ended military and financial commitment Fiasco in Iraq, of the various criminal indictments and convictions that have come out of Washington (Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff), of what we are learning now about Karl Rove's mechanizations to have non-existent voter "fraud" cases prosecuted, to have Democrat politicians targeted for prosecution, of "lost" emails, that in this day and era, amidst all these messes, that Fox "News" would choose to broadcast a special half-hour segment dedicated to the life and crimes of...Sandy Berger?
Do any of you find that the least bit strange?
I do.
Dear Democrats running for Prez: Keep telling Fox "News" to stick it.
Do any of you find that the least bit strange?
I do.
Dear Democrats running for Prez: Keep telling Fox "News" to stick it.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Czar needed
What?
Anybody out there as puzzled by this as me? I heard a reference to this on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now this morning and thought it was some kind of joke, only to pick up my Wash Post and see it on the front page, above the fold.
A war czar? Isn't that what the Secretary of Defense is? And aren't there a couple of layers at the uniformed military level for this, someone who's the military chief of the region, another person that overseas the Iraq war broadly and another who's the on-the-ground chief?
However unusual this is or what the position is supposed to entail that would distinguish it from the warriors above, no one seems to be taking, and what's more, they're willing to state publicly that they aren't and why.
Not sure where this is going but I wouldn't count it as indicative of competence in the war-room.
Anybody out there as puzzled by this as me? I heard a reference to this on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now this morning and thought it was some kind of joke, only to pick up my Wash Post and see it on the front page, above the fold.
A war czar? Isn't that what the Secretary of Defense is? And aren't there a couple of layers at the uniformed military level for this, someone who's the military chief of the region, another person that overseas the Iraq war broadly and another who's the on-the-ground chief?
However unusual this is or what the position is supposed to entail that would distinguish it from the warriors above, no one seems to be taking, and what's more, they're willing to state publicly that they aren't and why.
Not sure where this is going but I wouldn't count it as indicative of competence in the war-room.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
"Serious"? Seriously?
Today is Day Two of my staying home with a bad tooth day. And apparently this Bad Tooth Day will go on for another two weeks, as my appointment with the oral surgeon isn't until April 23, and the meds the dentist prescribed for me yesterday are only having a minimal impact on my impacted wisdom tooth, which is rumored to be the cause of my present, physical suffering.
But anyway, enough about me. Let's talk more about Me.
Or rather, that I was guesting over at No More Mister Nice Blog over the weekend, where I had a few things to say about the latest flap-up involving Don "the Iman" Imus.
But I wanted to highlight an article that appeared in the Business section of yesterday's NYT about "the Iman". The writer, David Carr, noting how Imus's show is regularly frequented by media and politician-types, appropriately refers to the host as a "lawn jockey to the establishment". Most of the article is a pretty accurate rendering of how borish Imus and his show are and all-too-rare reflection on why it is that a lot of high-profile media show ponies and politicos nonetheless keep appearing on his show and kissing his ass.
But I stumbled over sections of the article like these:
"...his show is one of the few places where they can talk seriously and at length about public issues."
Um, talk seriously and at length about public issues? On Imus in The Morning?
Later in the article, after pointing out that there is a suspicious and typically incestuous connection between Imus's guests and his program, namely being that many of his guests get paychecks from the same corporate media giant as him, lapses into this:
"He fills a demand for serious discussion on contemporary radio so that the journalists and politicians pushing an agenda or a book don't have to get in line behind the strippers at Howard Stern's show."
There it is again, that word serious, meant to depict the type of discussion that occurs on the Imus show, between himself and his illustrious guests. Of course, the word "serious" is used here in a very maximumly relative fashion, with Howard Stern's radio stripper shows serving as the control group for comparison, which I understand now can only be heard on Sirius satellite radio, but I digress.
But serious and at length discussions about public issues on Imus in the Morning?
No, Imus is just a sample representive of the hate radio genre that has bloomed in the last several decades, but which for some unknown reason seems to be exempt from complaints about incivility from the mainstream, corporately run and controlled press, the trash talk radio that has regularly demeaned everthing non white Christian male and demogogued and exploited every possible issue for its resentment value, all without having to serve on any blogger-ethics type panels for their eliminationist rhetoric and hate-mongering.
But anyway, enough about me. Let's talk more about Me.
Or rather, that I was guesting over at No More Mister Nice Blog over the weekend, where I had a few things to say about the latest flap-up involving Don "the Iman" Imus.
But I wanted to highlight an article that appeared in the Business section of yesterday's NYT about "the Iman". The writer, David Carr, noting how Imus's show is regularly frequented by media and politician-types, appropriately refers to the host as a "lawn jockey to the establishment". Most of the article is a pretty accurate rendering of how borish Imus and his show are and all-too-rare reflection on why it is that a lot of high-profile media show ponies and politicos nonetheless keep appearing on his show and kissing his ass.
But I stumbled over sections of the article like these:
"...his show is one of the few places where they can talk seriously and at length about public issues."
Um, talk seriously and at length about public issues? On Imus in The Morning?
Later in the article, after pointing out that there is a suspicious and typically incestuous connection between Imus's guests and his program, namely being that many of his guests get paychecks from the same corporate media giant as him, lapses into this:
"He fills a demand for serious discussion on contemporary radio so that the journalists and politicians pushing an agenda or a book don't have to get in line behind the strippers at Howard Stern's show."
There it is again, that word serious, meant to depict the type of discussion that occurs on the Imus show, between himself and his illustrious guests. Of course, the word "serious" is used here in a very maximumly relative fashion, with Howard Stern's radio stripper shows serving as the control group for comparison, which I understand now can only be heard on Sirius satellite radio, but I digress.
But serious and at length discussions about public issues on Imus in the Morning?
No, Imus is just a sample representive of the hate radio genre that has bloomed in the last several decades, but which for some unknown reason seems to be exempt from complaints about incivility from the mainstream, corporately run and controlled press, the trash talk radio that has regularly demeaned everthing non white Christian male and demogogued and exploited every possible issue for its resentment value, all without having to serve on any blogger-ethics type panels for their eliminationist rhetoric and hate-mongering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)