THE UNDEAD
One thing about Republicans: they never believe they're not wanted.
I just got off the phone with former congressman and talk show host Bob Dornan, who is considering ... a run for President.
..."I've got one mission left in me, to come up to New Hampshire and tell the truth, and tell the Republicans you better find yourself a fresh face and not Rudy Giuliani who took his mistress around with him and then divorces Donnna who learns she was divorced sitting at home watching TV with her children.
"We need a fresh face if the Republican Party is going to appeal to an Orthodox Jewish, Evangelical or practicing Catholic."
Aside from adultery, Dornan's other issue is homosexuality, which he called "a cancer in my party." ...
Yeah, I'm sure he does -- you recall what he said in '92, when he was still in Congress: "Every lesbian spearchucker in this country is hoping I get defeated." He also called Russian journalist Vladimir Posner a "disloyal, betraying little Jew" -- on the House floor. More fun quotes here; charming nuggets on Dornan's anger management problems and other character flaws here -- yup, he's another Republican who's pro-wife-beating, which I guess isn't a mortal sin like divorce.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Yeah, James Webb's Wall Street Journal op-ed was quite a blast of old-style concern for the little guy:
...Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.
... Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all. ...
I'm counting the days until the Journal editorial page, or some other right-wing organ, strikes back. The response won't be from a Republican -- that would be too obvious. No, a Democrat will be found -- maybe Robert Rubin or Robert Reich, or some other believer in the basic structures of the current economic order. That Democrat will harshly denounce Webb, focusing in partcular on his critique of globalization and outsourcing, and warning the new Democratic congressional majorities that questioning the status quo in this way is a "dangerous road" that must not be taken.
I don't care. If Webb is going to point out that this system isn't working for ordinary Americans, I'm with Webb. Give 'em hell, Jim.
...Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.
... Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all. ...
I'm counting the days until the Journal editorial page, or some other right-wing organ, strikes back. The response won't be from a Republican -- that would be too obvious. No, a Democrat will be found -- maybe Robert Rubin or Robert Reich, or some other believer in the basic structures of the current economic order. That Democrat will harshly denounce Webb, focusing in partcular on his critique of globalization and outsourcing, and warning the new Democratic congressional majorities that questioning the status quo in this way is a "dangerous road" that must not be taken.
I don't care. If Webb is going to point out that this system isn't working for ordinary Americans, I'm with Webb. Give 'em hell, Jim.
McCAIN AND GIULIANI
The people who run the Rasmussen polling operation reminded us yesterday of something they first reported just after Election Day: Giuliani is leading in their '08 presidential poll among Republican voters -- and McCain is third. (Condi is #2.)
And more bad news for McCain: In a poll at Free Republic that asks, "Would you be for or against McCain?," more than 90% are "against."
John's in trouble. At the very least, a Giuliani candidacy will split the votes of Republicans who are interested in electability.
Regarding Giuliani, the crazies and semi-crazies of the online right are split. Debbie Schussel loves, among other things, his anti-Arafat grandstanding; Philip Klein at The American Spectator's blog thinks he has a good shot as a security candidate (but Klein is responding to David Hogberg on the same blog, who thinks Republicans need to run right). And Terence Jeffrey at TownHall gives us a column called "Forget It, Rudy" -- but spends the first half of it praising Giuliani.
But please note the second comment in response to that TownHall column -- it begins:
"Just what would you give up
to keep Hillary from being president?"
This was the question posed on the Hugh Hewitt show by his stand in Jed Babbin....
The commenter who quotes this actually thinks it's crazy to compromise -- but the desperation of the question is what I find significant. A lot of people on the right are terrified at the prospect of a Hillary presidency. They think she's unstoppable. When it comes to Hillary, they're deranged. (By the way I really wish some of the cool bloggers on the left would start using the term "Hillary Derangement Syndrome," because that's what these people have).
And yet these people can't bring themselves to support McCain, who could beat her handily. (In a McCain-Clinton race, the mainstream press would display a pro-GOP bias that would make Bush-Gore look like a fair fight.)
I think they're going to be desperate for a winner come '08 primary season. I think they're going to hold their noses and vote -- the only question is, will they decide to ignore Rudy's positions on the issues or the myth of John McCain's evil that they've built up in their heads?
I really, really don't know. But I think they really might find it easier to ignore Rudy's positions, just because they want A Man On A Horse.
****
One more point: I don't know if I've said this before, but I really think '08 could be a three-way race, or even a four-way race a la 1948. The three most popular Republicans (per Rasmussen) are, in varying ways, unacceptable to the party's base (Condi's anti-abortion bona fides are considered suspect). Hillary is looked at warily by war opponents. I could really see a McCain or Rudy nomination leading to a minor-party candidacy by a litmus-test right-winger. (Tancredo?) And I seriously think Nader's vote totals will be more like 2000's than 2004's if Hillary gets the nomination and still hasn't repudiated her vote for the war. (C'mon, you just know Ralph will drag his sorry ass back into the ring.) I don't know who wins a four-way race. I don't know how the winner will be able to govern. And I'm not sure I want to find out.
The people who run the Rasmussen polling operation reminded us yesterday of something they first reported just after Election Day: Giuliani is leading in their '08 presidential poll among Republican voters -- and McCain is third. (Condi is #2.)
And more bad news for McCain: In a poll at Free Republic that asks, "Would you be for or against McCain?," more than 90% are "against."
John's in trouble. At the very least, a Giuliani candidacy will split the votes of Republicans who are interested in electability.
Regarding Giuliani, the crazies and semi-crazies of the online right are split. Debbie Schussel loves, among other things, his anti-Arafat grandstanding; Philip Klein at The American Spectator's blog thinks he has a good shot as a security candidate (but Klein is responding to David Hogberg on the same blog, who thinks Republicans need to run right). And Terence Jeffrey at TownHall gives us a column called "Forget It, Rudy" -- but spends the first half of it praising Giuliani.
But please note the second comment in response to that TownHall column -- it begins:
"Just what would you give up
to keep Hillary from being president?"
This was the question posed on the Hugh Hewitt show by his stand in Jed Babbin....
The commenter who quotes this actually thinks it's crazy to compromise -- but the desperation of the question is what I find significant. A lot of people on the right are terrified at the prospect of a Hillary presidency. They think she's unstoppable. When it comes to Hillary, they're deranged. (By the way I really wish some of the cool bloggers on the left would start using the term "Hillary Derangement Syndrome," because that's what these people have).
