Several house liberals are planning to vote against the Pelosi/Murtha leadership on the bill mandating deadline for withdrawing from Iraq.
According to one of TPM's sources:
"None of them wants to be the one making a deal with `the man" . . . None of them wants to be outflanked on the left. None of them wants to be `outprincipled' -- being seen as the one who is willing to compromise."
I'm with the House leadership on this one. My main principle is to move forward on forcing a troop withdrawal and the deadline bill definitely is a step forward from the non-binding resolutions. So I support it.
I guess that makes me a moderate . . . and a mainstream moderate given that almost 60% of the public supports a deadline. Oh No!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Mickey Kaus on the Surge
Mickey Kaus, the former neo-liberal and now right-wing blogger for Slate, argues today that the surge is succeeding. Actually, Kaus doesn't say that directly. People on the right don't want to be caught with their optimism pants down again. Instead, Kaus works through indirection, providing support for the surgey by nitpicking Huffington Post contributor and war opponent Simon Jenkins.
Kaus' main evidence for progress comes from Baghdad blogger Omar:
You look around in Baghdad now and see hundreds of men working in the streets to pick up garbage; to plant flowers and paint the blast walls in joyful colors. Many of Baghdad's squares are becoming green and clean. The picture isn't perfect, but it's a clear attempt to beat violence and ease pain through giving the spring a chance to shine.
It's a tragedy for everyone in Baghdad who sees hope and renewal and it's a tragedy for General Petraeus and American troops. Nevertheless, it's likely that the current stability is a sign that the surge is failing instead of succeeding. One of the top priorities of the surge plan was to confront the Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigades, and other Shiite militias on their own turfs, defeat them militarily, and remake the Iraqi government as a moderate, largely secular regime.
But that's not happening.
Instead, the militias are lying low and militia leaders have gone into hiding. As a result, the whole Shiite militia structure is still in place waiting for the Americans to leave. Shiite militias still have an alternative government, still command thousands of armed fighters and death squad members and are still infiltrated throughout the Iraqi Army and the police. In fact, the Iraqi Army and police have become so unreliable that the U. S. is importing the Kurdish Peshmerga to provide "Iraqi" assistance.
The bottom line is still very pessimistic for the surge. If the U. S. triggers a confrontation with the militias, we risk a Shiite insurrection on top of the Sunni insurgency. However, if the U. S. military does not confront the Shiite militias, there's no chance that the surge will have any kind of lasting effect.
The price you pay for incompetence is that you sooner or later run out of good options. We're paying that price in Iraq.
Kaus' main evidence for progress comes from Baghdad blogger Omar:
You look around in Baghdad now and see hundreds of men working in the streets to pick up garbage; to plant flowers and paint the blast walls in joyful colors. Many of Baghdad's squares are becoming green and clean. The picture isn't perfect, but it's a clear attempt to beat violence and ease pain through giving the spring a chance to shine.
It's a tragedy for everyone in Baghdad who sees hope and renewal and it's a tragedy for General Petraeus and American troops. Nevertheless, it's likely that the current stability is a sign that the surge is failing instead of succeeding. One of the top priorities of the surge plan was to confront the Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigades, and other Shiite militias on their own turfs, defeat them militarily, and remake the Iraqi government as a moderate, largely secular regime.
But that's not happening.
Instead, the militias are lying low and militia leaders have gone into hiding. As a result, the whole Shiite militia structure is still in place waiting for the Americans to leave. Shiite militias still have an alternative government, still command thousands of armed fighters and death squad members and are still infiltrated throughout the Iraqi Army and the police. In fact, the Iraqi Army and police have become so unreliable that the U. S. is importing the Kurdish Peshmerga to provide "Iraqi" assistance.
The bottom line is still very pessimistic for the surge. If the U. S. triggers a confrontation with the militias, we risk a Shiite insurrection on top of the Sunni insurgency. However, if the U. S. military does not confront the Shiite militias, there's no chance that the surge will have any kind of lasting effect.
The price you pay for incompetence is that you sooner or later run out of good options. We're paying that price in Iraq.
A Nuclear Fort Sumter
On MSN today, John Bolton is in the news for claiming that "regime change" may be the only way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That's right, and he likes the idea of regime change in the Sudan as well. A pity Bolton didn't say what he thought about overthrowing France.
How about regime change in Georgia instead? Not Georgia the former Soviet Republic, Georgia the home of the sad sack Atlanta Hawks.
Recently, a committee of the Georgia state senate responded to Virginia's apology for slavery by unanimously passing a resolution declaring April as Confederate Heritage Month.
Talk about hating America and American values! There are many things that worry me about the Georgia resolution. What about the influence of Georgia on other former Confederate states like Alabama and Mississippi? What are the military budgets of these states? Is there a danger of a neo-Confederate rebellion to bring back the good old days.
But what really worries me is whether there are nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction stored in Georgia facilities?
People worry about al-Qaeda launcing a nuclear Pearl Harbor. What about a nuclear Fort Sumter?
Maybe it's time to put our own house in order.
Maybe it's time for regime change in Georgia.
How about regime change in Georgia instead? Not Georgia the former Soviet Republic, Georgia the home of the sad sack Atlanta Hawks.
Recently, a committee of the Georgia state senate responded to Virginia's apology for slavery by unanimously passing a resolution declaring April as Confederate Heritage Month.
Talk about hating America and American values! There are many things that worry me about the Georgia resolution. What about the influence of Georgia on other former Confederate states like Alabama and Mississippi? What are the military budgets of these states? Is there a danger of a neo-Confederate rebellion to bring back the good old days.
But what really worries me is whether there are nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction stored in Georgia facilities?
People worry about al-Qaeda launcing a nuclear Pearl Harbor. What about a nuclear Fort Sumter?
Maybe it's time to put our own house in order.
Maybe it's time for regime change in Georgia.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The RSI Challenge To President Bush
President Bush is starting to look like "The Sixth Sense" president. The psychologist played by Bruce Willis in "The Sixth Sense" didn't know he was dead but kept on treating a patient anyway. In a similar way, President Bush keeps on making his typical tough-guy gestures although he's as close to being politically dead as you can get while still in office.
Today's remarks on the fired prosecutor scandal are a case in point. The president challenged the Democratic leadership to take it or leave it on his offer to have Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Justice Department officials give interviews to Congressional committees without subpoenas, in private, with no transcripts being made.
During the salad days of the Bush administration, that kind of tactic was always a "heads I win/ tails you lose" proposition. But now it's the Democrats who win these games. If the Democratic leadership decides to subpoena Bush's aides and Bush takes them to court, the federal prosecutors scandal will still be going during next year's elections. That would be a win for the Democrats. If Bush caves or Gonzales resigns, then President Bush looks weak and ineffective in dealing with the Democratic Congress.
Heads Bush loses! Tails Bush loses!
Here at RSI, bleeding heart liberals really care about self-esteem and what President Bush needs for his self-esteem is a win. After careful consideration I've decided to help President Bush by challenging him to race me in a one mile run or a ten mile bike race. That's right, big guy. Bring it on!
This way, President Bush would be sure to get the victory he needs to feel better about himself. It seems that being President is not that time-consuming and President Bush has lots of time to work out and stay in shape as a result. Not having been an athlete in high school or college, President Bush doesn't seem to have any sports injuries either. As a result, President Bush is a good runner and a cyclist.
And I would be the perfect opponent for him. I eat way too much, have two ruptured discs in my back from my football days, and am tremendously out of shape. I couldn't run a mile to save my life and it would probably take me a full day to do a ten-mile bike ride. What better way to boost the President's self-esteem than compete with someone like me.
Take the challenge Mr. President! It's time to get back that winning spirit. Just name your date and I'll can guarantee that you'll win even though I'll be doing my damnest. I'll even let you taunt me after you win.
Go ahead! What have you got left to lose?
Today's remarks on the fired prosecutor scandal are a case in point. The president challenged the Democratic leadership to take it or leave it on his offer to have Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Justice Department officials give interviews to Congressional committees without subpoenas, in private, with no transcripts being made.
During the salad days of the Bush administration, that kind of tactic was always a "heads I win/ tails you lose" proposition. But now it's the Democrats who win these games. If the Democratic leadership decides to subpoena Bush's aides and Bush takes them to court, the federal prosecutors scandal will still be going during next year's elections. That would be a win for the Democrats. If Bush caves or Gonzales resigns, then President Bush looks weak and ineffective in dealing with the Democratic Congress.
Heads Bush loses! Tails Bush loses!
Here at RSI, bleeding heart liberals really care about self-esteem and what President Bush needs for his self-esteem is a win. After careful consideration I've decided to help President Bush by challenging him to race me in a one mile run or a ten mile bike race. That's right, big guy. Bring it on!
This way, President Bush would be sure to get the victory he needs to feel better about himself. It seems that being President is not that time-consuming and President Bush has lots of time to work out and stay in shape as a result. Not having been an athlete in high school or college, President Bush doesn't seem to have any sports injuries either. As a result, President Bush is a good runner and a cyclist.
And I would be the perfect opponent for him. I eat way too much, have two ruptured discs in my back from my football days, and am tremendously out of shape. I couldn't run a mile to save my life and it would probably take me a full day to do a ten-mile bike ride. What better way to boost the President's self-esteem than compete with someone like me.
Take the challenge Mr. President! It's time to get back that winning spirit. Just name your date and I'll can guarantee that you'll win even though I'll be doing my damnest. I'll even let you taunt me after you win.
Go ahead! What have you got left to lose?
A Hillary Assassination Video?
The Hillary 1984 video has been called an emotionally powerful ad, a generational protest, and a breakdown in centralized control over political campaigns. Perhaps it is these things.
Still, I wonder if Hillary 1984 isn't also an assasination video and whether there are going to be a lot more of these to follow once presidential campaigns really heat up.
Certainly, there is an enormous violence toward Hillary Clinton in Hillary 1984. The surface idea is that the woman throwing the hammer into Hillary's face is supposed to be distinguishing herself from the inert masses and the lurking storm troopers. The woman is supposed to be declaring her freedom by breaking the spell of Hillary's magnified face and voice. The hammer toss into Hillary's face doesn't break the rhythm of the video sound-track and doesn't serve as a counter-point to the either the pictures of the shuffling masses and the storm troopers. To the contrary, the sequence of images builds the emotional violence of the marching masses, storm troopers, and woman with hammer in relation to the sound of Hillary's voice. The hammer toss into Hillary's video face is a crescendo of the oppressive violence rather than a break away.
The crux of the question here is whether the video ultimately intended to smash Hillary Clinton's video face or her actual face. That's a complex question but the beginning of an answer lies in fact that Hillary Clinton's face looms largest for the people who hate her. Democratic elites outside her own circles aren't positive about a Hillary candidacy. The mainstream media isn't excited about Hillary and the left-wing blogosphere is negative if not hostile. Hillary does not have the kind of institutional support that would make her larger than life in the manner of the video image being attacked. In fact, where Hillary Clinton looms largest is in the minds of all the people who view her as an outsized Medusa or witch figure. It's Hillary-hatred that creates the outsized Hillary image on the screen and Hillary-hatred that's attacking the image it created itself.
The problem is that it might be impossible to separate Hillary Clinton's actual face from her enhanced video representation. Because Hillary Clinton is the Britney Spears of politics in the sense that the media has vetted every detail of her personal life, it's even more difficult to separate the woman from the image-making apparatus (including her own image makers) than it is for most presidential candidates. In the case of Britney Spears, it appears that destroying herself as an actual person is the only way that she can be released from the grip of the media apparatus. With Hillary Clinton, one has to wonder if Hillary-hatred won't consider itself to be free of Hillary Clinton's image until it destroys the actual person.
That's the "politics of personal destruction" represented by Hillary 1984.
Still, I wonder if Hillary 1984 isn't also an assasination video and whether there are going to be a lot more of these to follow once presidential campaigns really heat up.
Certainly, there is an enormous violence toward Hillary Clinton in Hillary 1984. The surface idea is that the woman throwing the hammer into Hillary's face is supposed to be distinguishing herself from the inert masses and the lurking storm troopers. The woman is supposed to be declaring her freedom by breaking the spell of Hillary's magnified face and voice. The hammer toss into Hillary's face doesn't break the rhythm of the video sound-track and doesn't serve as a counter-point to the either the pictures of the shuffling masses and the storm troopers. To the contrary, the sequence of images builds the emotional violence of the marching masses, storm troopers, and woman with hammer in relation to the sound of Hillary's voice. The hammer toss into Hillary's video face is a crescendo of the oppressive violence rather than a break away.
The crux of the question here is whether the video ultimately intended to smash Hillary Clinton's video face or her actual face. That's a complex question but the beginning of an answer lies in fact that Hillary Clinton's face looms largest for the people who hate her. Democratic elites outside her own circles aren't positive about a Hillary candidacy. The mainstream media isn't excited about Hillary and the left-wing blogosphere is negative if not hostile. Hillary does not have the kind of institutional support that would make her larger than life in the manner of the video image being attacked. In fact, where Hillary Clinton looms largest is in the minds of all the people who view her as an outsized Medusa or witch figure. It's Hillary-hatred that creates the outsized Hillary image on the screen and Hillary-hatred that's attacking the image it created itself.
The problem is that it might be impossible to separate Hillary Clinton's actual face from her enhanced video representation. Because Hillary Clinton is the Britney Spears of politics in the sense that the media has vetted every detail of her personal life, it's even more difficult to separate the woman from the image-making apparatus (including her own image makers) than it is for most presidential candidates. In the case of Britney Spears, it appears that destroying herself as an actual person is the only way that she can be released from the grip of the media apparatus. With Hillary Clinton, one has to wonder if Hillary-hatred won't consider itself to be free of Hillary Clinton's image until it destroys the actual person.
That's the "politics of personal destruction" represented by Hillary 1984.
The Gonzales Standard Lie
Al G's Short Term Future. It appears that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is not going to be Attorney General much longer. Apparently, the Bush administration is already looking for a replacement.
The Repeat Lesson. But it's important to learn everything we can from Al G while he's still with us. Of course, there's the usual red-state type things that apply to Kentucky as well as the Bush administration and need to be repeated over and over again. That's especially the case with the amazing power of cronyism to advance the careers of incompetents.
The preferred way of doing things in Kentucky, cronyism and it's evil twin nepotism dominate local government, public schools, state government, and private business. May I be struck by lightning if cronyism isn't also the dominant way of doing things in Texas. In fact, there's a book out by Robert Bryce on Texas cronyism entitled Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. Maybe Bryce has some passages on how Al Gonzales got three jobs in Texas state government while Bush was governor.
Unsurprisingly, one of the things that defines the cronyism ethic is the contempt "good old boys" have for anything that keeps them from doing exactly what they want and that includes rules, qualifications, procedures, or any kind of an idea of a good outside their families and friends. When the Bush administration ignores the Constitution and the law, tramples on individual rights, and tortures, they're not just living a right-wing fantasy. They're also doing exactly what their fathers and grandfathers did in the Texas plains, Kentucky bluegrass, and Mississippi Delta. They're doing exactly what they want.
Needless to say, cronyism is a prescription for constant failure at both the national level and the state level. It's one of the important reasons why the Bush administration has performed so poorly in Iraq and with Katrina, and one of the main reasons why Kentucky ranks at the bottom of everything except horse manure and marijuana harvests.
What's New. But Al Gonzales has made his own unique contribution to the history of cronyism in national government--the Gonzales Standard Lie. When challenged about torture during his conformination, Gonzales simply stated that "I share (the president's) resolve that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration." That's simple and clean--no effort to define torture, no explanation of why the Bush administration's interrogation techniques don't fit definitions of torture, no messing with principles, rules, or facts at all. The Gonzales Standard Lie is not a hype, not a big bragging lie. It's a simple emphatic statement that puts the burden on the questioner to prove him wrong. This lying technique works particularly well in cases like where the questioner does not have access to relevant information. In relation to the torture controversy, Al Gonzales could state that "torture and abuse will not be tolerated" and rest easy in the knowledge that the facts in relation to torture were classified and that he could not be contradicted.
The Gonzales Standard Lie is a generalizable technique. For example, if my daughters asked me if I smoked pot when I was their age, I could just say "I never smoked pot," act like I was offended that they would even ask the question, refuse to answer annoyingly detailed questions about the issue, and rest easy in the knowledge that I would never be contradicted by my college friends, grad school friends, or first wife. That would be a Gonzales Standard Lie.
Unfortunately for Gonzales, the technique didn't work in the prosecutor scandal. When asked if the firings were politically motivated, Gonzales smoothly replied that "Nothing could be further from the truth.” But this time, fired federal prosecutors like David Iglesias began to provide the media with facts about their contacts with state Republicans and the Bush administration. As a result of the press having access to these kinds of fact, the Standard Gonzales Lie ultimately failed and Gonzales will probably have to fall on his sword.
Still Alberto Gonzales should be given credit for perfecting a new departure in the history of corrupt politics.
Congratulations Al!
And Good-Bye.
The Repeat Lesson. But it's important to learn everything we can from Al G while he's still with us. Of course, there's the usual red-state type things that apply to Kentucky as well as the Bush administration and need to be repeated over and over again. That's especially the case with the amazing power of cronyism to advance the careers of incompetents.
The preferred way of doing things in Kentucky, cronyism and it's evil twin nepotism dominate local government, public schools, state government, and private business. May I be struck by lightning if cronyism isn't also the dominant way of doing things in Texas. In fact, there's a book out by Robert Bryce on Texas cronyism entitled Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. Maybe Bryce has some passages on how Al Gonzales got three jobs in Texas state government while Bush was governor.
Unsurprisingly, one of the things that defines the cronyism ethic is the contempt "good old boys" have for anything that keeps them from doing exactly what they want and that includes rules, qualifications, procedures, or any kind of an idea of a good outside their families and friends. When the Bush administration ignores the Constitution and the law, tramples on individual rights, and tortures, they're not just living a right-wing fantasy. They're also doing exactly what their fathers and grandfathers did in the Texas plains, Kentucky bluegrass, and Mississippi Delta. They're doing exactly what they want.
Needless to say, cronyism is a prescription for constant failure at both the national level and the state level. It's one of the important reasons why the Bush administration has performed so poorly in Iraq and with Katrina, and one of the main reasons why Kentucky ranks at the bottom of everything except horse manure and marijuana harvests.
What's New. But Al Gonzales has made his own unique contribution to the history of cronyism in national government--the Gonzales Standard Lie. When challenged about torture during his conformination, Gonzales simply stated that "I share (the president's) resolve that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration." That's simple and clean--no effort to define torture, no explanation of why the Bush administration's interrogation techniques don't fit definitions of torture, no messing with principles, rules, or facts at all. The Gonzales Standard Lie is not a hype, not a big bragging lie. It's a simple emphatic statement that puts the burden on the questioner to prove him wrong. This lying technique works particularly well in cases like where the questioner does not have access to relevant information. In relation to the torture controversy, Al Gonzales could state that "torture and abuse will not be tolerated" and rest easy in the knowledge that the facts in relation to torture were classified and that he could not be contradicted.
The Gonzales Standard Lie is a generalizable technique. For example, if my daughters asked me if I smoked pot when I was their age, I could just say "I never smoked pot," act like I was offended that they would even ask the question, refuse to answer annoyingly detailed questions about the issue, and rest easy in the knowledge that I would never be contradicted by my college friends, grad school friends, or first wife. That would be a Gonzales Standard Lie.
Unfortunately for Gonzales, the technique didn't work in the prosecutor scandal. When asked if the firings were politically motivated, Gonzales smoothly replied that "Nothing could be further from the truth.” But this time, fired federal prosecutors like David Iglesias began to provide the media with facts about their contacts with state Republicans and the Bush administration. As a result of the press having access to these kinds of fact, the Standard Gonzales Lie ultimately failed and Gonzales will probably have to fall on his sword.
Still Alberto Gonzales should be given credit for perfecting a new departure in the history of corrupt politics.
Congratulations Al!
And Good-Bye.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Yet Another Contract with America
Ghost of Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly used to tell his guests to "shut up" on a regular basis before Jack Shafer of Slate called him out on it. It looks like Tony Snow is going the same way. At the White House press briefing today, Snow told Ed Henry of CNN to "zip it" when Henry pressed him to define the Bush administration's "plan for success." Poor Ed Henry must not have gotten the memo that the White House is now trying to create a "chance for success" rather than the real thing. I wonder where they put the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
A Cold Cuppa Joe. Joe Lieberman put on his best media whore face as he came before the MSNBC cameras to tell America that we needed to "declare a truce in the political wars here about the real war in Iraq for about six months." According to Crooks & Liars, six months is a Friedman unit in honor of columnist Tom Friedman's many admonitions that we should give the war "another six months." Six months from today will make 4 1/2 years of war in Iraq which means that we'll be finishing our ninth Friedman unit of seeing the Iraq War descend from celebrations of "Mission Accomplished" to "a chance for success."
Let's Make a Deal. Let's say that Democratic politicians, the mainstream media, the liberal blogosphere, and everyday war critics agree to be quiet for six months. What will the Bush administration do for us in return? Give us peace and stability in Iraq? Well, that's what they say their goal is anyway. But what if Bush doesn't succeed? How will they compensate the 59% of the population that favors withdrawing from Iraq for six months of not talking about the failure of the war, the bungled war management, the inflated no-bid contracts to crony companies, all the dead and wounded soldiers, and all the suffering in Iraq?
I think there's a good chance for a deal here. If the Bush surge doesn't produce results, the Bush administration should resign and let Nancy Pelosi run a caretaker government. Given that Bush believes so strongly in following the advice of the military, he should simply ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the end of the six-month period whether we've achieved peace and stability in Iraq. If the Joint Chiefs say "no," then Bush, Cheney, and their whole team will quit and make room for a Pelosi and Murtha administration that would expedite a withdrawal. If the Joint Chiefs say "yes" and they're not engaged in Gonzales standard lying, then Bush gets to fly his "Mission Accomplished" banner while the whole world eats crow. Of course, a national referendum or public opinion polling would be more democratic and I'm fully aware that the Bush administration takes a back seat to no one in their belief in democracy. However, I want to give the Bushies a fair chance to save their jobs. So, let it be the Joint Chiefs.
How about it, Mr. President? I'm willing to risk my free speech if you're willing to risk your job and your exalted standing as a better president than James Buchanan.
A Cold Cuppa Joe. Joe Lieberman put on his best media whore face as he came before the MSNBC cameras to tell America that we needed to "declare a truce in the political wars here about the real war in Iraq for about six months." According to Crooks & Liars, six months is a Friedman unit in honor of columnist Tom Friedman's many admonitions that we should give the war "another six months." Six months from today will make 4 1/2 years of war in Iraq which means that we'll be finishing our ninth Friedman unit of seeing the Iraq War descend from celebrations of "Mission Accomplished" to "a chance for success."
Let's Make a Deal. Let's say that Democratic politicians, the mainstream media, the liberal blogosphere, and everyday war critics agree to be quiet for six months. What will the Bush administration do for us in return? Give us peace and stability in Iraq? Well, that's what they say their goal is anyway. But what if Bush doesn't succeed? How will they compensate the 59% of the population that favors withdrawing from Iraq for six months of not talking about the failure of the war, the bungled war management, the inflated no-bid contracts to crony companies, all the dead and wounded soldiers, and all the suffering in Iraq?
I think there's a good chance for a deal here. If the Bush surge doesn't produce results, the Bush administration should resign and let Nancy Pelosi run a caretaker government. Given that Bush believes so strongly in following the advice of the military, he should simply ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the end of the six-month period whether we've achieved peace and stability in Iraq. If the Joint Chiefs say "no," then Bush, Cheney, and their whole team will quit and make room for a Pelosi and Murtha administration that would expedite a withdrawal. If the Joint Chiefs say "yes" and they're not engaged in Gonzales standard lying, then Bush gets to fly his "Mission Accomplished" banner while the whole world eats crow. Of course, a national referendum or public opinion polling would be more democratic and I'm fully aware that the Bush administration takes a back seat to no one in their belief in democracy. However, I want to give the Bushies a fair chance to save their jobs. So, let it be the Joint Chiefs.
How about it, Mr. President? I'm willing to risk my free speech if you're willing to risk your job and your exalted standing as a better president than James Buchanan.
It's the MOVIE tough guy!
Conservative columnist Kathryn Jean Lopez in the New York Post (via Matthew Yglesias) reviewing Hugh Hewitt's book on Mitt Romney.
Hewitt opens the book with an odd quote though: "Mr. President," Dean Acheson says in a call to Harry Truman. "The North Koreans have invaded South Korea." Hewitt writes, "It is with evenings like that one of June 24, 1950, in mind that Americans ought to cast their primary and general election votes for presidents. When devastating surprises arrive, whether on Dec. 7, 1941, Sept. 11, 2001, or any such future day - and there will be many - our country's survival depends upon the man or woman in the Oval Office." Now maybe it's a New York thing, but if I didn't know I was reading a Romney book by a Romney fan, I'd immediately have figured I was about to read about Rudy Giuliani.
Yglesias has a hard time accepting that right-wingers like Rudy Giuliani when Rudy's main skill is striking a tough-guy pose. He also wonders why conservatives can't distinguish between "acts like a jerk" and "would do a good job of organizing a military campaign.'"
Actually, it's worse than that. What right-wingers really want isn't just for presidents to project "images of toughness," they want MOVIE images of toughness. Conservatives want presidents to respond to crises by yelling lines like "UNLEASH HELL" at the top of their lungs and they would particularly love the reference to Gladiator. Conservatives like gestures, big gestures. Lines like "Make My day," "Tear Down This Wall," "Wanted: Dead or Alive," or "Axis of Evil" turn politicians and leaders into conservative heroes and icons. That's why right-wing pundits like Giuliani. They can see him making the big iconic gesture in times of trouble.
As for actually waging a war--Iraq has proven that actually fighting the wars is not nearly as high on their priority list.
Hewitt opens the book with an odd quote though: "Mr. President," Dean Acheson says in a call to Harry Truman. "The North Koreans have invaded South Korea." Hewitt writes, "It is with evenings like that one of June 24, 1950, in mind that Americans ought to cast their primary and general election votes for presidents. When devastating surprises arrive, whether on Dec. 7, 1941, Sept. 11, 2001, or any such future day - and there will be many - our country's survival depends upon the man or woman in the Oval Office." Now maybe it's a New York thing, but if I didn't know I was reading a Romney book by a Romney fan, I'd immediately have figured I was about to read about Rudy Giuliani.
Yglesias has a hard time accepting that right-wingers like Rudy Giuliani when Rudy's main skill is striking a tough-guy pose. He also wonders why conservatives can't distinguish between "acts like a jerk" and "would do a good job of organizing a military campaign.'"
Actually, it's worse than that. What right-wingers really want isn't just for presidents to project "images of toughness," they want MOVIE images of toughness. Conservatives want presidents to respond to crises by yelling lines like "UNLEASH HELL" at the top of their lungs and they would particularly love the reference to Gladiator. Conservatives like gestures, big gestures. Lines like "Make My day," "Tear Down This Wall," "Wanted: Dead or Alive," or "Axis of Evil" turn politicians and leaders into conservative heroes and icons. That's why right-wing pundits like Giuliani. They can see him making the big iconic gesture in times of trouble.
As for actually waging a war--Iraq has proven that actually fighting the wars is not nearly as high on their priority list.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Spite from the Right
Today seems to be spite day at Townhall.com. Townhall seemingly went for spiting up their whole Sunday edition after they decided to publish an excerpt from Tom DeLay's new book.
1. DeLay leading the way. My recommendation to people on the left for Tom DeLay's No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight--Buy It! Yeah, buy it! Today excerpt, "the criminalization of politics," has everything you'd expect from DeLay--the mean-spiritedness, the vindictiveness, and the allergies to anything resembling a fact. DeLay's also incredibly whiny. "Those horrible liberals just never stopped persecuting him." Boo hoo! From DeLay's account, you'd think that Patrick Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are the two most relentless forces for evil on the planet. And needless to say, DeLay wasn't going to discuss the various lawsuits, ethics committee findings, and indictments against him. And he wasn't going to talk about the staff of future criminals with which he surrounded himself. Or his friendship with Jack Abramoff. No, was all a conspiracy against him because he was just so darn successful. Damn those liberals!
As an added bonus, DeLay's a ridiculous pompous and wooden writer who couldn't analyze his way through a two-ply tissue. So, if you want to confirm all your stereotypes about conservativism, you can't do better than to read DeLay's book. Or catch his wretched blog. It's free!
2. Slavery Splatterspite. Mary Garang responds to the Virginia legislature's apology for slavery and attempts to promote such legislation in her state of Georgia with a Cheneyesque splatter approach. Not limiting herself to trashing the proposed legislation, Ms. Garang lashes out at the extremely wealthy "liberal elite," the Port Huron statement, grad students writing dissertation topics about blacks, black liberals, black rappers, and "blacks in general and the white liberals who exploit them."
Oops, I forgot to mention the "overthrow of Western civilization." My bad.
But Garang doesn't say anything about the relation of slavery to the present except that we ought to move on.
I agree.
And the best way that we can move on as white people, black people, and Americans is to remember slavery in all its gory, disgusting, and heroic details. The organization of plantations as forced labor camps, the lack of food and clothing, the rape of slave women, the breaking up of slave families, the brutality of the punishments--all of these things need to be remembered in their full evil and chewed over again and again if the United States is going to "move on as a society."
There's an image in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince that applies to the memory of the slave past. Dumbledore stands over a green potion and tries everything to render a poisonous green potion harmless--vanishing, transfiguring, charming, etc. Finally, Dumbledore understands that he has to drink glass after glass of the potion if he is to get to the bottom. The same is the case with the poison of slavery. We can't wish it away. We can't forget it. If we're going to move on, we have to drink it cup after cup.
The same is true of the many heroic aspects of slavery, including slave escapes, the mutual support among the slave population, the work of abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison, and participation in the underground railroad among other things.
Slavery was central to the American experience and we won't be able to move on from slavery until we embrace that centrality into the marrow of our shared culture. Like the Confederate flaggers, Republican warriors against black vote fraud, and other reactionary impulses in white culture, Garang's bitterness over just about everything associated with blacks is evidence that she does not want to move on from the master side of the slavery issue.
1. DeLay leading the way. My recommendation to people on the left for Tom DeLay's No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight--Buy It! Yeah, buy it! Today excerpt, "the criminalization of politics," has everything you'd expect from DeLay--the mean-spiritedness, the vindictiveness, and the allergies to anything resembling a fact. DeLay's also incredibly whiny. "Those horrible liberals just never stopped persecuting him." Boo hoo! From DeLay's account, you'd think that Patrick Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are the two most relentless forces for evil on the planet. And needless to say, DeLay wasn't going to discuss the various lawsuits, ethics committee findings, and indictments against him. And he wasn't going to talk about the staff of future criminals with which he surrounded himself. Or his friendship with Jack Abramoff. No, was all a conspiracy against him because he was just so darn successful. Damn those liberals!
As an added bonus, DeLay's a ridiculous pompous and wooden writer who couldn't analyze his way through a two-ply tissue. So, if you want to confirm all your stereotypes about conservativism, you can't do better than to read DeLay's book. Or catch his wretched blog. It's free!
2. Slavery Splatterspite. Mary Garang responds to the Virginia legislature's apology for slavery and attempts to promote such legislation in her state of Georgia with a Cheneyesque splatter approach. Not limiting herself to trashing the proposed legislation, Ms. Garang lashes out at the extremely wealthy "liberal elite," the Port Huron statement, grad students writing dissertation topics about blacks, black liberals, black rappers, and "blacks in general and the white liberals who exploit them."
Oops, I forgot to mention the "overthrow of Western civilization." My bad.
But Garang doesn't say anything about the relation of slavery to the present except that we ought to move on.
I agree.