And yet these people can't bring themselves to support McCain, who could beat her handily. (In a McCain-Clinton race, the mainstream press would display a pro-GOP bias that would make Bush-Gore look like a fair fight.)
I think they're going to be desperate for a winner come '08 primary season. I think they're going to hold their noses and vote -- the only question is, will they decide to ignore Rudy's positions on the issues or the myth of John McCain's evil that they've built up in their heads?
I really, really don't know. But I think they really might find it easier to ignore Rudy's positions, just because they want A Man On A Horse.
****
One more point: I don't know if I've said this before, but I really think '08 could be a three-way race, or even a four-way race a la 1948. The three most popular Republicans (per Rasmussen) are, in varying ways, unacceptable to the party's base (Condi's anti-abortion bona fides are considered suspect). Hillary is looked at warily by war opponents. I could really see a McCain or Rudy nomination leading to a minor-party candidacy by a litmus-test right-winger. (Tancredo?) And I seriously think Nader's vote totals will be more like 2000's than 2004's if Hillary gets the nomination and still hasn't repudiated her vote for the war. (C'mon, you just know Ralph will drag his sorry ass back into the ring.) I don't know who wins a four-way race. I don't know how the winner will be able to govern. And I'm not sure I want to find out.
THE COMPANY BUSH KEEPS
Yesterday The New York Times ran a story by David Kirkpatrick about support for Israel among evangelicals. Figuring prominently in the story was John Hagee:
As Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon for a second week last July, the Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio arrived in Washington with 3,500 evangelicals for the first annual conference of his newly founded organization, Christians United For Israel.
...Mr. Hagee read greetings from President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and dispatched the crowd with a message for their representatives in Congress. Tell them “to let Israel do their job” of destroying the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, Mr. Hagee said....
The next day he took the same message to the White House....
Administration officials say that the meeting with Mr. Hagee was a courtesy for a political ally....
I wish Kirkpatrick had mentioned the fact that Hagee, at a pre-election rally on November 5 that was attended by Governor Rick Perry and many other Texas politicians, said that non-Christians are "going straight to hell with a non-stop ticket."
I also wish Kirkpatrick had managed to mention the sequence of events Hagee believes will follow the attack on Iran he so hopes for:
...He argues that a strike against Iran will cause Arab nations to unite under Russia's leadership, as outlined in chapters 38 and 39 of the Book of Ezekiel, leading to an "inferno [that] will explode across the Middle East, plunging the world toward Armageddon." ... The strike will provoke Russia -- which wants Persian Gulf oil -- to lead an army of Arab nations against Israel. Then God will wipe out all but one-sixth of the Russian-led army...
To fill the power vacuum left by God's decimation of the Russian army, the Antichrist -- the head of the EU -- will rule "a one-world government, a one-world currency and a one-world religion" for three and a half years.... The "demonic world leader" will then be confronted by a false prophet, identified by Hagee as China, at Armageddon, the Mount of Megiddo in Israel. As they prepare for the final battle, Jesus will return on a white horse and cast both villains -- and presumably any nonbelievers -- into a "lake of fire burning with brimstone," thus marking the beginning of his millennial reign....
This is a man Bush reaches out to. This is a man who has meetings at the White House.
And they said Ned Lamont went over the line when he accepted Al Sharpton's support.
****
(Yes, I'm recycling material from this post.)
Yesterday The New York Times ran a story by David Kirkpatrick about support for Israel among evangelicals. Figuring prominently in the story was John Hagee:
As Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon for a second week last July, the Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio arrived in Washington with 3,500 evangelicals for the first annual conference of his newly founded organization, Christians United For Israel.
...Mr. Hagee read greetings from President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and dispatched the crowd with a message for their representatives in Congress. Tell them “to let Israel do their job” of destroying the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, Mr. Hagee said....
The next day he took the same message to the White House....
Administration officials say that the meeting with Mr. Hagee was a courtesy for a political ally....
I wish Kirkpatrick had mentioned the fact that Hagee, at a pre-election rally on November 5 that was attended by Governor Rick Perry and many other Texas politicians, said that non-Christians are "going straight to hell with a non-stop ticket."
I also wish Kirkpatrick had managed to mention the sequence of events Hagee believes will follow the attack on Iran he so hopes for:
...He argues that a strike against Iran will cause Arab nations to unite under Russia's leadership, as outlined in chapters 38 and 39 of the Book of Ezekiel, leading to an "inferno [that] will explode across the Middle East, plunging the world toward Armageddon." ... The strike will provoke Russia -- which wants Persian Gulf oil -- to lead an army of Arab nations against Israel. Then God will wipe out all but one-sixth of the Russian-led army...
To fill the power vacuum left by God's decimation of the Russian army, the Antichrist -- the head of the EU -- will rule "a one-world government, a one-world currency and a one-world religion" for three and a half years.... The "demonic world leader" will then be confronted by a false prophet, identified by Hagee as China, at Armageddon, the Mount of Megiddo in Israel. As they prepare for the final battle, Jesus will return on a white horse and cast both villains -- and presumably any nonbelievers -- into a "lake of fire burning with brimstone," thus marking the beginning of his millennial reign....
This is a man Bush reaches out to. This is a man who has meetings at the White House.
And they said Ned Lamont went over the line when he accepted Al Sharpton's support.
****
(Yes, I'm recycling material from this post.)
Stupid on so many levels:
FEMA homes were destroyed in storage
NEW ORLEANS -- Hundreds of modular homes bought by FEMA for victims of last year's hurricanes were damaged beyond repair as they sat unused and, in many cases, unprotected from the elements, the agency said Tuesday.
The failure to protect the homes from the sun and rain while they were in storage was outlined in a report by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency bought the homes as emergency housing for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But many sat unused for months at an Army depot in Texarkana, Texas, because of restrictions on where such homes could be erected, FEMA said. A June inventory had 1,790 homes at the site.
..."For future planning, given that some modular home units are designed to be assembled soon after they are received rather than stored, many modular home units are questionable choices for emergency housing," inspector general Richard Skinner wrote.
FEMA homes were destroyed in storage
NEW ORLEANS -- Hundreds of modular homes bought by FEMA for victims of last year's hurricanes were damaged beyond repair as they sat unused and, in many cases, unprotected from the elements, the agency said Tuesday.