And the best way that we can move on as white people, black people, and Americans is to remember slavery in all its gory, disgusting, and heroic details. The organization of plantations as forced labor camps, the lack of food and clothing, the rape of slave women, the breaking up of slave families, the brutality of the punishments--all of these things need to be remembered in their full evil and chewed over again and again if the United States is going to "move on as a society."
There's an image in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince that applies to the memory of the slave past. Dumbledore stands over a green potion and tries everything to render a poisonous green potion harmless--vanishing, transfiguring, charming, etc. Finally, Dumbledore understands that he has to drink glass after glass of the potion if he is to get to the bottom. The same is the case with the poison of slavery. We can't wish it away. We can't forget it. If we're going to move on, we have to drink it cup after cup.
The same is true of the many heroic aspects of slavery, including slave escapes, the mutual support among the slave population, the work of abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison, and participation in the underground railroad among other things.
Slavery was central to the American experience and we won't be able to move on from slavery until we embrace that centrality into the marrow of our shared culture. Like the Confederate flaggers, Republican warriors against black vote fraud, and other reactionary impulses in white culture, Garang's bitterness over just about everything associated with blacks is evidence that she does not want to move on from the master side of the slavery issue.
Pelosi and Murtha: Genius Democrats
Newsweek has some interesting survey numbers out (via TPM). A solid majority, 59%-34%, supports House Democratic efforts to withdraw troops from Iraq by Fall 2008.
Those numbers are even better than they initially look for the Democratic leadership. What jumps out first is that Democrats are far more supportive of the Democratic proposal (78%-18%) than Republicans are united in opposition (32%-59% with 9% undecided). The proposal developed by Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha is a rallying point for Democrats while the surge is opposed by almost a third of Republicans (31%). Perhaps Republicans opposed to the surge won't be very excited about a Republican presidential candidate promising almost endless war.
Yet another reason to think that Bush and his advisers setting the Republicans up for a fall in 2008.
Another measure of the effectiveness of the Democratic proposal for troop withdrawal is that it manages to "capture" almost all of the public opposition to President Bush and the war. There's 60% disapproval of President Bush's job performance, 69% disapproval of his handling of the war, and 64% disapproval of the surge. The fact that an overwhelming majority of war opponents support troop withdrawal is a strong testimony to the political skills of the Democratic leadership in coming up with the proposal.
Finally, the Democratic proposal is supported by a strong majority of independent voters at 58% to 34%. The keystone of Rovian politics has been that almost all independents routinely vote the party line of one party. As the election of 2004 demonstrated, this was a valid insight. However, the failure of the Bush administration has raised the possibility that the whole spectrum of independents might be shifting toward the Democrats--that Democratic-leaning Democrats are becoming more solidly Democratic, that weakly Republican independents are beginning to lean Democratic, and that more strongly leaning Republican independents are becoming more "independent."
The other day, Karl Rove raised the question of whether he was a genius or an idiot in relation to the McCain smears of 2000. Two months into Democratic control of Congress, the Democrats are looking like geniuses compared to Rove.
Those numbers are even better than they initially look for the Democratic leadership. What jumps out first is that Democrats are far more supportive of the Democratic proposal (78%-18%) than Republicans are united in opposition (32%-59% with 9% undecided). The proposal developed by Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha is a rallying point for Democrats while the surge is opposed by almost a third of Republicans (31%). Perhaps Republicans opposed to the surge won't be very excited about a Republican presidential candidate promising almost endless war.
Yet another reason to think that Bush and his advisers setting the Republicans up for a fall in 2008.
Another measure of the effectiveness of the Democratic proposal for troop withdrawal is that it manages to "capture" almost all of the public opposition to President Bush and the war. There's 60% disapproval of President Bush's job performance, 69% disapproval of his handling of the war, and 64% disapproval of the surge. The fact that an overwhelming majority of war opponents support troop withdrawal is a strong testimony to the political skills of the Democratic leadership in coming up with the proposal.
Finally, the Democratic proposal is supported by a strong majority of independent voters at 58% to 34%. The keystone of Rovian politics has been that almost all independents routinely vote the party line of one party. As the election of 2004 demonstrated, this was a valid insight. However, the failure of the Bush administration has raised the possibility that the whole spectrum of independents might be shifting toward the Democrats--that Democratic-leaning Democrats are becoming more solidly Democratic, that weakly Republican independents are beginning to lean Democratic, and that more strongly leaning Republican independents are becoming more "independent."
The other day, Karl Rove raised the question of whether he was a genius or an idiot in relation to the McCain smears of 2000. Two months into Democratic control of Congress, the Democrats are looking like geniuses compared to Rove.
A Ghost From an Abusive Past
Sometime when I was in my twenties, perhaps twenty-five years ago, my mother told me that Linda Henson committed suicide. Two or three years older than me, blondish, and friendly in a distant Upstate New York kind of way, Linda lived down the street from us and was the oldest girl among the Henson family's twelve children. No, they didn't have twelve kids because they were Catholics. They were Methodists. Having moved away, I hadn't seen Linda for many years before her death and I was struggling with my own abusive family history at the time. So, I didn't give Linda's death much thought other than to tell my mom that she had always been pretty nice to me.
Then, last week, my mother told me that Linda Henson's father had been implicated in a long-standing pattern of sexually abusing his daughters and grand-daughters.
"Oh," I thought. "So that's why Linda committed suicide." Evidently, I remembered Linda's death better than I knew.
Of course, I can't be absolutely sure that Linda was sexually abused or that the sexual abuse caused the suicide. Linda herself is no longer with us to bear witness. Still, over the last week, my mind has been drifting toward Linda occasionally and I find myself trying to imagine how she must have felt--especially the isolation in going through something that traumatic and not be able to talk about it with anyone. As isolated as I was in my own head while I was growing up in my own family, it must have been much worse for her.
Well then, is there anything that can be done about the long dead past of Linda's Henson's abuse and suffering?
In some ways of course, there's nothing to be done. Even if Linda were alive, nothing could compensate her fully or even adequately for the abusive past. That's even more the case now that she's been dead for so long.
Nevertheless, I do believe that it is incumbent on those like me who knew Linda to embrace her memory as an element in my actions towards others--for seeing the struggles of my students, colleagues and friends more effectively, for having a constant good will towards those people we know are in trouble. Linda's life and death can't be redeemed, but our memories can help us conduct ourselves more humanely and effectively toward those we encounter in the present and future.
Then, last week, my mother told me that Linda Henson's father had been implicated in a long-standing pattern of sexually abusing his daughters and grand-daughters.
"Oh," I thought. "So that's why Linda committed suicide." Evidently, I remembered Linda's death better than I knew.
Of course, I can't be absolutely sure that Linda was sexually abused or that the sexual abuse caused the suicide. Linda herself is no longer with us to bear witness. Still, over the last week, my mind has been drifting toward Linda occasionally and I find myself trying to imagine how she must have felt--especially the isolation in going through something that traumatic and not be able to talk about it with anyone. As isolated as I was in my own head while I was growing up in my own family, it must have been much worse for her.
Well then, is there anything that can be done about the long dead past of Linda's Henson's abuse and suffering?
In some ways of course, there's nothing to be done. Even if Linda were alive, nothing could compensate her fully or even adequately for the abusive past. That's even more the case now that she's been dead for so long.
Nevertheless, I do believe that it is incumbent on those like me who knew Linda to embrace her memory as an element in my actions towards others--for seeing the struggles of my students, colleagues and friends more effectively, for having a constant good will towards those people we know are in trouble. Linda's life and death can't be redeemed, but our memories can help us conduct ourselves more humanely and effectively toward those we encounter in the present and future.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Rudy: The Candidate of White Racism
A Sign of Beltwayness: Tyler Cowen, an economics professor at George Washington University, publishes a blog entitled Marginal Revolution: Small Steps Toward a Much Better World. One way that you tell that Cowen is a beltway guy is that he writes on art funding and ethnic cuisine. These kinds of posting topics are quite different from the frequent writing on religion and racism in a red-blooded, red-state blog like RSI.
The Foreign Policy Tide: Cowen writes that the continuing attention on the Iraq War helps the Republicans because a focus on foreign policy is always a help for the GOP. In light of this consideration, Cowen predicts that Rudy Giuliani will be the next president. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Iraq is a stone around the neck of the Republican Party and will be a special burden to the Republican presidential nominee. The last polls I saw indicated that disapproval of Bush's Iraq policy stands at 67% while support for Democratic bring home the troops plans sometimes runs in the 70's. If the Republicans win in 2008, it will be despite their foreign policy not because of it.
Rudy's Long Shot. I have to admit that I have a hard time taking Rudy Giuliani seriously as a presidential candidate. Given that Giuliani has surged at least 15 points ahead of John McCain without really doing much of anything, that's obviously mistaken. Tyler Cowen predicts that Giuliani will become president. However, Giuliani's shot at the presidency depends on domestic policy and his reputation as a mayor who adapted a policy of aggressive policing of black communities, defended New York city cops when they pumped 41 bullets into the entirely innocent Amadou Dialo, and showed nothing but contempt for black civic and political leaders when they protested against these kinds of things. The implicit promise of a Giuliani presidency for right-wing columnists (here's Rich Tucker at Townhall.com) is that Rudy will be just as aggressive towards Arabs, illegal immigrants, and other non-white populations as he was toward African-Americans in New York. In other words, Rudy's hope to win the presidency is that he is the man who can successfully apply the racial archetypes of white people to the America's conduct of the war on terror.
The RSI prognosis: To the contrary, I believe that the Bush administration's failure in Iraq has served to lessen the power of the Dirty Harry racial ideal of the hyper-aggressive white cop imposing order on a criminalized black population. The loosening grip of that kind of racial archetype on the white population and the mainstream media is one of the reasons why a black guy like Barack Obama can be seriously considered as a presidential candidate. Consequently, I don't think that Giuliani will be able to ride traditional white racial symbols into the White House even if he is able to sneak away with the Republican nomination.
The Foreign Policy Tide: Cowen writes that the continuing attention on the Iraq War helps the Republicans because a focus on foreign policy is always a help for the GOP. In light of this consideration, Cowen predicts that Rudy Giuliani will be the next president. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Iraq is a stone around the neck of the Republican Party and will be a special burden to the Republican presidential nominee. The last polls I saw indicated that disapproval of Bush's Iraq policy stands at 67% while support for Democratic bring home the troops plans sometimes runs in the 70's. If the Republicans win in 2008, it will be despite their foreign policy not because of it.
Rudy's Long Shot. I have to admit that I have a hard time taking Rudy Giuliani seriously as a presidential candidate. Given that Giuliani has surged at least 15 points ahead of John McCain without really doing much of anything, that's obviously mistaken. Tyler Cowen predicts that Giuliani will become president. However, Giuliani's shot at the presidency depends on domestic policy and his reputation as a mayor who adapted a policy of aggressive policing of black communities, defended New York city cops when they pumped 41 bullets into the entirely innocent Amadou Dialo, and showed nothing but contempt for black civic and political leaders when they protested against these kinds of things. The implicit promise of a Giuliani presidency for right-wing columnists (here's Rich Tucker at Townhall.com) is that Rudy will be just as aggressive towards Arabs, illegal immigrants, and other non-white populations as he was toward African-Americans in New York. In other words, Rudy's hope to win the presidency is that he is the man who can successfully apply the racial archetypes of white people to the America's conduct of the war on terror.
The RSI prognosis: To the contrary, I believe that the Bush administration's failure in Iraq has served to lessen the power of the Dirty Harry racial ideal of the hyper-aggressive white cop imposing order on a criminalized black population. The loosening grip of that kind of racial archetype on the white population and the mainstream media is one of the reasons why a black guy like Barack Obama can be seriously considered as a presidential candidate. Consequently, I don't think that Giuliani will be able to ride traditional white racial symbols into the White House even if he is able to sneak away with the Republican nomination.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Faith-Based Government
The mainstream media scoffs at the President of Gambia for saying that his ancestors had revealed an aids cure to him in a dream. Unsurprisingly, the media doesn't believe the Gambian health minister when he claims that the president has developed "herbal concoctions that are able to treat and cure patients with HIV-virus, which have been proven within all medical and laboratory parameters."
Nevertheless, I'd feel a lot more comfortable about Western superiority if my own President had not "become convinced that he is stronger than Churchill because [he] "has God" and Churchill didn't. "
Not that I want Bush to start listening to his ancestors either.
Nevertheless, I'd feel a lot more comfortable about Western superiority if my own President had not "become convinced that he is stronger than Churchill because [he] "has God" and Churchill didn't. "
Not that I want Bush to start listening to his ancestors either.
Are We Ready?
Chris Rock responding to a question about whether America is ready for an African-American president: "It's ready for a retarded president, why would it be ready for an African-American president?"
I've never thought that Bush was any less intelligent than Gore or Kerry, but there is something to the idea that Bush's presidency has helped prepare the country for an African-American or female presidency. Because Bush has worked so hard to project a sense of regular "white guyness," the failure of his administration has opened the door for Obama and Hillary to be taken seriously. The fact that Bush has also delegitimized appeals to "regular guy" white masculinity hampers white male candidates like Mitt Romney. It also tarnishes the ability of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani to bank on their reputations as "heroes."
By making it more difficult to appeal to symbols of white masculinity, Bush has levelled the playing field for female candidates like Hillary and African-Americans like Obamal.
I've never thought that Bush was any less intelligent than Gore or Kerry, but there is something to the idea that Bush's presidency has helped prepare the country for an African-American or female presidency. Because Bush has worked so hard to project a sense of regular "white guyness," the failure of his administration has opened the door for Obama and Hillary to be taken seriously. The fact that Bush has also delegitimized appeals to "regular guy" white masculinity hampers white male candidates like Mitt Romney. It also tarnishes the ability of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani to bank on their reputations as "heroes."
By making it more difficult to appeal to symbols of white masculinity, Bush has levelled the playing field for female candidates like Hillary and African-Americans like Obamal.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The Loser's Ball
Knight Lost! Right-wingers everywhere must be mourning today's defeat of Bobby Knight Texas Tech University by the blue-staters at Boston College. Bobby Knight is a perfect right-winger, in other words a bullying, arrogant prick and supreme hypocrite even if he is a great coach. By the way, I went to a Knight camp at West Point as a high school sophomore in Upstate New York. Like everybody else in Upstate, I was a Knight-worshipper when I arrived at West Point for two weeks of camping. But it was easy to see what a jerk he was even then.
Duke Lost! As a North Carolina alum, I've sworn a blood oath against the Duke Blue Devils and I am now hard into a bottle of scotch to celebrate their loss to Virginia Commonwealth. Not really! I'm allergic to most booze. But I can't stand Duke. It's bad enough that Coach K is a Knight protege, but he looks like Adolf Hitler with that little curl in his mouth. And then there's those super-smug Duke students who any decent person would want to see in jail even if the lacrosse team wasn't a bunch of rapists. To top it all off, my ex-wife is also a Duke history professor. So, I'm double-happy when they lose.
The Bush-Rove-Gonzales Axis of Failure--The two most Bush-identified of all the Bushies in government are Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales and they are getting absolutely hammered in the fired prosecutor scandal. It's hard to say where speculation is going to go next--maybe talk of a perjury indictment for Gonzales' false testimony about the fired prosecutors to Congress or an obstruction of justice count for Rove's interfering with Carol Lam's investigation of Republican corruption. But it's going to get ugly. As Salon demonstrates, Rove has been up to his eyeballs in using government prosecutors for phony investigations of Democratic office-holders ever since his days as a punk political consultant in Texas.
But I'd still hate to see the dough-faced Rove resign. In the final analysis, Karl Rove is going to be the man most responsible for the Democratic Landslide of 2008. I'm hoping that he gets to watch the outcome of his handiwork from the Oval Office with President Bush.
So much for legacy!
Duke Lost! As a North Carolina alum, I've sworn a blood oath against the Duke Blue Devils and I am now hard into a bottle of scotch to celebrate their loss to Virginia Commonwealth. Not really! I'm allergic to most booze. But I can't stand Duke. It's bad enough that Coach K is a Knight protege, but he looks like Adolf Hitler with that little curl in his mouth. And then there's those super-smug Duke students who any decent person would want to see in jail even if the lacrosse team wasn't a bunch of rapists. To top it all off, my ex-wife is also a Duke history professor. So, I'm double-happy when they lose.
The Bush-Rove-Gonzales Axis of Failure--The two most Bush-identified of all the Bushies in government are Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales and they are getting absolutely hammered in the fired prosecutor scandal. It's hard to say where speculation is going to go next--maybe talk of a perjury indictment for Gonzales' false testimony about the fired prosecutors to Congress or an obstruction of justice count for Rove's interfering with Carol Lam's investigation of Republican corruption. But it's going to get ugly. As Salon demonstrates, Rove has been up to his eyeballs in using government prosecutors for phony investigations of Democratic office-holders ever since his days as a punk political consultant in Texas.
But I'd still hate to see the dough-faced Rove resign. In the final analysis, Karl Rove is going to be the man most responsible for the Democratic Landslide of 2008. I'm hoping that he gets to watch the outcome of his handiwork from the Oval Office with President Bush.
So much for legacy!
The Indoor Golf Capital of the World
Yeah, golf baby! My university, Morehead State University in Morehead, KY, is raising $1.6 mill to purchase Eagle Trace Golf course in Sharkey, KY which is centrally located in the middle of nowhere. This is the case even though the university already owns one golf course and even though Eagle Trace is a big money-loser.
My university president explained the golf course purchase by saying that Eagle Trace would be a tourist attraction as the only 18 hole golf course in this part of the state.
Sure, golf would be a tourist attraction for the one month out of the year that it's not constantly raining.
Maybe the University should think about building a network of indoor put-put courses instead and make Morehead the "Indoor Golf Capital of the World."
Well, I have to get my umbrella so I can go out in the rain to take my daughter to see Steve Henry, as uninspiring a gubernatorial candidate as you can imagine, a guy whose main claim to fame is that he married a former Miss America.
Update: Steve Henry didn't show and his place was taken by a University of Louisville undergraduate who almost knew what he was talking about.
My university president explained the golf course purchase by saying that Eagle Trace would be a tourist attraction as the only 18 hole golf course in this part of the state.
Sure, golf would be a tourist attraction for the one month out of the year that it's not constantly raining.
Maybe the University should think about building a network of indoor put-put courses instead and make Morehead the "Indoor Golf Capital of the World."
Well, I have to get my umbrella so I can go out in the rain to take my daughter to see Steve Henry, as uninspiring a gubernatorial candidate as you can imagine, a guy whose main claim to fame is that he married a former Miss America.
Update: Steve Henry didn't show and his place was taken by a University of Louisville undergraduate who almost knew what he was talking about.
Hillary and the Coming Pooper Scooper Era
Last night, Hillary Clinton came out with a fairly nuanced position on Iraq, arguing that she would keep some troops in the country to guard against al-Qaeda, protect the Kurds, and prevent invasions from neighboring countries.
Matthew Iglesias expressed a rather respectful position of general disagreement.
I'm going to have to think about it though. Maybe I'll do some of that thinking here
The overriding reality for the next president if he or she is a Democrat is that they're going to have to devote most of their energies to cleaning up the Bush mess. The day Bush leaves office, the pooper scooper era is going to begin.
In that sense, Hillary Clinton is to be commended for outlining a coherent position on Iraq even though that position is hard to swallow for anti-war types like myself. Her idea is that American troops would serve as a kind of ballast to prevent the Iraq situation from getting horribly worse while the Shiites and the Sunnis negotiate or fight their way out of their problems.
It's not a bad idea especially because Hillary acknowledges (unlike neo-con delusionals) that the U. S. is not going to be able to dictate a winner in Iraq's sectarian conflicts.
But I agree more with the Pelosi/Murtha position that the American troop presence in Iraq should be limited to training Iraqis while the bulk of American forces would be withdrawn to Kuwait and other Middle Eastern spots and put into a wait and see mode concerning any possible al-Qaeda take-over in Anbar. Having American forces close by would deter Turkish or Saudi invasion while it might turn out that a large-scale withdrawal of American troops actually would diminish support for al-Qaeda in Anbar.
The Pelosi/Murtha position is hardly risk free, but I believe that minimizing the American mission in Iraq is the better way to go.
Matthew Iglesias expressed a rather respectful position of general disagreement.
I'm going to have to think about it though. Maybe I'll do some of that thinking here
The overriding reality for the next president if he or she is a Democrat is that they're going to have to devote most of their energies to cleaning up the Bush mess. The day Bush leaves office, the pooper scooper era is going to begin.
In that sense, Hillary Clinton is to be commended for outlining a coherent position on Iraq even though that position is hard to swallow for anti-war types like myself. Her idea is that American troops would serve as a kind of ballast to prevent the Iraq situation from getting horribly worse while the Shiites and the Sunnis negotiate or fight their way out of their problems.
It's not a bad idea especially because Hillary acknowledges (unlike neo-con delusionals) that the U. S. is not going to be able to dictate a winner in Iraq's sectarian conflicts.
But I agree more with the Pelosi/Murtha position that the American troop presence in Iraq should be limited to training Iraqis while the bulk of American forces would be withdrawn to Kuwait and other Middle Eastern spots and put into a wait and see mode concerning any possible al-Qaeda take-over in Anbar. Having American forces close by would deter Turkish or Saudi invasion while it might turn out that a large-scale withdrawal of American troops actually would diminish support for al-Qaeda in Anbar.
The Pelosi/Murtha position is hardly risk free, but I believe that minimizing the American mission in Iraq is the better way to go.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Speaking Truth on O'Reilly
Dennis Miller on a Bill O'Reilly segment plugging his new radio show: "I don't exactly know what's going on." Maybe he needs a better slogan.
Turning the Tables on Neo-Conservatism
In today's post for Salon, liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald savaged a dinner recently held by neo-conservative luminaries for President George Bush. Greenwald highlights a long list of ridiculous and/or failed neo-con ideas like George Bush's special closeness to God, the ultimate success of the war, and the extreme necessity of confronting Iran that made neo-con luminaries like Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol look like complete idiots. George Bush looked like an even bigger idiot for taking "lessons" from the neo-cons in precisely these bankrupt ideas.
This is what the world is like for the neo-conservatives and the Bush administration in general. What Rush Limbaugh used to be to the Clintons, the liberal blogosphere is now to the neo-cons. The neo-cons can't sit down for a little self-congratulatory ritual without having liberal bloggers like Greenwald pummel them for their arrogance, hypocrisy, and lazy thinking. The lazy thinking of the neo-cons especially caught the eye of Jacob Weisburg as he trashed the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute for Slate.
The same thing goes with neo-con opinion journalism. A few weeks ago, a neo-con think tanker named Frank Gaffney proposed the seemingly clever idea of hanging anti-war Democratic Congressmen like Carl Levin only to find himself hammered by Greenwald and Alan Colmes (of all people) on Fox.
I don't want to say that the impact of Greenwald or any other liberal blogger has Limbaugh's kind of audience. The last figures I saw had Limbaugh's audience at 13 million. However, the liberal blogosphere has succeeded in turning neo-conservatives into professional punching bags.
This is what the world is like for the neo-conservatives and the Bush administration in general. What Rush Limbaugh used to be to the Clintons, the liberal blogosphere is now to the neo-cons. The neo-cons can't sit down for a little self-congratulatory ritual without having liberal bloggers like Greenwald pummel them for their arrogance, hypocrisy, and lazy thinking. The lazy thinking of the neo-cons especially caught the eye of Jacob Weisburg as he trashed the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute for Slate.
The same thing goes with neo-con opinion journalism. A few weeks ago, a neo-con think tanker named Frank Gaffney proposed the seemingly clever idea of hanging anti-war Democratic Congressmen like Carl Levin only to find himself hammered by Greenwald and Alan Colmes (of all people) on Fox.
I don't want to say that the impact of Greenwald or any other liberal blogger has Limbaugh's kind of audience. The last figures I saw had Limbaugh's audience at 13 million. However, the liberal blogosphere has succeeded in turning neo-conservatives into professional punching bags.
Speaking of Sobriety
The Bush administration should get off the sauce. There's an Associated Press report from Baghdad that the Bush administration is pushing for "a national front to take over for the political bloc now supporting [Prime Minister] al-Maliki."
Dreams die hard with people who are drunk on their own fantasies and it looks like the Bush administration is pushing yet again for a secular government in Iraq. The Bush administration's idea is that a secular government would be more broadly representative, less closely connected to Iran, and a better model of democracy for other Arab countries than a Shiite government.
All of that sounds good in theory, but there is hardly any support for secular government in Iraq. Perhaps the Bush administration hasn't noticed that Iraq has become a much more religious place since the invasion in 2003 and Ayad Allawi's secular party got Joe Lieberman numbers in the last Iraqi election.
If the Bush administration replaced al-Maliki with a secular alliance, they would be plucking "a thousand dangers" on their heads to paraphrase Shakespeare's Richard II. Most importantly, they would be exchanging a one front war against the Sunni insurgents for a two front war against Sunni insurgents and the Shiite political parties and their militias. Bush and his people want a war against the Shiite militias, but they forget that the militias have the support of the Shiite population. So, going to war against the Shiite militias would be the same as waging war against the whole Shiite population.
The Bush administration is also under the delusion that an Allawi secular government would be a strong government. How could that be? An Allawi government would be a loose coalition of mutually suspicious secularists, Sunni moderates, and Kurds that wouldn't have popular support among eithe the 60% of Shiites or the 15% of Sunnis. If the Bush administration thinks that the al-Maliki government is weak and indecisive, wait until they see how weak and indecisive a secular government would be. Given the mutual incompatibility of the Sunnis, Kurds, and secular groups, any secular government would be even more paralyzed than the current regime.
Another problem is that a secular government would be seen in Iraq as even more of an American puppet than the current regime. Such a perception would further weaken any secular government. Especially because it would be true.
As has always been the case with Iraq, the Bush administration seems determined to take a bad situation and make it even worse.
Perhaps Bush should follow Pope Benedict's advice and govern with more sobriety.
Dreams die hard with people who are drunk on their own fantasies and it looks like the Bush administration is pushing yet again for a secular government in Iraq. The Bush administration's idea is that a secular government would be more broadly representative, less closely connected to Iran, and a better model of democracy for other Arab countries than a Shiite government.
All of that sounds good in theory, but there is hardly any support for secular government in Iraq. Perhaps the Bush administration hasn't noticed that Iraq has become a much more religious place since the invasion in 2003 and Ayad Allawi's secular party got Joe Lieberman numbers in the last Iraqi election.
If the Bush administration replaced al-Maliki with a secular alliance, they would be plucking "a thousand dangers" on their heads to paraphrase Shakespeare's Richard II. Most importantly, they would be exchanging a one front war against the Sunni insurgents for a two front war against Sunni insurgents and the Shiite political parties and their militias. Bush and his people want a war against the Shiite militias, but they forget that the militias have the support of the Shiite population. So, going to war against the Shiite militias would be the same as waging war against the whole Shiite population.
The Bush administration is also under the delusion that an Allawi secular government would be a strong government. How could that be? An Allawi government would be a loose coalition of mutually suspicious secularists, Sunni moderates, and Kurds that wouldn't have popular support among eithe the 60% of Shiites or the 15% of Sunnis. If the Bush administration thinks that the al-Maliki government is weak and indecisive, wait until they see how weak and indecisive a secular government would be. Given the mutual incompatibility of the Sunnis, Kurds, and secular groups, any secular government would be even more paralyzed than the current regime.
Another problem is that a secular government would be seen in Iraq as even more of an American puppet than the current regime. Such a perception would further weaken any secular government. Especially because it would be true.
As has always been the case with Iraq, the Bush administration seems determined to take a bad situation and make it even worse.
Perhaps Bush should follow Pope Benedict's advice and govern with more sobriety.
Toward a Sober Pope
Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement yesterday that, among other things, called for greater "sobriety" during Catholic Mass. When I mentioned this over the breakfast table, quick-witted and Catholic Mrs. RSI asked if that meant the Church wouldn't be using wine for mass anymore.
Myself, I think the Catholic Church would be more sober if they gave up the idea that wine and bread could be transfigured into the blood and body of Jesus.
Few things are less sober than cannibalism!
Myself, I think the Catholic Church would be more sober if they gave up the idea that wine and bread could be transfigured into the blood and body of Jesus.
Few things are less sober than cannibalism!
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Doughfaces vs the Square-Jaws
Today, Alberto Gonzales assistant D. Kyle Sampson resigned over his role in the prosecutor purge. It was a case of the assistant taking the fall for the boss all the way. Sampson wrote an e-mail on criteria for evaluating federal prosecutors that linked the purge to the White House. So he had to go.
But, if you look at the pictures of Sampson at TPM Muckraker and CNN, you realize that he's a doughy-faced dead ringer for Karl Rove in the same vein as the even more doughy-faced Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, and some of the right-wingers on my campus. A lot of preachers and priests also have that same chubby little boy in old man's bodies kind of look. They all look like evil assistants to the arch-villain in James Bond movies. You can almost see them clearing out brush in George Bush's toy ranch to prove how tough they are.
This is where I wish that I could figure out how to put pictures into this blog. That's because David Iglesias (picture here) and most of the other fired federal prosecutors look like ram-rod straight district attorneys--no-nonsense, no irony, true, blue, all-American, hero types. The Pat Tillmans of the legal profession. Even Carol Lam looks like a macho hero compared to Limbaugh, Rove, or D. Kyle Sampson.
Expanding on an earlier post, the Bush administration has been characterized by an endless battle between doughfaces like Karl Rove and D. Kyle Sampson who waste their lives trying to prove how tough they are and principled square-jaw good guys like David Iglesias and Carol Lam.
As the Bush administration falls apart, it's obvious that the square-jaws are winning.
But, if you look at the pictures of Sampson at TPM Muckraker and CNN, you realize that he's a doughy-faced dead ringer for Karl Rove in the same vein as the even more doughy-faced Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, and some of the right-wingers on my campus. A lot of preachers and priests also have that same chubby little boy in old man's bodies kind of look. They all look like evil assistants to the arch-villain in James Bond movies. You can almost see them clearing out brush in George Bush's toy ranch to prove how tough they are.
This is where I wish that I could figure out how to put pictures into this blog. That's because David Iglesias (picture here) and most of the other fired federal prosecutors look like ram-rod straight district attorneys--no-nonsense, no irony, true, blue, all-American, hero types. The Pat Tillmans of the legal profession. Even Carol Lam looks like a macho hero compared to Limbaugh, Rove, or D. Kyle Sampson.
Expanding on an earlier post, the Bush administration has been characterized by an endless battle between doughfaces like Karl Rove and D. Kyle Sampson who waste their lives trying to prove how tough they are and principled square-jaw good guys like David Iglesias and Carol Lam.
As the Bush administration falls apart, it's obvious that the square-jaws are winning.
Polishing His Pandering Skills
When Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President, he emphasized that "it's very clear to me that he's not running for president to advance any liberal social agenda."
I think that's safe to say.
But I wonder if Vitter asked Giuliani what he would do about New Orleans? Or Iraq?
Of course, Rudy might be running for president to advance his pandering skills more than anything else.
I think that's safe to say.
But I wonder if Vitter asked Giuliani what he would do about New Orleans? Or Iraq?
Of course, Rudy might be running for president to advance his pandering skills more than anything else.
Bush vs Republicans in the Bureaucracy
This isn't my usual posting, but I'm in a paper grading frenzy right now. Here's Arianna Huffington on the prosecutor purge.
Not that we should be surprised by any of this. It's just one more vile example of how Bush treats every part of the executive branch: instead of protecting the environment, the E.P.A. is used to weaken it; the V.A. screws veterans; the State Department campaigns against diplomacy; the F.D.A. undermines food safety. And now the injustice at Justice. The Bushies have a long history of playing fast and loose with the law -- evading it, stretching it, getting around it, weakening it, ignoring it, nullifying it.
In most of these cases, the most determined opposition to the Bush agenda has come from Republicans in the federal bureaucracy.