The failure to protect the homes from the sun and rain while they were in storage was outlined in a report by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency bought the homes as emergency housing for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But many sat unused for months at an Army depot in Texarkana, Texas, because of restrictions on where such homes could be erected, FEMA said. A June inventory had 1,790 homes at the site.
..."For future planning, given that some modular home units are designed to be assembled soon after they are received rather than stored, many modular home units are questionable choices for emergency housing," inspector general Richard Skinner wrote.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
I wouldn't have done this. I would have assumed that it wasn't the right time or place, and that there was no chance of changing anyone's mind. However, Deanna Bernstein felt otherwise:
Deanna Bernstein of Summerville wanted to spend a night at the Coastal Carolina Fair eating the food and enjoying the rides and playing the games. Instead, she ended up in jail.
When Bernstein passed a vendor selling a T-shirt Wednesday with Confederate flags and the words "Confederately Correct Civil Rights for Southern Whites," her stomach turned....
She asked the vendor to remove the shirt and complained to fair management. When the T-shirt wasn't put away, a friend bought one for Bernstein and she stood outside the fair gates with the T-shirt in hand to ask people coming in what they thought about it....
Charleston County sheriff's deputies asked Bernstein to leave. When she didn't, she was arrested on a trespassing charge and fined $440, and she said she spent about eight hours in the county detention center....
Bernstein, by the way, is originally from California. She was being well-mannered, we're told, but it seems she violated a rule (unwritten, the fair's president says) about making political statements on the fairgrounds. (That rule apparently extends to people who are just outside the fairgrounds, but doesn't extend to merchandise sold on the fairgrounds.)
Now here's what's happened since then:
Hate-filled messages have been pouring in at The Post and Courier after a story was published about Bernstein's arrest....
Her address was posted on a blog with the comment, "Prediction: We'll see backwards swastikas painted on her house soon."
...More than a dozen readers called the newspaper and about 90 sent e-mails to express opinions on the story about Bernstein. The response was mixed. One couple sent a $100 check to help with her legal fees, while others offered to help pay for her flight out of town.
One e-mail from Bill White, who identified himself as commander of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, said, "The only tragedy in this case is that her count of trespassing doesn't carry a sentence of execution. Lynching her and burning her home in the manner of the Union armies she so loves would set a just example for the community."
Bill White? He's not some nut hiding behind a nondescript pseudonym -- he's a well-known racist leader. Here's his Wikipedia entry. The Southern Poverty Law Center says he runs "the second most popular racist site on the Internet."
And he has no fear openly recommending death for this woman in an e-mail using his own name. But as the Wikipedia page notes, he openly calls for the violent death of all sorts of people:
...He was in the news ... in 2005 when the New York Times quoted him as having "laughed" when the husband and 89-year-old mother of United States district court judge Joan Lefkow were murdered. Lefkow had previously ruled against white supremacist Matthew Hale in a trademark dispute. The paper quoted White as having written on his website: "Everyone associated with the Matt Hale trial has deserved assassination for a long time. I don't feel bad that Judge Lefkow's family was murdered today. In fact, when I heard the story, I laughed."
... He wrote that the [Columbine] massacre was an expression of Friedrich Nietzsche's "will to power," and that: "[h]ad this shooting occurred outside a police station, or outside the NATO conference, or outside the White House, it would have been much more effective."
...In the summer of 2005, the director of a commission investigating the 1979 Greensboro massacre complained to police after White posted commissioners' addresses on the Web. White hinted he would like to shoot the commission members, a comment he later claimed was meant in jest....
I guess you can make statements like these in America with impunity, under your own name, and nothing will happen to you. (Notice, by the way, that White had the good sense to call for violence at the White House when Clinton was in office and threatening the president with serious physical harm was OK.)
Meanwhile, here's an interesting comment on the county fair:
Linda Willis of Summerville wrote the fair organizers to urge them to ban similar merchandise. Willis said she's lived all over the United States, recently moving back to the area, and has never seen so much Confederate paraphernalia.
"We've come back over the years and thought, 'God, I can't believe that still exists here,'" she said in a phone interview.
She says there's more than ever.
So I guess that hip new American centrism isn't catching on everywhere.
Deanna Bernstein of Summerville wanted to spend a night at the Coastal Carolina Fair eating the food and enjoying the rides and playing the games. Instead, she ended up in jail.
When Bernstein passed a vendor selling a T-shirt Wednesday with Confederate flags and the words "Confederately Correct Civil Rights for Southern Whites," her stomach turned....
She asked the vendor to remove the shirt and complained to fair management. When the T-shirt wasn't put away, a friend bought one for Bernstein and she stood outside the fair gates with the T-shirt in hand to ask people coming in what they thought about it....
Charleston County sheriff's deputies asked Bernstein to leave. When she didn't, she was arrested on a trespassing charge and fined $440, and she said she spent about eight hours in the county detention center....
Bernstein, by the way, is originally from California. She was being well-mannered, we're told, but it seems she violated a rule (unwritten, the fair's president says) about making political statements on the fairgrounds. (That rule apparently extends to people who are just outside the fairgrounds, but doesn't extend to merchandise sold on the fairgrounds.)
Now here's what's happened since then:
Hate-filled messages have been pouring in at The Post and Courier after a story was published about Bernstein's arrest....
Her address was posted on a blog with the comment, "Prediction: We'll see backwards swastikas painted on her house soon."
...More than a dozen readers called the newspaper and about 90 sent e-mails to express opinions on the story about Bernstein. The response was mixed. One couple sent a $100 check to help with her legal fees, while others offered to help pay for her flight out of town.
One e-mail from Bill White, who identified himself as commander of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, said, "The only tragedy in this case is that her count of trespassing doesn't carry a sentence of execution. Lynching her and burning her home in the manner of the Union armies she so loves would set a just example for the community."
Bill White? He's not some nut hiding behind a nondescript pseudonym -- he's a well-known racist leader. Here's his Wikipedia entry. The Southern Poverty Law Center says he runs "the second most popular racist site on the Internet."
And he has no fear openly recommending death for this woman in an e-mail using his own name. But as the Wikipedia page notes, he openly calls for the violent death of all sorts of people:
...He was in the news ... in 2005 when the New York Times quoted him as having "laughed" when the husband and 89-year-old mother of United States district court judge Joan Lefkow were murdered. Lefkow had previously ruled against white supremacist Matthew Hale in a trademark dispute. The paper quoted White as having written on his website: "Everyone associated with the Matt Hale trial has deserved assassination for a long time. I don't feel bad that Judge Lefkow's family was murdered today. In fact, when I heard the story, I laughed."
... He wrote that the [Columbine] massacre was an expression of Friedrich Nietzsche's "will to power," and that: "[h]ad this shooting occurred outside a police station, or outside the NATO conference, or outside the White House, it would have been much more effective."
...In the summer of 2005, the director of a commission investigating the 1979 Greensboro massacre complained to police after White posted commissioners' addresses on the Web. White hinted he would like to shoot the commission members, a comment he later claimed was meant in jest....
I guess you can make statements like these in America with impunity, under your own name, and nothing will happen to you. (Notice, by the way, that White had the good sense to call for violence at the White House when Clinton was in office and threatening the president with serious physical harm was OK.)
Meanwhile, here's an interesting comment on the county fair:
Linda Willis of Summerville wrote the fair organizers to urge them to ban similar merchandise. Willis said she's lived all over the United States, recently moving back to the area, and has never seen so much Confederate paraphernalia.
"We've come back over the years and thought, 'God, I can't believe that still exists here,'" she said in a phone interview.
She says there's more than ever.
So I guess that hip new American centrism isn't catching on everywhere.
I keep hearing that centrism is the hot new thing, but some people apparently didn't get the memo:
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - A Republican-led legislative panel claims in a new report on illegal immigration that abortion is partly to blame because it is causing a shortage of American workers.
The report from the state House Special Committee on Immigration Reform also claims "liberal social welfare policies" have discouraged Americans from working and encouraged immigrants to cross the border illegally.
The statements about abortion, welfare policies and a recommendation to abolish income taxes in favor of sales taxes were inserted into the immigration report by the committee chairman, Rep. Ed Emery.
All six Democrats on the panel refused to sign the report....
All 10 Republican committee members signed the report....
"We hear a lot of arguments today that the reason that we can't get serious about our borders is that we are desperate for all these workers," Emery said. "You don't have to think too long. If you kill 44 million of your potential workers, it's not too surprising we would be desperate for workers." ...
(I guess all these unborn drones-who-never-were would have been vastly different from Americans who did manage to get born, and would have happily taken backbreaking jobs with low wages and minimal or nonexistent benefits.)
Wait -- there's more:
The report also includes short essays by Emery about the history of immigration, the purpose of immigration laws and the importance of a common language. In those, he notes "the issue of illegal immigration does not lend itself to compromise."
That quote appears to be from this essay -- which is practically a wingnut cheat sheet, published under the aegis of the state of Missouri. A couple of excerpts:
The original migration of Europeans onto this continent was by those seeking to move from religious oppression to religious freedom. Immigrants were predominantly characterized by a Biblical and Christian worldview, which resulted in other freedoms, such as the right to own property, the right of economic pursuit, freedom of speech, and the establishment governments that are subject to the will of the people.
Translation: We have capitalism, free speech, and self-government because the Pilgrims loved Jesus. (Yeah, I know -- most of the GOP's voting base sees nothing odd in what I just typed.)
According to their writings, America's founding fathers were skeptical of massive immigration. Thomas Jefferson was concerned that, "they will bring with them the principles of government they leave." ... Those of us concerned about America's slide toward socialism and "big brother" government can identify with Thomas Jefferson's prophetic quote.
Translation: Those damn Jews brought their communism over here and screwed everything up.
And then there's my favorite:
A quote from the Washington Post is particularly reflective of today's immigration concerns, "In earlier years of the Republic immigration was not at a rate that negated absorption, and most of those who entered did so with the intent and purpose to make themselves Americans...[But for] decades now immigrants...have obviously been bent on seizing the opportunities offered by America but without disposition to adapt themselves to ...American ideals and concepts of government and citizenship in return. The record is crowded with instances in which groups of immigrants have stoutly resisted Americanism, have resented the suggestion that they learn the language of the land, and have maintained their foreignisms...at the present time, in certain areas, immigrants constitute a substantial percentage of the population, and drifting together and holding aloof from Americanization, hold themselves as foreigners in America." The most profound thing about this quote is that it is from a 1924 Washington Post edition.
Is Emery really this stupid? Does he even realize he's undermining his own point? This 1924 article is talking about my Italian grandparents and great-grandparents and the immigrants of their era. These are the very people we now say did assimilate. If the same things were being said about them as are being said about the current immigrants, doesn't this imply that the newer ones will become American?
I'm struck by the fact that it isn't enough for Emery to oppose abortion, immigration, liberalism, socialism, and the notion that the idea of America is largely a product of Enlightenment thinking -- he has to construct a Grand Unified Theory tying them all together. People with this kind of energy and drive aren't going to go quietly.
(Via Feministing and the Moderate Voice.)
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - A Republican-led legislative panel claims in a new report on illegal immigration that abortion is partly to blame because it is causing a shortage of American workers.
The report from the state House Special Committee on Immigration Reform also claims "liberal social welfare policies" have discouraged Americans from working and encouraged immigrants to cross the border illegally.
The statements about abortion, welfare policies and a recommendation to abolish income taxes in favor of sales taxes were inserted into the immigration report by the committee chairman, Rep. Ed Emery.
All six Democrats on the panel refused to sign the report....
All 10 Republican committee members signed the report....
"We hear a lot of arguments today that the reason that we can't get serious about our borders is that we are desperate for all these workers," Emery said. "You don't have to think too long. If you kill 44 million of your potential workers, it's not too surprising we would be desperate for workers." ...
(I guess all these unborn drones-who-never-were would have been vastly different from Americans who did manage to get born, and would have happily taken backbreaking jobs with low wages and minimal or nonexistent benefits.)
Wait -- there's more:
The report also includes short essays by Emery about the history of immigration, the purpose of immigration laws and the importance of a common language. In those, he notes "the issue of illegal immigration does not lend itself to compromise."
That quote appears to be from this essay -- which is practically a wingnut cheat sheet, published under the aegis of the state of Missouri. A couple of excerpts:
The original migration of Europeans onto this continent was by those seeking to move from religious oppression to religious freedom. Immigrants were predominantly characterized by a Biblical and Christian worldview, which resulted in other freedoms, such as the right to own property, the right of economic pursuit, freedom of speech, and the establishment governments that are subject to the will of the people.