Not that we should be surprised by any of this. It's just one more vile example of how Bush treats every part of the executive branch: instead of protecting the environment, the E.P.A. is used to weaken it; the V.A. screws veterans; the State Department campaigns against diplomacy; the F.D.A. undermines food safety. And now the injustice at Justice. The Bushies have a long history of playing fast and loose with the law -- evading it, stretching it, getting around it, weakening it, ignoring it, nullifying it.
In most of these cases, the most determined opposition to the Bush agenda has come from Republicans in the federal bureaucracy.
Monday, March 12, 2007
You Know Things Are Bad When
Fred Thompson is talking about running for president. Today, the actor and former senator from Tennessee who hasn't been in politics since 2003 came out of the closet as a potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
That's like George Foreman coming out of his million-year retirement to box again.
Talk about signs that prominent Republicans don't believe that John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich could win a general election. This is interesting because McCain and Giuliani are running at least even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the polls. The Tennessee Republicans promoting the Fred Thompson boomlet, Howard Baker for instance, must think that the good poll numbers are an illusion.
And they're probably right.
The Fred Thompson speculation also raises the interesting possibility of all the national contenders losing steam and local Republicans making some noise as favorite sons of their states, regions, or micro-constituencies. You could have Fred Thompson from Tennessee, Tommy Thompson from Wisconsin, and Jeb Bush from Florida. You could also have Chuck Hagel representing both Republican anti-war voters, and Douglas Feith campaigning on behalf of incompetents everywhere.
Now that's a meltdown I'd want to see.
That's like George Foreman coming out of his million-year retirement to box again.
Talk about signs that prominent Republicans don't believe that John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich could win a general election. This is interesting because McCain and Giuliani are running at least even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the polls. The Tennessee Republicans promoting the Fred Thompson boomlet, Howard Baker for instance, must think that the good poll numbers are an illusion.
And they're probably right.
The Fred Thompson speculation also raises the interesting possibility of all the national contenders losing steam and local Republicans making some noise as favorite sons of their states, regions, or micro-constituencies. You could have Fred Thompson from Tennessee, Tommy Thompson from Wisconsin, and Jeb Bush from Florida. You could also have Chuck Hagel representing both Republican anti-war voters, and Douglas Feith campaigning on behalf of incompetents everywhere.
Now that's a meltdown I'd want to see.
Having Your Cake And Pretending to Eat It
Robert Kagan is the neo-con think tank warrior whose stunningly mediocre Of Paradise and Power helped enflame American contempt for the European orientation toward international law, negotiations, and patience during the run-up to the Iraq War. As a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, Kagan got to enjoy living in Brussels far away from both the United States and the war in Iraq while pretending to eat the Europeans with his words.
Yesterday, Kagan came out with an editorial in the Washington Post defending the surge policy that was orchestrated by his brother Frederick Kagan, another battle-scarred conservative word warrior at the American Enterprise Institute.
Here's Matthew Yglesias' hilarious post on how the Kagans spread the family love around.
While The Weekly Standard has to make do with using Frederick Kagan's wife to write articles proclaiming the Kagan surge plan a success, The Washington Post believes in integrity and trots out brother Robert Kagan to do it instead. Maybe someday we can get [the deceased] Donald Kagan's take on all this. If only the whole world were made up of members of the Kagan family, then maybe George W. Bush would be a really popular president. At any rate, you're not supposed to mention Robert Kagan in polite professional punditry circles without observing that he's much smarter and a much more honest writer than your average neocon. This pearl of wisdom even has the virtue of being true. Sadly, as Glenn Greenwald exhaustively demonstrates, this really isn't saying very much. For a neocon, he has a great analytic track record on Iraq, which means his track record is horrible rather than, say, horrifyingly horrible. That he gets to slander his employers at the Post in the first graf of his terrible column merely demonstrates how nice it must be to be a conservative . . . well-worked refs are the best refs to have.
Yesterday, Kagan came out with an editorial in the Washington Post defending the surge policy that was orchestrated by his brother Frederick Kagan, another battle-scarred conservative word warrior at the American Enterprise Institute.
Here's Matthew Yglesias' hilarious post on how the Kagans spread the family love around.
While The Weekly Standard has to make do with using Frederick Kagan's wife to write articles proclaiming the Kagan surge plan a success, The Washington Post believes in integrity and trots out brother Robert Kagan to do it instead. Maybe someday we can get [the deceased] Donald Kagan's take on all this. If only the whole world were made up of members of the Kagan family, then maybe George W. Bush would be a really popular president. At any rate, you're not supposed to mention Robert Kagan in polite professional punditry circles without observing that he's much smarter and a much more honest writer than your average neocon. This pearl of wisdom even has the virtue of being true. Sadly, as Glenn Greenwald exhaustively demonstrates, this really isn't saying very much. For a neocon, he has a great analytic track record on Iraq, which means his track record is horrible rather than, say, horrifyingly horrible. That he gets to slander his employers at the Post in the first graf of his terrible column merely demonstrates how nice it must be to be a conservative . . . well-worked refs are the best refs to have.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Square-Jawed Warriors Against Bushism
When the history of the decline and fall of Bushism is written, the most important opponents of the Bush agenda aren't going to be the Congressional Democrats, the mainstream media, or the left-wing blogosphere.
Instead, it's going to be square-jawed, rock-ribbed Republicans in the federal government, men and women who fell afoul of the Bush administration because of their belief in the Constitution, laws, rules, fairness, and fidelity to the best interests of the country. Spread throughout the State Department, uniformed military, CIA, FBI, and other federal agencies, the square-jawed warriors were disgusted with the relentless efforts of the Bush administration to circumvent the Constitution, distort data, ignore sound analysis, and obstruct established procedures. As a result, they began to resist the people at the top. Disaffected Republican bureaucrats objected to distorted findings, leaked unjustified intelligence claims to media outlets like McClatchy, ignored hints that they needed to be more partisan, and started testifying about Bush abuses to Congress.
Braver than the Democratic leadership and mainstream media and more mature than the left-wing blogosphere, the square-jawed Republicans of the federal bureaucracy have been the most effective force in slowly grinding the Bush administration to a halt. They deserve a lot of credit. When the time came, Republican bureaucrats risked their careers and their reputations to stop the Bush administration's effort to turn the federal government into a constituent part of the Republican Party apparatus. They acted because they put a higher value on the values of democratic government than the Republican Party agenda and partisan advantage.
Hopefully, they'll receive all the credit they deserve.
Instead, it's going to be square-jawed, rock-ribbed Republicans in the federal government, men and women who fell afoul of the Bush administration because of their belief in the Constitution, laws, rules, fairness, and fidelity to the best interests of the country. Spread throughout the State Department, uniformed military, CIA, FBI, and other federal agencies, the square-jawed warriors were disgusted with the relentless efforts of the Bush administration to circumvent the Constitution, distort data, ignore sound analysis, and obstruct established procedures. As a result, they began to resist the people at the top. Disaffected Republican bureaucrats objected to distorted findings, leaked unjustified intelligence claims to media outlets like McClatchy, ignored hints that they needed to be more partisan, and started testifying about Bush abuses to Congress.
Braver than the Democratic leadership and mainstream media and more mature than the left-wing blogosphere, the square-jawed Republicans of the federal bureaucracy have been the most effective force in slowly grinding the Bush administration to a halt. They deserve a lot of credit. When the time came, Republican bureaucrats risked their careers and their reputations to stop the Bush administration's effort to turn the federal government into a constituent part of the Republican Party apparatus. They acted because they put a higher value on the values of democratic government than the Republican Party agenda and partisan advantage.
Hopefully, they'll receive all the credit they deserve.
Senate Democrats For Truth, Justice, and the American Way
Democrats like Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York must be highly committed to good government or at least to getting as close to good government as we can while George Bush is president. Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.
Both Biden and Schumer know that Gonzales will be an extremely easy target for the negative ads of Democratic presidential, Senate, and House candidates if he stays in office. The torture memos, the firing of federal prosecutors, and FBI abuses of the National Security Letters--Gonzales is a living icon of Bush administration incompetence and corruption. When Democratic consultants got tired of bashing the Iraq War, they could run ads on Gonzales instead.
The ads would practically write themselves.
However, instead of seeking that kind of big partisan advantage, Senate Democrats are calling for Gonzales to resign.
That's kind of patriotism just brings a tear to my eye.
Both Biden and Schumer know that Gonzales will be an extremely easy target for the negative ads of Democratic presidential, Senate, and House candidates if he stays in office. The torture memos, the firing of federal prosecutors, and FBI abuses of the National Security Letters--Gonzales is a living icon of Bush administration incompetence and corruption. When Democratic consultants got tired of bashing the Iraq War, they could run ads on Gonzales instead.
The ads would practically write themselves.
However, instead of seeking that kind of big partisan advantage, Senate Democrats are calling for Gonzales to resign.
That's kind of patriotism just brings a tear to my eye.
The Road To Rove
According to Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, this morning's McClatchey story on the involvement of Karl Rove in the firing of federal prosecutor David Iglesias in New Mexico means that
"[w]e're now well past the point where anyone can pretend that Iglesias wasn't fired because he refused to use his office to advance the interests of the New Mexico Republican party by indicting Democrats."
Now the questioning shifts to San Diego where federal prosecutor Carol Lam was extending her corruption investigation from sad-sack Duke Cunningham to House Appropriations Committee powerhouse Rep. Jerry Lewis and into the CIA.
Did Karl Rove have Carol Lam fired to prevent further investigations into GOP corruption?
If so, that sounds a lot like obstruction of justice.
"[w]e're now well past the point where anyone can pretend that Iglesias wasn't fired because he refused to use his office to advance the interests of the New Mexico Republican party by indicting Democrats."
Now the questioning shifts to San Diego where federal prosecutor Carol Lam was extending her corruption investigation from sad-sack Duke Cunningham to House Appropriations Committee powerhouse Rep. Jerry Lewis and into the CIA.
Did Karl Rove have Carol Lam fired to prevent further investigations into GOP corruption?
If so, that sounds a lot like obstruction of justice.
Brought to You By the Rain
A Surprising Lack of B. S. Last week at my sister-in-law's 56th birthday party, we started singing commercials for beer companies that have gone out of business. "Mabel, Black Label--Carling Black Label Beer." And "Schaefer /is the/ one beer to have when you're having more than one" and "Schlitz is a dry beer, a mellow beer, a hearty beer/blended into one beer/ a bright, light, fun beer/ Sc-c-chlitz/ Real Gusto in a Great Light Beer/ Schlitz.
We also got together a vigorous game of "Bullcrap."
Surprisingly, I didn't win.
This Beauty Sponsored By. Not having television anymore, I generally don't think much about commercials. But I was reminded yesterday when I saw a blooming pussy willow in my back yard early in the morning. My immediate reaction was to think about what a beautiful day it was going to be. But then before it clouded over and started raining.
Today, it's sunny again and the grass is beginning to spring back up. But perhaps there should be a sign that says:
"today's beauty brought to you by yesterday's rain."
We also got together a vigorous game of "Bullcrap."
Surprisingly, I didn't win.
This Beauty Sponsored By. Not having television anymore, I generally don't think much about commercials. But I was reminded yesterday when I saw a blooming pussy willow in my back yard early in the morning. My immediate reaction was to think about what a beautiful day it was going to be. But then before it clouded over and started raining.
Today, it's sunny again and the grass is beginning to spring back up. But perhaps there should be a sign that says:
"today's beauty brought to you by yesterday's rain."
Saturday, March 10, 2007
David Obey vs the Anti-War Juggernaut
Thunder on the Left. There's a video out on YouTube and Fox of Rep. David Obey in a sometimes heated exchange with Tina Richards and another anti-war activist about Nancy Pelosi's current plan. Fox seriously overplays the heat of the exchange, but it is fun to watch.
A couple of points:
Needed: Good Guys on the Left. People on the left have always blamed corporate money on the ability of big business to beat liberal reformers in Congress. That's largely true, but one of the things that corporate money allows the business lobbies to do is hire extremely attractive personalities to promote business agendas--the happy warrior good-old-boy types, drinking and golf buddies, and prom queens who have a gift for making everybody comfortable around them. To the contrary, the do-gooder lobbies are often filled with abrasive, self-righteous people like these two anti-war lobbyists who have a tough time with anyone who disagrees with them. The liberal versions of Tom DeLay and Sean Hannity, these folks are often horribly ineffective at convincing people to take them seriously.
Moving the Debate to the Left. Those irritating people on the left are pretty effective right now. On election night last November, Nancy Pelosi and her team had no idea that they would be doing anything like setting deadlines to get out of Iraq. It's because of the people Obey called "idiot liberals" that Pelosi has been pushed into being more aggressive in opposing the Bush administration. Obey is irritated to no end that the anti-war left is pushing him to go much further than either the Congressional votes or public opinion will take him. However, the left deserves credit for pushing both the Congressional Democrats and public opinion a long way toward ending the war.
I See a Book in This: We on the anti-war left owe our moment in the sun to the monumental arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration. Somebody should write a book entitled How to Annoy People and Win to celebrate the coming triumph of the anti-war movement.
A couple of points:
Needed: Good Guys on the Left. People on the left have always blamed corporate money on the ability of big business to beat liberal reformers in Congress. That's largely true, but one of the things that corporate money allows the business lobbies to do is hire extremely attractive personalities to promote business agendas--the happy warrior good-old-boy types, drinking and golf buddies, and prom queens who have a gift for making everybody comfortable around them. To the contrary, the do-gooder lobbies are often filled with abrasive, self-righteous people like these two anti-war lobbyists who have a tough time with anyone who disagrees with them. The liberal versions of Tom DeLay and Sean Hannity, these folks are often horribly ineffective at convincing people to take them seriously.
Moving the Debate to the Left. Those irritating people on the left are pretty effective right now. On election night last November, Nancy Pelosi and her team had no idea that they would be doing anything like setting deadlines to get out of Iraq. It's because of the people Obey called "idiot liberals" that Pelosi has been pushed into being more aggressive in opposing the Bush administration. Obey is irritated to no end that the anti-war left is pushing him to go much further than either the Congressional votes or public opinion will take him. However, the left deserves credit for pushing both the Congressional Democrats and public opinion a long way toward ending the war.
I See a Book in This: We on the anti-war left owe our moment in the sun to the monumental arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration. Somebody should write a book entitled How to Annoy People and Win to celebrate the coming triumph of the anti-war movement.
McCain: Frightening Authoritarian?
Reason magazine (via Matthew Yglesias) has an offputting article on the "frightening authoritarianism" of John McCain. Author Matt Walsh has a hard time deciding what makes McCain more of an authoritarian--the history of McCain's family in the Navy, the politics of patriotism that McCain developed during the 1970's, or McCain's role in pushing campaign finance reform. Walsh's efforts to smear McCain with the military history of his family were especially bothersome to me because my own heritage is a lot less noble than McCain's. It's bad enough that my grandfather on my mother's side left my mom's family during the Depression but it appears that both of my grandparents on my father's side were relentless philanderers who either abandoned (my grandmother) or practically abandoned (my grandfather) their four kids. And my abusive, misogynous, racist father isn't exactly a credit to humanity either.
To the contrary, it seems to me that John McCain has grown as much from the failures of his life as anybody could be expected to grow. In his autobiographical books, McCain took his failures as a POW (he ultimately cracked and signed a confession) and his involvement in the Keating Five as opportunities to become a better person and devote himself more fully to the good of the country. Good for McCain. In my own way, I've attempted to employ my experiences with my deeply flawed father to become a better father, better professor, and better human being. All of our families have skeletons and we all have failures in our lives. But it is possible to learn from these things and John McCain has done as well as a person could be expected.
I was never going to vote for John McCain and I'm disappointed with the non-stop pandering of his presidential campaign. At the end of the day, however, John McCain is not a frightening authoritarian in any way. In fact, he deserves a lot of credit for the way he's lived his life.
To the contrary, it seems to me that John McCain has grown as much from the failures of his life as anybody could be expected to grow. In his autobiographical books, McCain took his failures as a POW (he ultimately cracked and signed a confession) and his involvement in the Keating Five as opportunities to become a better person and devote himself more fully to the good of the country. Good for McCain. In my own way, I've attempted to employ my experiences with my deeply flawed father to become a better father, better professor, and better human being. All of our families have skeletons and we all have failures in our lives. But it is possible to learn from these things and John McCain has done as well as a person could be expected.