Translation: We have capitalism, free speech, and self-government because the Pilgrims loved Jesus. (Yeah, I know -- most of the GOP's voting base sees nothing odd in what I just typed.)
According to their writings, America's founding fathers were skeptical of massive immigration. Thomas Jefferson was concerned that, "they will bring with them the principles of government they leave." ... Those of us concerned about America's slide toward socialism and "big brother" government can identify with Thomas Jefferson's prophetic quote.
Translation: Those damn Jews brought their communism over here and screwed everything up.
And then there's my favorite:
A quote from the Washington Post is particularly reflective of today's immigration concerns, "In earlier years of the Republic immigration was not at a rate that negated absorption, and most of those who entered did so with the intent and purpose to make themselves Americans...[But for] decades now immigrants...have obviously been bent on seizing the opportunities offered by America but without disposition to adapt themselves to ...American ideals and concepts of government and citizenship in return. The record is crowded with instances in which groups of immigrants have stoutly resisted Americanism, have resented the suggestion that they learn the language of the land, and have maintained their foreignisms...at the present time, in certain areas, immigrants constitute a substantial percentage of the population, and drifting together and holding aloof from Americanization, hold themselves as foreigners in America." The most profound thing about this quote is that it is from a 1924 Washington Post edition.
Is Emery really this stupid? Does he even realize he's undermining his own point? This 1924 article is talking about my Italian grandparents and great-grandparents and the immigrants of their era. These are the very people we now say did assimilate. If the same things were being said about them as are being said about the current immigrants, doesn't this imply that the newer ones will become American?
I'm struck by the fact that it isn't enough for Emery to oppose abortion, immigration, liberalism, socialism, and the notion that the idea of America is largely a product of Enlightenment thinking -- he has to construct a Grand Unified Theory tying them all together. People with this kind of energy and drive aren't going to go quietly.
(Via Feministing and the Moderate Voice.)
I see that John Tierney is leaving the New York Times op-ed page.
It's always amused me that the most prominent libertarian in print journalism got screwed by capitalism. A few months after he got his gig on the op-ed page, the Times put it behind the TimesSelect pay firewall. Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, and David Brooks were nationally known commentators who'd written bestselling books when TimesSelect hit, but Tierney had yet to build a readership. Yet how could he complain? By definition, he believes the marketplace and the profit motive are always forces for good.
Even though he gives other reasons for the career move, I suspect the situation did frustrate him. If so, boo hoo. Hoist on your own petard, John.
It's always amused me that the most prominent libertarian in print journalism got screwed by capitalism. A few months after he got his gig on the op-ed page, the Times put it behind the TimesSelect pay firewall. Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, and David Brooks were nationally known commentators who'd written bestselling books when TimesSelect hit, but Tierney had yet to build a readership. Yet how could he complain? By definition, he believes the marketplace and the profit motive are always forces for good.
Even though he gives other reasons for the career move, I suspect the situation did frustrate him. If so, boo hoo. Hoist on your own petard, John.
Monday, November 13, 2006
GIULIANI
If you're a regular reader, you know that I disagree with a lot of very sensible people about Rudy's chances of getting the GOP nomination in '08. I think he can win it, but regardless of who's right, let me tell you one thing that isn't going to be a dealbreaker: his appearances in drag.
You think drag is some strange, freaky city thing? Hell, at the high-water mark of countrified television in my '60s childhood, Roy Clark -- then and now a much-loved heartland entertainer -- appeared on TV in drag, in both The Beverly Hillbillies and Hee Haw. (Max Baer Jr. also made a drag appearance on The Beverly Hillbillies, as Jethrene.) And remember, that was the '60s entertainment that wasn't considered subversive, transgressive, taboo-shattering, or part of the great wave of decadence and moral rot -- it was seen as good, clean, goofy fun. (A guy in a gingham dress! And a bonnet! Har har har!) For red-staters who want to believe, Rudy in drag will be seen as just a citified version of that.
What saves it for Rudy is that you never believe for a second that he's a woman. There's no androgyny, no frisson -- none of that crap. It's just a guy looking like a gross old broad. If he's tapping into anything subconscious, it's misogyny, the sense that some women are comically monstrous -- the same thing all that talk of Scary Nancy Pelosi and Hillary the Witch is tapping into. How can that hurt him with the GOP base?
****
UPDATE: No, I'm not (as this New York Times blog post initially had it) "a Rudy fan." "Not a Rudy fan" is putting it mildly. But thanks for the correction.
****
UPDATE: Second Roy-Clark-in-drag link belatedly fixed.
If you're a regular reader, you know that I disagree with a lot of very sensible people about Rudy's chances of getting the GOP nomination in '08. I think he can win it, but regardless of who's right, let me tell you one thing that isn't going to be a dealbreaker: his appearances in drag.
You think drag is some strange, freaky city thing? Hell, at the high-water mark of countrified television in my '60s childhood, Roy Clark -- then and now a much-loved heartland entertainer -- appeared on TV in drag, in both The Beverly Hillbillies and Hee Haw. (Max Baer Jr. also made a drag appearance on The Beverly Hillbillies, as Jethrene.) And remember, that was the '60s entertainment that wasn't considered subversive, transgressive, taboo-shattering, or part of the great wave of decadence and moral rot -- it was seen as good, clean, goofy fun. (A guy in a gingham dress! And a bonnet! Har har har!) For red-staters who want to believe, Rudy in drag will be seen as just a citified version of that.
What saves it for Rudy is that you never believe for a second that he's a woman. There's no androgyny, no frisson -- none of that crap. It's just a guy looking like a gross old broad. If he's tapping into anything subconscious, it's misogyny, the sense that some women are comically monstrous -- the same thing all that talk of Scary Nancy Pelosi and Hillary the Witch is tapping into. How can that hurt him with the GOP base?
****
UPDATE: No, I'm not (as this New York Times blog post initially had it) "a Rudy fan." "Not a Rudy fan" is putting it mildly. But thanks for the correction.
****
UPDATE: Second Roy-Clark-in-drag link belatedly fixed.