I was never going to vote for John McCain and I'm disappointed with the non-stop pandering of his presidential campaign. At the end of the day, however, John McCain is not a frightening authoritarian in any way. In fact, he deserves a lot of credit for the way he's lived his life.
Friday, March 09, 2007
The Super-Asshole of the Week
Liberal blogger Matt Yglesias refers to Rudy Giuliani as a jerk, but "jerk" is too mild and too vague to apply to a guy like Giuliani. I prefer the term super-asshole. Lots of people can be jerks, but it takes a special kind of asshole to introduce your mistress to your wife over television (Giuliani) or let your wife know that you're divorcing her while she's in the hospital with cancer (Gingrich). A super-asshole.
The race for the GOP nomination looks like it's becoming the "Super-Asshole Challenge" with events like "Extreme Pandering," "B.A.S.S. Master Flopping," "Competitive War-Mongering," "Filling Your Closet with Skeletons," and coming before you know it--"The Ultimate Negative Ad." Republican primary voters have come to demand high standards of "Super-Assholeness" from their candidates and the Republican candidates have shown that they aim to please.
However, the Super-Asshole of the Week Award (SAWA) goes to Rev. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky who articulated the particularly creepy argument that doctors should be allowed to perform surgery on fetus' to change the sexual orientation of "gay" fetuses back to heterosexual and therefore cleanse out the "original sin." I'm not sure what's the most monstrous dimension of this idea. Readers should take their pick between the monumental hatred of gay people, the Joseph Mengele visions of the elimination of intra-uterine of supposed "deformities," or the hubris in the idea of "cleansing out original sin." Mohler apparently wants to make the Southern Baptist Convention into the lord of creation. Mohler's practically an embarrassment to heterosexuality.
Mohler's also shows a barely believable ignorance of the message of Jesus. If anything is clear from the biblical accounts, Jesus loved low-class fishermen, prostitutes, sexual sinners, and lepers as much as he was disgusted by preening, moralistic, busy-bodies like the Rev. Albert Mohler.
However you slice it, the Rev. Albert Mohler is the super-asshole of the week.
The race for the GOP nomination looks like it's becoming the "Super-Asshole Challenge" with events like "Extreme Pandering," "B.A.S.S. Master Flopping," "Competitive War-Mongering," "Filling Your Closet with Skeletons," and coming before you know it--"The Ultimate Negative Ad." Republican primary voters have come to demand high standards of "Super-Assholeness" from their candidates and the Republican candidates have shown that they aim to please.
However, the Super-Asshole of the Week Award (SAWA) goes to Rev. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky who articulated the particularly creepy argument that doctors should be allowed to perform surgery on fetus' to change the sexual orientation of "gay" fetuses back to heterosexual and therefore cleanse out the "original sin." I'm not sure what's the most monstrous dimension of this idea. Readers should take their pick between the monumental hatred of gay people, the Joseph Mengele visions of the elimination of intra-uterine of supposed "deformities," or the hubris in the idea of "cleansing out original sin." Mohler apparently wants to make the Southern Baptist Convention into the lord of creation. Mohler's practically an embarrassment to heterosexuality.
Mohler's also shows a barely believable ignorance of the message of Jesus. If anything is clear from the biblical accounts, Jesus loved low-class fishermen, prostitutes, sexual sinners, and lepers as much as he was disgusted by preening, moralistic, busy-bodies like the Rev. Albert Mohler.
However you slice it, the Rev. Albert Mohler is the super-asshole of the week.
Stunning Gingrich Admission
Today, Newt Gingrich made a stunning admission while a guest on the radio program of James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, now the pre-eminent organization on the Christian Right.
That's right, Gingrich finally admitted that he wasn't God when he said that "there are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."
Tsk! Tsk! The things people will do to become President!
Gingrich was ostensibly on Dobson's program to confess that he had committed adultery when he was married to his second wife Marianne. However, acknowledging that there is a god that is not an instrument for his own vision of American and human history must have been a lot tougher for a person of Newt Ginrich's world-encompassing ego.
Fortunately for Newt's newfound piety, he hasn't heard of Jesus' saying in Matthew 20:16 that "the last shall be first, and the first last."
If he knew that the Christian god didn't value winning life's competitions or imposing one's will on other people, Newt would go back to playing god himself.
That's right, Gingrich finally admitted that he wasn't God when he said that "there are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."
Tsk! Tsk! The things people will do to become President!
Gingrich was ostensibly on Dobson's program to confess that he had committed adultery when he was married to his second wife Marianne. However, acknowledging that there is a god that is not an instrument for his own vision of American and human history must have been a lot tougher for a person of Newt Ginrich's world-encompassing ego.
Fortunately for Newt's newfound piety, he hasn't heard of Jesus' saying in Matthew 20:16 that "the last shall be first, and the first last."
If he knew that the Christian god didn't value winning life's competitions or imposing one's will on other people, Newt would go back to playing god himself.
Bush Scandals Unlimited
Free Falling Credibility. Every time the Bush administration thinks they've hit bottom, things get worse. The Mark Foley scandal broke just when the Bush administration thought they could curtail Democratic gains in the 2006 election. As a result, everything the Bush administration did to limit damage from other scandals, defend controversial figures like Donald Rumsfeld, and promote the war was wasted.
Killing the Surge with Scandal. The same thing's happening now with the surge. The Republicans have made a big effort to sell Gen. David Petraeus as the magician general who could turn their investment of 21,000 more troops into the political bonanza of a stable Iraq and functioning democracy. But the whole two-month public relations campaign for the surge has been forgotten as the Scooter Libby conviction, federal prosecutor purge, and Walter Reed scandal take over the headlines. The Bush administration loves to be hyper-aggressive with its enemies abroad and at home, but the triple whammy of scandals is forcing them into a defensive shell.
A Cloud in Every Silver Lining. Someone looking for a Republican silver lining might point out that having all these scandals at once blunts the impact of each scandal because of the media's short attention span. That true as far as it goes, but it's not like we can't expect more scandals from the Bush administration the future.
When you're running an unpopular renegade government, there's a cloud in every silver lining.
Killing the Surge with Scandal. The same thing's happening now with the surge. The Republicans have made a big effort to sell Gen. David Petraeus as the magician general who could turn their investment of 21,000 more troops into the political bonanza of a stable Iraq and functioning democracy. But the whole two-month public relations campaign for the surge has been forgotten as the Scooter Libby conviction, federal prosecutor purge, and Walter Reed scandal take over the headlines. The Bush administration loves to be hyper-aggressive with its enemies abroad and at home, but the triple whammy of scandals is forcing them into a defensive shell.
A Cloud in Every Silver Lining. Someone looking for a Republican silver lining might point out that having all these scandals at once blunts the impact of each scandal because of the media's short attention span. That true as far as it goes, but it's not like we can't expect more scandals from the Bush administration the future.
When you're running an unpopular renegade government, there's a cloud in every silver lining.
The Fifth Truth About the War
Four Unspeakable Truths. Jacob Weisburg of Slate magazine has a nice article out on the "four unspeakable truths about the war." For Weisburg, it's politically unspeakable that 1. the invasion of Iraq was a mistake; 2. that American troops have been victims of the Bush administration's misguided policies and incompetent execution, 3. that the lives of three thousand American troops have been wasted, and 4. that the U. S. is losing the war.
The Fifth Unspeakable Truth. The fifth unspeakable truth, something that seemingly can't be spoken by either politicians or the media, is that war opponents and the left-wing was right about the war from the beginning. The Bush administration, the right-wing, and the media made such a successful effort to stigmatize opposition to the war that nobody is yet allowed to say "you know, it was the people on the left who got it right on the war."
If the Bush administration had been half as effective in conducting the war itself, we'd be in a better situation.
The Fifth Unspeakable Truth. The fifth unspeakable truth, something that seemingly can't be spoken by either politicians or the media, is that war opponents and the left-wing was right about the war from the beginning. The Bush administration, the right-wing, and the media made such a successful effort to stigmatize opposition to the war that nobody is yet allowed to say "you know, it was the people on the left who got it right on the war."
If the Bush administration had been half as effective in conducting the war itself, we'd be in a better situation.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The Wisdom of the French, or the U. S. Rejoins the Rest of the World
The Wisdom of the World. The American public is gradually joining the rest of the world in its opinion of the Bush administration. World public opinion has opposed the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq since the beginning and a current poll shows that 73% of those polled in 25 countries disapprove of the American role in Iraq.
The Dawn of Wisdom in America. After four years of fruitless war, the American public is now catching up to that heavy rate of disapproval with 67% disapproving of President Bush's conduct of the Iraq War in a Feb. 25 Washington Post poll.
The Greater Wisdom of the French. Of course, we still have a way to go before we match the wisdom of the French where 92% of the population disapproves of the American role in Iraq.
But we're learning.
The Dawn of Wisdom in America. After four years of fruitless war, the American public is now catching up to that heavy rate of disapproval with 67% disapproving of President Bush's conduct of the Iraq War in a Feb. 25 Washington Post poll.
The Greater Wisdom of the French. Of course, we still have a way to go before we match the wisdom of the French where 92% of the population disapproves of the American role in Iraq.
But we're learning.
A Quick But Expected Failure
One of the reasons that public support has coalesced around Democratic efforts to limit the surge may be that the public is paying attention to the bad news coming out of Iraq. According to Juan Cole writing in Salon, the surge may already be failing because of an aggressive series of attacks on Shiite pilgrims, big suicide bombings, and helicopter downings launched by Sunni insurgents. Insurgents respect the American military enough to avoid getting stuck on the flypaper of large-scale confrontations, but the days of "shock and awe" are long gone.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Dick Cheney's Heavenly Peace
Few people know what it's like to be responsible for the suffering, maiming, and deaths of thousands and tens of thousands. I remember reading something once about how WWI flying aces were traumatized by the screams of those they shot down. Think how heavily the deaths of thousands would weigh on our minds, especially when we're asleep and our excuses, justifications, rationalizations, and other defenses are much more relaxed than they are while waking. While we sleep, the horrors we visit on others haunt us whether we killed by accident, negligence, or according to plan and it would take a super-human evil on the order of Stalin, Hitler, or Mao not to be paralyzed by the dream spectacle of other people's suffering.
Fortunately for our country, Dick Cheney is not such a man. A sensitive man, Dick Cheney feels the death of each of the 3,185 American soldiers who have died or been maimed in Iraq--their being shot, blown apart by IED's as they ride in their Hummers, drowned in the Tigris or Euphrates, or mangled to such an extent that they had to have large parts of their arms and legs amputated. Knowing that he was largely responsible for sending those troops, Dick Chaney sees American soldiers wounded and dead every night in his sleep. Shakespeare portrayed everyone killed by Richard III as visiting Richard in his sleep before the Battle of Bosworth Field, reciting Richard's crimes, and telling him to "fall thy edgeless sword: despair, and die!" In the same way, the American men and women killed or maimed in Iraq visit Dick Cheney to remind him of the half-truths and lies by which he promoted the invasion, his refusal to think through the problems of occupation, and the recklessness and arrogance with which he wasted their lives and continues to waste the lives of their friends and comrades.
The same is the case with the more than 50,000 Iraqis who have died as a result of the U. S. invasion. Poor Dick Cheney! There must be spectral riots as the shades of the Iraq War dead fight each other for the opportunity to haunt a little bit of his sleep.
It must be an awful thing.
That's why Dick Cheney needs our help. Unlike those on the right, we on the left also feel the burden that the death and suffering in Iraq imposes on Dick Cheney and all of us. Because our minds are not tied up in rationalizing the war or justifying the Bush administration, the shocking brutality of the situation in Iraq strikes us harder than it strikes the warmongers.
Therefore, it's up to us to help Dick Cheney as much as we can.
Some on the left might argue that Dick Cheney's own suffering would be a small price for him to pay for all the suffering he's caused and there's a way I can agree with that. It would be an "eye for an eye" vengeful kind of justice for Dick Cheney to experience some of the pain that he has dished out one way or another in Iraq.
But, in fact, Dick Cheney could never "pay in full" for what's happened in Iraq. Once person can never suffer enough for the tens of thousands of deaths that Cheney has helped cause.
More importantly for our own piece of mind, there is a justice of love and mercy that has a higher claim on us than the law of revenge. It's this higher sense of justice that is the most distinctive contribution of Christianity to modern life. The ability to love those who are not "our own" or even the opposite of our own, is what allows us to empathize with our soldiers even if we disagree with the war and feel the suffering of the Iraqi people even though we live a very different kind of life. The higher law of justice should also allow us to exercise a care even over the Dick Cheney's of the world, especially because he emerged out of our society and our way of life.
It's the Christian vision of love and mercy as the highest and truest form of justice that leads me to suggest "Silent Night" as our comforting song for Dick Cheney tonight. Dick Cheney certainly is haunted by those who have died for his war, but we on the left can visit a little "heavenly peace" to his soul by singing him this song.
Altogether now.
Silent Night
Silent night, holy night!
All is calm, all is bright.
Round yon Virgin, Mother and Child.
Holy infant so tender and mild,
Sleep in heavenly peace,
Sleep in heavenly peace.
Silent night, holy night!
Shepherds quake at the sight.
Glories stream from heaven afar
Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia,
Christ the Savior is born!
Christ the Savior is born.
Silent night, holy night!
Son of God love's pure light.
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With dawn of redeeming grace,
Jesus Lord, at Thy birth.
Jesus Lord, at Thy birth
Amen to that!
Fortunately for our country, Dick Cheney is not such a man. A sensitive man, Dick Cheney feels the death of each of the 3,185 American soldiers who have died or been maimed in Iraq--their being shot, blown apart by IED's as they ride in their Hummers, drowned in the Tigris or Euphrates, or mangled to such an extent that they had to have large parts of their arms and legs amputated. Knowing that he was largely responsible for sending those troops, Dick Chaney sees American soldiers wounded and dead every night in his sleep. Shakespeare portrayed everyone killed by Richard III as visiting Richard in his sleep before the Battle of Bosworth Field, reciting Richard's crimes, and telling him to "fall thy edgeless sword: despair, and die!" In the same way, the American men and women killed or maimed in Iraq visit Dick Cheney to remind him of the half-truths and lies by which he promoted the invasion, his refusal to think through the problems of occupation, and the recklessness and arrogance with which he wasted their lives and continues to waste the lives of their friends and comrades.
The same is the case with the more than 50,000 Iraqis who have died as a result of the U. S. invasion. Poor Dick Cheney! There must be spectral riots as the shades of the Iraq War dead fight each other for the opportunity to haunt a little bit of his sleep.
It must be an awful thing.
That's why Dick Cheney needs our help. Unlike those on the right, we on the left also feel the burden that the death and suffering in Iraq imposes on Dick Cheney and all of us. Because our minds are not tied up in rationalizing the war or justifying the Bush administration, the shocking brutality of the situation in Iraq strikes us harder than it strikes the warmongers.
Therefore, it's up to us to help Dick Cheney as much as we can.
Some on the left might argue that Dick Cheney's own suffering would be a small price for him to pay for all the suffering he's caused and there's a way I can agree with that. It would be an "eye for an eye" vengeful kind of justice for Dick Cheney to experience some of the pain that he has dished out one way or another in Iraq.
But, in fact, Dick Cheney could never "pay in full" for what's happened in Iraq. Once person can never suffer enough for the tens of thousands of deaths that Cheney has helped cause.
More importantly for our own piece of mind, there is a justice of love and mercy that has a higher claim on us than the law of revenge. It's this higher sense of justice that is the most distinctive contribution of Christianity to modern life. The ability to love those who are not "our own" or even the opposite of our own, is what allows us to empathize with our soldiers even if we disagree with the war and feel the suffering of the Iraqi people even though we live a very different kind of life. The higher law of justice should also allow us to exercise a care even over the Dick Cheney's of the world, especially because he emerged out of our society and our way of life.