I'm late getting to this, but I just got my copy of the November issue of Church & State, the newsletter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and I learned from it that I missed all kinds of swell stuff at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit in late September. For instance, I missed this:
U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.), who is seeking to move up to the Senate, offered the crowd her personal religious testimony and begged for support. Harris, down 20 points in the polls at the time, insisted she would win and that God would deserve the credit. (Harris also told attendees that separation of church and state is a lie and that 34 percent of the Constitution comes from the Bible.)
Not 33, not 35 -- 34. (No word on whether she provided documentation for this.)
I missed William Bennett encouraging the U.S. to behave more like Saddam:
Former Education Secretary William Bennett called for escalating the Iraq conflict and even suggested extending the warfare to civilians. He recommended leveling whole cities to bring them under control -- "When four Americans are hanged...you take out Fallujah. You flatten the city!"
Oh, and I also missed this:
Although the Bible actually has little to say about the Antichrist –- he is mentioned by name only five times –- interest in this evil figure has always been intense.... one speaker espoused one of the more unusual theories about this mysterious opponent of Christianity: The Antichrist, the Rev. Dwight McKissic said, may be gay.
McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, put forth slim evidence for the assertion, citing a murky passage in the eleventh chapter of the Book of Daniel. Interestingly, the verse in question, Daniel 11:37, does not mention the Antichrist by name. It talks instead about a prophecy concerning a Persian king who will amass great power and oppress God’s people.
This monarch, the King James Version of the Bible says, will not share "the desire of women."
Although other translations of the scripture differ radically, to McKissic, the KJV text is proof enough.
He asked the crowd, "Could it be that the Antichrist himself may be homosexual?"
Assailing the gay rights movement, he added, "I believe it's from the pit of hell itself that this movement is inspired, that it has a satanic anointing."
There's quite a bit more at the links.
U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.), who is seeking to move up to the Senate, offered the crowd her personal religious testimony and begged for support. Harris, down 20 points in the polls at the time, insisted she would win and that God would deserve the credit. (Harris also told attendees that separation of church and state is a lie and that 34 percent of the Constitution comes from the Bible.)
Not 33, not 35 -- 34. (No word on whether she provided documentation for this.)
I missed William Bennett encouraging the U.S. to behave more like Saddam:
Former Education Secretary William Bennett called for escalating the Iraq conflict and even suggested extending the warfare to civilians. He recommended leveling whole cities to bring them under control -- "When four Americans are hanged...you take out Fallujah. You flatten the city!"
Oh, and I also missed this:
Although the Bible actually has little to say about the Antichrist –- he is mentioned by name only five times –- interest in this evil figure has always been intense.... one speaker espoused one of the more unusual theories about this mysterious opponent of Christianity: The Antichrist, the Rev. Dwight McKissic said, may be gay.
McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, put forth slim evidence for the assertion, citing a murky passage in the eleventh chapter of the Book of Daniel. Interestingly, the verse in question, Daniel 11:37, does not mention the Antichrist by name. It talks instead about a prophecy concerning a Persian king who will amass great power and oppress God’s people.
This monarch, the King James Version of the Bible says, will not share "the desire of women."
Although other translations of the scripture differ radically, to McKissic, the KJV text is proof enough.
He asked the crowd, "Could it be that the Antichrist himself may be homosexual?"
Assailing the gay rights movement, he added, "I believe it's from the pit of hell itself that this movement is inspired, that it has a satanic anointing."
There's quite a bit more at the links.
Is it just me, or does the Pentagon have a lot of nerve trying to cop a little more reflected glory from the memory of Pat Tillman?
If it turns out that Chas Castagana, the California man charged with sending threatening letters containing white powder to Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olbermann, Chuck Schumer, Jon Stewart, and others, really is a longtime contributor to Free Republic, how long do you think it's going to be before reporters start filing stories in which Castanaga's crime is "balanced" with references to the netroots' unsuccessful campaign on behalf of Ned Lamont -- as if both are merely equivalent examples of how the influence of online political amateurs may not be as "transformative" as previously believed?
If you don't know what I'm talking about, see Raw Story and Seeing the Forest for details on Castagana and Freeper Marc Costanzo, who seem to share interests, hometowns, e-mail addresses, and catchphrases. Scroll down here and read Castagana's "SF Has No Space for PC" ("With the passing away of Lexx ends an intriguing albeit smarmy experiment in sci-fantasy..."), then go to this Free Republic thread started by Costanzo ("With the passing away of LEXX ends an intriguing albeit tawdry experiment in Sci-fantasy..."). A Daily Kos e-mail search reveals that Castagana/Costanzo apparently also posts on the Net as Jeff Costigan -- compare this selection of Costigan blog comments (e.g., "Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter ... ARE FEMININE AND CHAMPION WOMANHOOD AND ALL WOMANLY VIRTUES") and Costanzo's FR profile ("Ann Coulter is a Goddess and I worship Laura Ingraham and Michele Malkin").
(By the way, I linked the Lexx rant several months ago; I found it so bizarre I couldn't say a word about it.)
****
UPDATE: Oops, Marc Costanzo's account has been suspended by Free Republic and his profile has been taken down. Here's the cached version.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, see Raw Story and Seeing the Forest for details on Castagana and Freeper Marc Costanzo, who seem to share interests, hometowns, e-mail addresses, and catchphrases. Scroll down here and read Castagana's "SF Has No Space for PC" ("With the passing away of Lexx ends an intriguing albeit smarmy experiment in sci-fantasy..."), then go to this Free Republic thread started by Costanzo ("With the passing away of LEXX ends an intriguing albeit tawdry experiment in Sci-fantasy..."). A Daily Kos e-mail search reveals that Castagana/Costanzo apparently also posts on the Net as Jeff Costigan -- compare this selection of Costigan blog comments (e.g., "Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter ... ARE FEMININE AND CHAMPION WOMANHOOD AND ALL WOMANLY VIRTUES") and Costanzo's FR profile ("Ann Coulter is a Goddess and I worship Laura Ingraham and Michele Malkin").
(By the way, I linked the Lexx rant several months ago; I found it so bizarre I couldn't say a word about it.)
****
UPDATE: Oops, Marc Costanzo's account has been suspended by Free Republic and his profile has been taken down. Here's the cached version.
Is this (from right-leaning New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin) the version of the election story that's going to take hold?
The rise of the Mommy Party
Pelosi's at the helm, Hillary's in the wings and - for now - Bush is in the doghouse
...Republicans, with their macho men and muscular policy prescriptions, are in decline because they are out of answers. Dems are getting better at seizing their opportunities, and doing it with women playing a leading role.