It's the Christian vision of love and mercy as the highest and truest form of justice that leads me to suggest "Silent Night" as our comforting song for Dick Cheney tonight. Dick Cheney certainly is haunted by those who have died for his war, but we on the left can visit a little "heavenly peace" to his soul by singing him this song.
Altogether now.
Silent Night
Silent night, holy night!
All is calm, all is bright.
Round yon Virgin, Mother and Child.
Holy infant so tender and mild,
Sleep in heavenly peace,
Sleep in heavenly peace.
Silent night, holy night!
Shepherds quake at the sight.
Glories stream from heaven afar
Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia,
Christ the Savior is born!
Christ the Savior is born.
Silent night, holy night!
Son of God love's pure light.
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With dawn of redeeming grace,
Jesus Lord, at Thy birth.
Jesus Lord, at Thy birth
Amen to that!
Democratic Leadership: Moving the Numbers
Very few people ever have anything good to say about the Democratic leadership in Congress--either Nancy Pelosi in the House or Harry Reid in the Senate. In fact, however, House Democrats have come up with proposals to curtail the war that enjoy broad public support.
According to a USA Today Gallup poll, big majorities of the American public support Democratic ideas on Iraq. That includes requiring U. S. troops to come home if the Iraqi government fails to meet promises (77% favor-20% oppose), requiring troops to stay in the U. S. a year before being redeployed (76-21), withdrawing troops by the end of 2008 (60-39), capping the number of U. S. troops (54-42).
Interestingly enough, majorities do not yet accept the more aggressive approaches favored by liberal war opponents, including revoking the original war resolution (44-52) or cutting funding for the war (37-61).
Although strongly opposing the Bush administration's conduct of the war in general and the surge in particular, the American public is still reluctant to support a full-scale confrontation with the leadership in the White House. The Bush administration may be a renegade government, but the public doesn't want confrontations.
At least not yet.
Despite the uncertain and difficult environment, the Democratic leadership has shown a lot of political savvy in coming up with proposals that capture the public mood.
For that they deserve credit.
Now, for the more difficult task of embodying these ideas in legislation.
According to a USA Today Gallup poll, big majorities of the American public support Democratic ideas on Iraq. That includes requiring U. S. troops to come home if the Iraqi government fails to meet promises (77% favor-20% oppose), requiring troops to stay in the U. S. a year before being redeployed (76-21), withdrawing troops by the end of 2008 (60-39), capping the number of U. S. troops (54-42).
Interestingly enough, majorities do not yet accept the more aggressive approaches favored by liberal war opponents, including revoking the original war resolution (44-52) or cutting funding for the war (37-61).
Although strongly opposing the Bush administration's conduct of the war in general and the surge in particular, the American public is still reluctant to support a full-scale confrontation with the leadership in the White House. The Bush administration may be a renegade government, but the public doesn't want confrontations.
At least not yet.
Despite the uncertain and difficult environment, the Democratic leadership has shown a lot of political savvy in coming up with proposals that capture the public mood.
For that they deserve credit.
Now, for the more difficult task of embodying these ideas in legislation.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Kumbaya Dick Cheney
I feel so sorry for Vice-President Dick Cheney. He's had such a tough time lately. The combination of the bombing in Afghanistan and the blood clot in his leg were bad enough. Then today, Scooter Libby, one of his closest associates was convicted of four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. It must be so hard for Dick Cheney to find out that Scooter Libby is a CRIMINAL.
Gracious me!
I'm sure that Dick Cheney's going to have a hard time sleeping tonight and we definitely don't want him to get dependent on sleeping pills like the first President Bush.
So, what I'd like all of my fellow leftists to do is join your hands together while we sing "Kumbaya,"a traditional Gulla song from African-American settlements on the coast of South Carolina and Georgia.
I'm sure that Dick Cheney will appreciate this gesture from his left-wing friends. Like everyone from Wyoming, Dick Cheney has a deep appreciation for the Gulla dialect and black culture in general.
I admire him so much!
Everybody ready.
KUMBAYA
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbayah
Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya
Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya
Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Someones crying, lord, kumbaya
Someones crying, lord, kumbaya
Someones crying, lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Someones praying, lord, kumbaya
Someones praying, lord, kumbaya
Someones praying, lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya
Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya
Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
I'm sure Dick Cheney appreciated our personal touch in revising the song a little bit. And I know that Dick Cheney will always have a warm spot in his heart for all the liberals and leftists who helped him sleep tonight.
God bless.
Gracious me!
I'm sure that Dick Cheney's going to have a hard time sleeping tonight and we definitely don't want him to get dependent on sleeping pills like the first President Bush.
So, what I'd like all of my fellow leftists to do is join your hands together while we sing "Kumbaya,"a traditional Gulla song from African-American settlements on the coast of South Carolina and Georgia.
I'm sure that Dick Cheney will appreciate this gesture from his left-wing friends. Like everyone from Wyoming, Dick Cheney has a deep appreciation for the Gulla dialect and black culture in general.
I admire him so much!
Everybody ready.
KUMBAYA
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbayah
Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya
Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya
Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Someones crying, lord, kumbaya
Someones crying, lord, kumbaya
Someones crying, lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Someones praying, lord, kumbaya
Someones praying, lord, kumbaya
Someones praying, lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya
Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya
Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
Oh Dick Cheney, kumbaya
I'm sure Dick Cheney appreciated our personal touch in revising the song a little bit. And I know that Dick Cheney will always have a warm spot in his heart for all the liberals and leftists who helped him sleep tonight.
God bless.
Finding The Enemy at Walter Reed
American troops have always had a lot of trouble finding the enemy in Iraq. Before the surge, the Army's basic strategy in Baghdad was to drive around Baghdad (DAB) and wait for someone to attack them.
But Disabled veterans did not have much trouble finding the enemy at Building 18 in Walter Reed Hospital.
It was them.
According to Paul Krugman's article in today's Lexington Herald-Leader (sorry no link available because of NYT policy):
"the administration is breaking longstanding promises of lifetime health care to those who defend out nation. Two months before the invasion of Iraq, the Veterans administration, which previously offered care to all veterans, introduced severe new restrictions on who is entitled to enroll in its health care system . . . So when you hear stories of veterans who spend months or years fighting to get the care they deserve, trying to prove that their injuries are service related, remember this: All this red tape was created not by the inherent inefficiency of government bureaucracy, but by the Bush administration's penny-pinching."
Surprisingly for such a good economist, Krugman doesn't fully get what's going on here. For Krugman, the point is the analogy with FEMA's performance with Katrina. He focuses on the appointment of an unqualified lobbyist as Secretary of the Army, the ensuring outsourcing of Walter Reed services to IAP Worldwide Services and the departure of skilled government personnel as the source of the incompetence at the Walter Reed hospital complex. This is bad enough as far as it goes.
However, services at Walter Reed were not only privatized, Walter Reed Hospital also began to act like an insurance company. Just as Allstate and State Farm insurance companies treated customers involved in car crashes as adversaries and bullied them into accepting low-ball settlements or face years of litigation, the privatized services at Walter Reed have been treating disabled veterans as adversaries when they apply for health care. They delay the acceptance of veterans into long-term treatment, warehouse them in a crumbling facility to encourage them to leave, and then pretty much ignore them.
Calling the treatment of disabled veterans at Walter Reed depressing, disgusting, and outrageous doesnt' go nearly far enough. Given that the war in Iraq is a monumental failure, American society and the government owe a special debt to the soldiers we've put in harms way and a special love to them as we carry out our obligations. Given all the embedded journalists and television coverage of the war, almost all Americans have a detailed knowledge of the dangers that our troops have faced in Iraq. As a result, we should have a special affection for troops who have served our goals and exercise an enhanced care with the physical and emotional difficulties of surviving troops now that they're home. Likewise, our feeling for the troops should be enhanced by the Bush administration's foolishness and incompetence in waging the war. The Bush administration might have wasted their health, but everyone involved should do their best to ensure that their recoveries aren't equally wasted.
The Bush administration has identified returning disabled veterans as their enemies. That must not be allowed to stand.
But Disabled veterans did not have much trouble finding the enemy at Building 18 in Walter Reed Hospital.
It was them.
According to Paul Krugman's article in today's Lexington Herald-Leader (sorry no link available because of NYT policy):
"the administration is breaking longstanding promises of lifetime health care to those who defend out nation. Two months before the invasion of Iraq, the Veterans administration, which previously offered care to all veterans, introduced severe new restrictions on who is entitled to enroll in its health care system . . . So when you hear stories of veterans who spend months or years fighting to get the care they deserve, trying to prove that their injuries are service related, remember this: All this red tape was created not by the inherent inefficiency of government bureaucracy, but by the Bush administration's penny-pinching."
Surprisingly for such a good economist, Krugman doesn't fully get what's going on here. For Krugman, the point is the analogy with FEMA's performance with Katrina. He focuses on the appointment of an unqualified lobbyist as Secretary of the Army, the ensuring outsourcing of Walter Reed services to IAP Worldwide Services and the departure of skilled government personnel as the source of the incompetence at the Walter Reed hospital complex. This is bad enough as far as it goes.
However, services at Walter Reed were not only privatized, Walter Reed Hospital also began to act like an insurance company. Just as Allstate and State Farm insurance companies treated customers involved in car crashes as adversaries and bullied them into accepting low-ball settlements or face years of litigation, the privatized services at Walter Reed have been treating disabled veterans as adversaries when they apply for health care. They delay the acceptance of veterans into long-term treatment, warehouse them in a crumbling facility to encourage them to leave, and then pretty much ignore them.
Calling the treatment of disabled veterans at Walter Reed depressing, disgusting, and outrageous doesnt' go nearly far enough. Given that the war in Iraq is a monumental failure, American society and the government owe a special debt to the soldiers we've put in harms way and a special love to them as we carry out our obligations. Given all the embedded journalists and television coverage of the war, almost all Americans have a detailed knowledge of the dangers that our troops have faced in Iraq. As a result, we should have a special affection for troops who have served our goals and exercise an enhanced care with the physical and emotional difficulties of surviving troops now that they're home. Likewise, our feeling for the troops should be enhanced by the Bush administration's foolishness and incompetence in waging the war. The Bush administration might have wasted their health, but everyone involved should do their best to ensure that their recoveries aren't equally wasted.
The Bush administration has identified returning disabled veterans as their enemies. That must not be allowed to stand.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Bedtime with Dick Cheney
Ever since Dick Cheney was attacked in Afghanistan, there have been a lot of reports about people on the left who would rather see Dick Cheney dead.
I don't believe it.
My left-wing friends and I bear bear nothing but good will toward the greatest vice-president since Al Gore. In fact, we at Red State Impressions are so concerned about Cheney's health that I flew to Washington personally to tuck him into bed and read him a story tonight. Here's some lines I read from the children's classic, Margaret Wise Brown's "Good Night Moon."
Good Night Moon
In the great green room
There was a telephone
And a red balloon
And a picture of--
The cow jumping over the moon
And there were three little bears sitting on chairs
And two little kittens
And a pair of mittens
And a little toy house
And a young mouse
And a comb and a brush and a bowl full of mush
And a quiet old lady who was whispering "hush."
I told the Vice-President that I would be reading "Winken, Blinken, and Nod" tomorrow night, but he preferred "The Three Little Pigs" instead. It's one of his favorites.
If anyone has a bedtime story that they want me to read Dick Cheney, please reply below.
RSI
I don't believe it.
My left-wing friends and I bear bear nothing but good will toward the greatest vice-president since Al Gore. In fact, we at Red State Impressions are so concerned about Cheney's health that I flew to Washington personally to tuck him into bed and read him a story tonight. Here's some lines I read from the children's classic, Margaret Wise Brown's "Good Night Moon."
Good Night Moon
In the great green room
There was a telephone
And a red balloon
And a picture of--
The cow jumping over the moon
And there were three little bears sitting on chairs
And two little kittens
And a pair of mittens
And a little toy house
And a young mouse
And a comb and a brush and a bowl full of mush
And a quiet old lady who was whispering "hush."
I told the Vice-President that I would be reading "Winken, Blinken, and Nod" tomorrow night, but he preferred "The Three Little Pigs" instead. It's one of his favorites.
If anyone has a bedtime story that they want me to read Dick Cheney, please reply below.
RSI
Biggest Priority for Right: More Pseudo-Scandals
Conservative Job 1. Now that conservatives are returning from the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference, they have a big job ahead of them--creating bigger, better, and more frequent pseudo-scandals for the Democrats.
The Crisis is Almost Upon Them. The political situation for conservatives is grim and there's no reason to think it's going to get any better. The Iraq War seems to get more unpopular by the minute and there's such widespread contempt for the Bush administration that conservatives barely tried to defend him at CPAC. The treatment of disabled veterans at Walter Reed is already a big scandal and the purge of federal district attorneys looks like it's growing into a big scandal while Congressional hearings over war profiteering are looming on the horizon. Worse, there are enough warnings of an economic recession at the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 that stock markets are panicking. Unfortunately for the Republicans, 2008 is an election year when they will be defending their record on the economy. Few people have been satisfied with Bush prosperity because it's been so focused on the top 1/2 of one percent. Even fewer will be satisfied with the second Bush downturn.
Things aren't much better politically. McCain and Giuliani might be polling even with Hillary and Obama now, but a lot of conservatives don't see them or Mitt Romney as strong candidates for the presidency. The situation is even worse at the lower levels. I saw an estimate that the Republicans saved 10 House seats through Republican National Campaign Committee smear campaigns. If that's the case, the Republicans have to wonder just how weak they are in the House and the Senate.
The Pseudo-Scandal Solution. The solution to these problems. Since January, conservative bloggers and op-ed writers have responded to the political weakness of the Republicans by identifying and publicizing a series of pseudo-scandals. By the time the right was done with Nancy Pelosi's plane, they were ready to move on to John Edwards' feminist bloggers, Barack Obama's education in Indonesia, and anonymous commenters who were disappointed that Dick Cheney didn't die in last week's attack. Certainly, it took a lot of work and ingenuity to get these pseudo scandals out (that was especially the case with investigating anonymous blog comments) and the publicity might have kept things from getting worse for the Republican cause.
But, let's face it right-wingers, this little trickle of scandals has not been moving the poll numbers for Republicans. You need better and more frequent scandals. There must be a gay guy or a lesbian on Hillary Clinton's payroll somewhere. Why haven't you found them? Didn't some of Barack Obama's new Hollywood friends make morally offensive movies? Why haven't we heard anything about that? You're not working hard enough and you don't have big enough staffs of investigators? Maybe you should raise more money so you can hire "smear artists."
Wait a minute. "Artist" might be seen as effeminate. How about "smear warriors" instead. Once you have the cash in hand, have your smear warriors serve apprenticeships with Ann Coulter and Michell Malkin before letting them loose on the Democrats. Of course, none of this has anything to do with nuking Iran, privatizing social security, getting rid of public education, eliminating more taxes for the wealthy, or any of the noble causes that conservatives really want to promote.
But these are tough times, and if digging deeper into the gutter is what tough times call for, then tough people dig deeper into the gutter and don't complain about it. Did Patton care whether his troops got dirty? Of course not! The point is to win and if you can't win the point is to lessen your losses. And that's what digging for pseudo-scandals is all about--lessening losses.
Hmm. Maybe I should work on my inspirational cliches. Anyway, I hope that all my right-wing friends enjoy digging around for new pseudo-scandals. It's really your best bet for keeping things from getting worse.
Got to go to work. Links later.
The Crisis is Almost Upon Them. The political situation for conservatives is grim and there's no reason to think it's going to get any better. The Iraq War seems to get more unpopular by the minute and there's such widespread contempt for the Bush administration that conservatives barely tried to defend him at CPAC. The treatment of disabled veterans at Walter Reed is already a big scandal and the purge of federal district attorneys looks like it's growing into a big scandal while Congressional hearings over war profiteering are looming on the horizon. Worse, there are enough warnings of an economic recession at the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 that stock markets are panicking. Unfortunately for the Republicans, 2008 is an election year when they will be defending their record on the economy. Few people have been satisfied with Bush prosperity because it's been so focused on the top 1/2 of one percent. Even fewer will be satisfied with the second Bush downturn.