Put another way, Mommy is taking over because Daddy screwed up.
Nancy Pelosi is a case in point. Despite attacks on her fitness to lead in a time of war, voters made her the first female speaker of the House. The belief that Dems, as the "nanny" party, are squishy on security was trumped by fury at the Bush administration's incompetence in Iraq....
Goodwin seems to be using "Mommy Party" as a compliment, which may make him the first member of the political class ever to do so, and maybe that's good -- but I worry, because if voters think the Mommies have taken over, soon this will be declared a huge problem, a threat to our national greatness, and pundits (seemingly from across the spectrum because they'll include quite a few who claim to be liberals) will be scanning the horizon looking for signs that the demasculinized national nightmare is not permanent and "men are back." (You remember that phrase from the fireman-fetishizing immediate aftermath of 9/11.) The last thing we need right now is a punditocracy-wide search for macho men to make everything all better -- that's basically how we got into this mess.
Of course, it's a bit odd to say that Democratic "Mommies" are on the rise when this year's victors included James Webb, Jon Tester, and Heath Shuler.
Really, what happened is that people who have no sense of personal responsibility were defeated and people (female and male) who seem to believe messes need to be cleaned up were chosen to replace them. The winners also believe that life is tough for ordinary Americans, and that a steady diet of wedge-issue rage isn't what people need to pay the bills. A real depravity in our culture is that the shocking lack of personal responsibility in Bush/Rove-style politics is seen by so many people as consistent with manly virtue. If that's what it means to be a man, then hell, maybe Webb, Tester and Shuler are "Mommies."
****
Incidentally, according to Goodwin, it appears that we've already won the 2008 presidential election, too:
I think the mood of the country has shifted so sharply that Hillary Clinton has gone from being the front-runner for her party's 2008 nomination to being virtually unstoppable.
This echoes the words of John Wilson, editor of the Christian-leaning journal Books & Culture, in yesterday's New York Times Book Review:
At the moment, it appears unlikely that a Republican of any stripe will win the White House in 2008....
Can you take those predictions to the bank? Oh, sure -- just as you could safely the bet on the reelection George H.W. "91% Approval Rating" Bush in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War, and just as you could bet the farm on Bill Clinton's defeat in '96 after Newt cleaned his clock in '94.
I know that new Newsweek poll shows a hypothetical unnamed Democrat beating a hypothetical unnamed Republican for president, 48%-28% -- but it also shows McCain and Giuliani running nearly as strong as Hillary (with less positive response but also less negative response). It's especially ridiculous at this particular moment to make predictions two years out -- it really seems right now that voters, more than I can ever remember, will vote in the next cycle based on what the parties do (about Iraq, economic anxiety, and so on), rather than on some ginned-up phony issue. And we simply don't know what's our pols, Democrat and Republican, are going to do. So right-leaners should back off and stop volunteering to help Hillary measure the drapes.
The rise of the Mommy Party
Pelosi's at the helm, Hillary's in the wings and - for now - Bush is in the doghouse
...Republicans, with their macho men and muscular policy prescriptions, are in decline because they are out of answers. Dems are getting better at seizing their opportunities, and doing it with women playing a leading role.
Put another way, Mommy is taking over because Daddy screwed up.
Nancy Pelosi is a case in point. Despite attacks on her fitness to lead in a time of war, voters made her the first female speaker of the House. The belief that Dems, as the "nanny" party, are squishy on security was trumped by fury at the Bush administration's incompetence in Iraq....
Goodwin seems to be using "Mommy Party" as a compliment, which may make him the first member of the political class ever to do so, and maybe that's good -- but I worry, because if voters think the Mommies have taken over, soon this will be declared a huge problem, a threat to our national greatness, and pundits (seemingly from across the spectrum because they'll include quite a few who claim to be liberals) will be scanning the horizon looking for signs that the demasculinized national nightmare is not permanent and "men are back." (You remember that phrase from the fireman-fetishizing immediate aftermath of 9/11.) The last thing we need right now is a punditocracy-wide search for macho men to make everything all better -- that's basically how we got into this mess.
Of course, it's a bit odd to say that Democratic "Mommies" are on the rise when this year's victors included James Webb, Jon Tester, and Heath Shuler.
Really, what happened is that people who have no sense of personal responsibility were defeated and people (female and male) who seem to believe messes need to be cleaned up were chosen to replace them. The winners also believe that life is tough for ordinary Americans, and that a steady diet of wedge-issue rage isn't what people need to pay the bills. A real depravity in our culture is that the shocking lack of personal responsibility in Bush/Rove-style politics is seen by so many people as consistent with manly virtue. If that's what it means to be a man, then hell, maybe Webb, Tester and Shuler are "Mommies."
****
Incidentally, according to Goodwin, it appears that we've already won the 2008 presidential election, too:
I think the mood of the country has shifted so sharply that Hillary Clinton has gone from being the front-runner for her party's 2008 nomination to being virtually unstoppable.
This echoes the words of John Wilson, editor of the Christian-leaning journal Books & Culture, in yesterday's New York Times Book Review:
At the moment, it appears unlikely that a Republican of any stripe will win the White House in 2008....
Can you take those predictions to the bank? Oh, sure -- just as you could safely the bet on the reelection George H.W. "91% Approval Rating" Bush in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War, and just as you could bet the farm on Bill Clinton's defeat in '96 after Newt cleaned his clock in '94.
I know that new Newsweek poll shows a hypothetical unnamed Democrat beating a hypothetical unnamed Republican for president, 48%-28% -- but it also shows McCain and Giuliani running nearly as strong as Hillary (with less positive response but also less negative response). It's especially ridiculous at this particular moment to make predictions two years out -- it really seems right now that voters, more than I can ever remember, will vote in the next cycle based on what the parties do (about Iraq, economic anxiety, and so on), rather than on some ginned-up phony issue. And we simply don't know what's our pols, Democrat and Republican, are going to do. So right-leaners should back off and stop volunteering to help Hillary measure the drapes.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
FUZZY MATH
Well, if you don't like the hard numbers ...
An hour of vote tabulation reveals a stunning fact: Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate by an overwhelming 12.6% margin - 55%/42.4%.