Things aren't much better politically. McCain and Giuliani might be polling even with Hillary and Obama now, but a lot of conservatives don't see them or Mitt Romney as strong candidates for the presidency. The situation is even worse at the lower levels. I saw an estimate that the Republicans saved 10 House seats through Republican National Campaign Committee smear campaigns. If that's the case, the Republicans have to wonder just how weak they are in the House and the Senate.
The Pseudo-Scandal Solution. The solution to these problems. Since January, conservative bloggers and op-ed writers have responded to the political weakness of the Republicans by identifying and publicizing a series of pseudo-scandals. By the time the right was done with Nancy Pelosi's plane, they were ready to move on to John Edwards' feminist bloggers, Barack Obama's education in Indonesia, and anonymous commenters who were disappointed that Dick Cheney didn't die in last week's attack. Certainly, it took a lot of work and ingenuity to get these pseudo scandals out (that was especially the case with investigating anonymous blog comments) and the publicity might have kept things from getting worse for the Republican cause.
But, let's face it right-wingers, this little trickle of scandals has not been moving the poll numbers for Republicans. You need better and more frequent scandals. There must be a gay guy or a lesbian on Hillary Clinton's payroll somewhere. Why haven't you found them? Didn't some of Barack Obama's new Hollywood friends make morally offensive movies? Why haven't we heard anything about that? You're not working hard enough and you don't have big enough staffs of investigators? Maybe you should raise more money so you can hire "smear artists."
Wait a minute. "Artist" might be seen as effeminate. How about "smear warriors" instead. Once you have the cash in hand, have your smear warriors serve apprenticeships with Ann Coulter and Michell Malkin before letting them loose on the Democrats. Of course, none of this has anything to do with nuking Iran, privatizing social security, getting rid of public education, eliminating more taxes for the wealthy, or any of the noble causes that conservatives really want to promote.
But these are tough times, and if digging deeper into the gutter is what tough times call for, then tough people dig deeper into the gutter and don't complain about it. Did Patton care whether his troops got dirty? Of course not! The point is to win and if you can't win the point is to lessen your losses. And that's what digging for pseudo-scandals is all about--lessening losses.
Hmm. Maybe I should work on my inspirational cliches. Anyway, I hope that all my right-wing friends enjoy digging around for new pseudo-scandals. It's really your best bet for keeping things from getting worse.
Got to go to work. Links later.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
All Ann All The Time
Maybe America's favorite bigot is thinking of a political career after all. Here's an example of Ann Coulter trying to have it both ways from Q&A at the CPAC conference last week.
"And of course, if you're working for a Republican candidate, you'll meet some nice heterosexual guys. By the way, before I let that slide, I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media, how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being "pro-gays, and that's going to upset right-wingers." Well, you know, screw you, I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against. I mean, I think we have, in addition to blacks, I don't know why all gays aren't Republicans. I think we have the pro-gay position, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money, and they're victims of crime. I mean, the way --no, they are."
Coulter's argument is that people can be as opposed to gay marriage as James Dobson without being "anti-gay." This is the same kind of thing defenders of segregation used to say during the pre-Civil Rights era. They all "loved" black people, but did not want blacks eating in the same restaurants, swimming in the same pools, going to the same schools, serving on the same juries, or voting in the same elections. Similarly, Coulter isn't "anti-gay," she just wants to exclude gays from being married--a condition that's just as normal and basic to American society as going to the same schools, eating in the same restaurants, and swimming in the same pools.
Coulter is telling gays that "you can be normal except in the case of marriage where we conservatives think you're too weird and perverted to be allowed to be normal."
Or maybe not.
Maybe she's telling gays that "you can be normal except in the case of marriage where we conservatives can raise money and get more votes by saying that you're too weird and perverted to be allowed to be normal. Sorry about that!"
Because if she wasn't anti-gay, that would be the only reason for Coulter to oppose gay marriage.
"And of course, if you're working for a Republican candidate, you'll meet some nice heterosexual guys. By the way, before I let that slide, I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media, how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being "pro-gays, and that's going to upset right-wingers." Well, you know, screw you, I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against. I mean, I think we have, in addition to blacks, I don't know why all gays aren't Republicans. I think we have the pro-gay position, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money, and they're victims of crime. I mean, the way --no, they are."
Coulter's argument is that people can be as opposed to gay marriage as James Dobson without being "anti-gay." This is the same kind of thing defenders of segregation used to say during the pre-Civil Rights era. They all "loved" black people, but did not want blacks eating in the same restaurants, swimming in the same pools, going to the same schools, serving on the same juries, or voting in the same elections. Similarly, Coulter isn't "anti-gay," she just wants to exclude gays from being married--a condition that's just as normal and basic to American society as going to the same schools, eating in the same restaurants, and swimming in the same pools.
Coulter is telling gays that "you can be normal except in the case of marriage where we conservatives think you're too weird and perverted to be allowed to be normal."
Or maybe not.
Maybe she's telling gays that "you can be normal except in the case of marriage where we conservatives can raise money and get more votes by saying that you're too weird and perverted to be allowed to be normal. Sorry about that!"
Because if she wasn't anti-gay, that would be the only reason for Coulter to oppose gay marriage.
Illusion and Reality in Sadr City
American troops entered the Shiite slum of Sadr City by the hundreds in the latest initiative of the surge campaign. Under Gen. Daniel Petraeus' counter-insurgency strategy, the U. S. military is setting up a "security center" as a way to have a forward presence in a Sadr City neighborhood. It also looks like troops are creating a blockade on Sadr City.
The beginning of the Sadr City campaign has created an interesting illusion/reality problem. Because American troops met no militia resistance, it seems like they're making progress. But the progress is an illusion. The Mahdi Army, Badr Brigades, and other militias and their death squads have decided to lay low, but they're very potent forces that command the loyalty of Sadr City residents. It looks like the militias might want to wait out the occupation.
But the American military can't allow that to happen. If the militias emerge from the occupation intact, they would be able to maintain their grip on the government and resume death squad activity as soon as the Americans left. In other words, the surge would have failed to help create the conditions for a "stable democracy" in Iraq among the Shiite population in Baghdad.
The American military and Iraqi governments know this. That's why the Iraqi government claims that it's going to purge the government and arrest "lawbreakers"--in other words militia leaders. It's also why the U. S. military is doing house to house searches. The idea is to bring the militias out of hiding and defeat them militarily. If the militias can't be drawn out to the flypaper, the U. S. wants to force them out.
From the U. S. point of view, the initial illusion of progress and stability needs to be undermined so that long-lasting stability can be achieved.
This means triggering a battle that would appear to mean that American forces were failing and would get a lot of bad press in the short term. After winning such a battle or series of battles, the U. S. would then pacify the neighborhoods and begin the long-term work of economic and political reconstruction. That's the Petraeus Doctrine--Clear, Hold, and Reconstruct.
But I think that the idea long-term progress is also an illusion. The guiding assumption of the American occupiers is that large populations can be converted to the American/Iraqi govt cause if Sadr City neighborhoods are cleared of militias. To the contrary, it seems much more likely that Sadr City residents would become more antagonistic toward the Americans and Iraqi government. American doctrine assumes that residents of cities and neighborhoods have no connection with the insurgents. However, if the U. S. destroys the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades, they will be killing the male relatives--husbands, uncles, brothers, sons, and sisters-- of families--all over Sadr City. In my opinion, no forward command forces, no American candy, and no economic reconstruction would have much impact on the resentment and bitterness of the Sadr City population after any decisive battle with the Mahdi Army. Instead, the U. S. would have to engage in a full scale occupation that would make Sadr City into another Fallujah or Ramadi.
In the minds of those planning the surge, American military power has an almost infinite ability to bend civilian populations to its will. I'm afraid that the U. S. military is going to discover once again that the idea of infinite power is the biggest illusion of all.
The beginning of the Sadr City campaign has created an interesting illusion/reality problem. Because American troops met no militia resistance, it seems like they're making progress. But the progress is an illusion. The Mahdi Army, Badr Brigades, and other militias and their death squads have decided to lay low, but they're very potent forces that command the loyalty of Sadr City residents. It looks like the militias might want to wait out the occupation.
But the American military can't allow that to happen. If the militias emerge from the occupation intact, they would be able to maintain their grip on the government and resume death squad activity as soon as the Americans left. In other words, the surge would have failed to help create the conditions for a "stable democracy" in Iraq among the Shiite population in Baghdad.
The American military and Iraqi governments know this. That's why the Iraqi government claims that it's going to purge the government and arrest "lawbreakers"--in other words militia leaders. It's also why the U. S. military is doing house to house searches. The idea is to bring the militias out of hiding and defeat them militarily. If the militias can't be drawn out to the flypaper, the U. S. wants to force them out.
From the U. S. point of view, the initial illusion of progress and stability needs to be undermined so that long-lasting stability can be achieved.
This means triggering a battle that would appear to mean that American forces were failing and would get a lot of bad press in the short term. After winning such a battle or series of battles, the U. S. would then pacify the neighborhoods and begin the long-term work of economic and political reconstruction. That's the Petraeus Doctrine--Clear, Hold, and Reconstruct.
But I think that the idea long-term progress is also an illusion. The guiding assumption of the American occupiers is that large populations can be converted to the American/Iraqi govt cause if Sadr City neighborhoods are cleared of militias. To the contrary, it seems much more likely that Sadr City residents would become more antagonistic toward the Americans and Iraqi government. American doctrine assumes that residents of cities and neighborhoods have no connection with the insurgents. However, if the U. S. destroys the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades, they will be killing the male relatives--husbands, uncles, brothers, sons, and sisters-- of families--all over Sadr City. In my opinion, no forward command forces, no American candy, and no economic reconstruction would have much impact on the resentment and bitterness of the Sadr City population after any decisive battle with the Mahdi Army. Instead, the U. S. would have to engage in a full scale occupation that would make Sadr City into another Fallujah or Ramadi.
In the minds of those planning the surge, American military power has an almost infinite ability to bend civilian populations to its will. I'm afraid that the U. S. military is going to discover once again that the idea of infinite power is the biggest illusion of all.
Counter-Productive Insults
Here's a featured response to Ann Coulter's CPAC speech from a commenter named RB at Talking Points Memo.
"As I read the reaction/fallout from Ann Coulter’s remarks at CPAC this week I’m annoyed by the entire progressive reaction to it and most of the many other outrages committed on a daily basis by the Republican Party. Why doesn’t a progressive with an audience say something to the effect “This is who and what the once proud and honorable Republican Party has turned itself into. It is a party of hate, intolerance, incompetence, greed, treason, fanatical, hostile to science and reality, and totally corrupt. They have no honor and no shame. They’re fascists and a cancer on our great nation, plain and simple and this is just another example of that.”
This is exactly the wrong kind of reaction to Ann Coulter's provocations.
First, RB's response is exactly what Coulter is trying to elicit from liberals/ progressives. In fact, the only thing that Coulter and her audience enjoy more than making the comments themselves is "outraged" liberal reaction. Congratulations RB, you've been jerked around and your opponents are enjoying their little moment of victory.
Second, RB is profoundly wrong in lumping everybody who attended the conference or everybody in the Republican Party into the "fascist" camp. Coulter conservatism may be dominant, but my impression is that it does not constitute a majority of the Republican Party. A lot of business-oriented Republicans, Main Street Republicans, Western rancher types, and conservative evangelicals would be either neutral or turned off by Coulter (in the same way that lots of liberals are turned off by Al Sharpton). Tarring all of these kinds of Republicans with the "fascist" brush is both inaccurate and counter-productive because it supports Coulter's basic arguments about liberals.
Third, it's important to emphasize that a lot of the people attending the CPAC conference wouldn't have necessarily agreed with Coulter even if they were highly entertained. Several students from my classes went to CPAC and moon over "Ann Coulter" even though they might argue that they don't share Coulter's "extreme" views. Actually, the head of the campus Republicans has told me several times that conservatives aren't nearly as extreme as I portray them on this blog let alone the "fascists" that RB is claiming. By calling the CPAC audience "fascists," RB is cutting off any possibility of communicating with people who might only be weakly identified with the Coulter agenda. Once again, this is exactly what somebody like Coulter would want because it tells conservative-oriented students that they can't talk with liberals (to paraphrase one of Coulter's titles).
There are many ways in which the various types of conservatism are defined by "hate, intolerance, incompetence, greed, treason . . . hostile to science and reality, and [total corruption]. I've argued most of these things myself. Still, just throwing around the terms is the liberal version of Coulterism and a not very clever version of Coulterism at that. If liberals want to be convincing, they have to show how Coulter's "jokes" actually appeal to hate and intolerance, how the Bush administration's incompetence is a manifestation of their conservative loyalties, the ways in which the religious right is hostile to science, and the many ways that people on the right are uncomfortable with living in the United States. It was by patiently working out these criticisms in the context of the failed war in Iraq that the left got the upper hand in the current rhetorical wars. Maintaining that patience is crucial to keeping that upper hand.
RB should have kept his insults in his pocket. Coulter and other right-wing put down artists are having a tough time these days. There's no sense in making life easier for them by playing their game.
"As I read the reaction/fallout from Ann Coulter’s remarks at CPAC this week I’m annoyed by the entire progressive reaction to it and most of the many other outrages committed on a daily basis by the Republican Party. Why doesn’t a progressive with an audience say something to the effect “This is who and what the once proud and honorable Republican Party has turned itself into. It is a party of hate, intolerance, incompetence, greed, treason, fanatical, hostile to science and reality, and totally corrupt. They have no honor and no shame. They’re fascists and a cancer on our great nation, plain and simple and this is just another example of that.”
This is exactly the wrong kind of reaction to Ann Coulter's provocations.
First, RB's response is exactly what Coulter is trying to elicit from liberals/ progressives. In fact, the only thing that Coulter and her audience enjoy more than making the comments themselves is "outraged" liberal reaction. Congratulations RB, you've been jerked around and your opponents are enjoying their little moment of victory.
Second, RB is profoundly wrong in lumping everybody who attended the conference or everybody in the Republican Party into the "fascist" camp. Coulter conservatism may be dominant, but my impression is that it does not constitute a majority of the Republican Party. A lot of business-oriented Republicans, Main Street Republicans, Western rancher types, and conservative evangelicals would be either neutral or turned off by Coulter (in the same way that lots of liberals are turned off by Al Sharpton). Tarring all of these kinds of Republicans with the "fascist" brush is both inaccurate and counter-productive because it supports Coulter's basic arguments about liberals.
Third, it's important to emphasize that a lot of the people attending the CPAC conference wouldn't have necessarily agreed with Coulter even if they were highly entertained. Several students from my classes went to CPAC and moon over "Ann Coulter" even though they might argue that they don't share Coulter's "extreme" views. Actually, the head of the campus Republicans has told me several times that conservatives aren't nearly as extreme as I portray them on this blog let alone the "fascists" that RB is claiming. By calling the CPAC audience "fascists," RB is cutting off any possibility of communicating with people who might only be weakly identified with the Coulter agenda. Once again, this is exactly what somebody like Coulter would want because it tells conservative-oriented students that they can't talk with liberals (to paraphrase one of Coulter's titles).
There are many ways in which the various types of conservatism are defined by "hate, intolerance, incompetence, greed, treason . . . hostile to science and reality, and [total corruption]. I've argued most of these things myself. Still, just throwing around the terms is the liberal version of Coulterism and a not very clever version of Coulterism at that. If liberals want to be convincing, they have to show how Coulter's "jokes" actually appeal to hate and intolerance, how the Bush administration's incompetence is a manifestation of their conservative loyalties, the ways in which the religious right is hostile to science, and the many ways that people on the right are uncomfortable with living in the United States. It was by patiently working out these criticisms in the context of the failed war in Iraq that the left got the upper hand in the current rhetorical wars. Maintaining that patience is crucial to keeping that upper hand.
RB should have kept his insults in his pocket. Coulter and other right-wing put down artists are having a tough time these days. There's no sense in making life easier for them by playing their game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