...do what Tom Elia of the New Editor does -- just throw out the data you don't like and declare that the rest of the numbers prove your point:
What Eskow either forgets, or neglects to point out, is that 33 Senate seats are up for election every two years, and that among this year's seats were three in California, New York, and Massachusetts -- seats that Senators Feinstein, Clinton, and Kennedy won by about 4 million votes, most of the Dems' 6.6 million vote margin of victory in the aggregate US Senate vote.
I'm sorry -- why is that relevant?
Why couldn't Republicans have managed to mount effective challenges to the senators from those states? All three of the states currently have Republican governors. Yes, New York and Massachusetts just elected Democrats by wide margins, but only after Republicans had occupied the state houses for more than a decade. And California just reelected a Republican governor.
And the New York and Massachusetts seats are seats are held by senators who are routinely described as among the most polarizing political figures in what is routinely described as an increasingly conservative America. So why were the Clinton and Kennedy seats safe and, say, Rick Santorum's wasn't?
And if Republicans get to rejigger the math by throwing out New York, California, and Massachusetts, why don't Democrats get to throw out Texas, a populous state where a Republican incumbent, Kay Bailey Hutchison, cruised to victory?
And who decides what's a safe seat anyway? In 2000, Dianne Feinstein won 56% of the vote. Hillary Clinton won 55%. Mike DeWine won 61%. Why were the first two seats safe and the third wasn't?
Also in 2000, John Kyl won 79% of the vote in Arizona. Why didn't he win a blowout this time around?
Democrats had those safe seats, and were competitive elsewhere, because the Democratic Party now has broad nationwide appeal. The GOP, by contrast, has made itself radioactive over the last several years in large swaths of the Northeast and also in Ohio, while disillusioning large numbers of voters in states all over the country.
Sorry, Tom -- the numbers count. All of them.
(Via Memeorandum.)
Well, if you don't like the hard numbers ...
An hour of vote tabulation reveals a stunning fact: Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate by an overwhelming 12.6% margin - 55%/42.4%.
...do what Tom Elia of the New Editor does -- just throw out the data you don't like and declare that the rest of the numbers prove your point:
What Eskow either forgets, or neglects to point out, is that 33 Senate seats are up for election every two years, and that among this year's seats were three in California, New York, and Massachusetts -- seats that Senators Feinstein, Clinton, and Kennedy won by about 4 million votes, most of the Dems' 6.6 million vote margin of victory in the aggregate US Senate vote.
I'm sorry -- why is that relevant?
Why couldn't Republicans have managed to mount effective challenges to the senators from those states? All three of the states currently have Republican governors. Yes, New York and Massachusetts just elected Democrats by wide margins, but only after Republicans had occupied the state houses for more than a decade. And California just reelected a Republican governor.
And the New York and Massachusetts seats are seats are held by senators who are routinely described as among the most polarizing political figures in what is routinely described as an increasingly conservative America. So why were the Clinton and Kennedy seats safe and, say, Rick Santorum's wasn't?
And if Republicans get to rejigger the math by throwing out New York, California, and Massachusetts, why don't Democrats get to throw out Texas, a populous state where a Republican incumbent, Kay Bailey Hutchison, cruised to victory?
And who decides what's a safe seat anyway? In 2000, Dianne Feinstein won 56% of the vote. Hillary Clinton won 55%. Mike DeWine won 61%. Why were the first two seats safe and the third wasn't?
Also in 2000, John Kyl won 79% of the vote in Arizona. Why didn't he win a blowout this time around?
Democrats had those safe seats, and were competitive elsewhere, because the Democratic Party now has broad nationwide appeal. The GOP, by contrast, has made itself radioactive over the last several years in large swaths of the Northeast and also in Ohio, while disillusioning large numbers of voters in states all over the country.
Sorry, Tom -- the numbers count. All of them.
(Via Memeorandum.)
EVERYTHING IS STILL OUR FAULT
From today's New York Times:
Democrats, of course, had their chance to resolve the prescription drug problem in the past -- their party held the Senate for a brief period in 2001-02 -- and few issues have been more divisive on Capitol Hill.
Oh, sure, that makes sense. Even though they didn't control the White House or the House of Representatives, the Democrats could have just up and solved this problem in the 19 1/2 months they controlled the Senate (by one vote) -- 16 1/2 of which were post-9/11, with the president at or near his pinnacle of popularity. Obviously, they just didn't have the gumption!
From today's New York Times:
Democrats, of course, had their chance to resolve the prescription drug problem in the past -- their party held the Senate for a brief period in 2001-02 -- and few issues have been more divisive on Capitol Hill.
Oh, sure, that makes sense. Even though they didn't control the White House or the House of Representatives, the Democrats could have just up and solved this problem in the 19 1/2 months they controlled the Senate (by one vote) -- 16 1/2 of which were post-9/11, with the president at or near his pinnacle of popularity. Obviously, they just didn't have the gumption!
MEASURING THE DRAPES
According to Newsweek, Bush was right -- a loser-to-be really was assuming victory prematurely:
Two weeks before the elections, Rove showed NEWSWEEK his magic numbers: a series of graphs and bar charts that tallied early voting and voter outreach. Both were running far higher than in 2004. In fact, Rove thought the polls were obsolete because they relied on home telephones in an age of do-not-call lists and cell phones. Based on his models, he forecast a loss of 12 to 14 seats in the House -- enough to hang on to the majority. Rove placed so much faith in his figures that, after the elections, he planned to convene a panel of Republican political scientists -- to study just how wrong the polls were.
Arrogant jerk.
And what I find especially satisfying is that Rove, who's always believed he's several steps ahead of the Democrats, was making the same mistake many Democrats made two years ago. We learned back then that it was naive to look at troubling polls and say, "Oh, the pollsters are missing our big base of support among people who don't have land lines." We learned that, but the Boy Genius never figured it out? Tee-hee.
According to Newsweek, Bush was right -- a loser-to-be really was assuming victory prematurely:
Two weeks before the elections, Rove showed NEWSWEEK his magic numbers: a series of graphs and bar charts that tallied early voting and voter outreach. Both were running far higher than in 2004. In fact, Rove thought the polls were obsolete because they relied on home telephones in an age of do-not-call lists and cell phones. Based on his models, he forecast a loss of 12 to 14 seats in the House -- enough to hang on to the majority. Rove placed so much faith in his figures that, after the elections, he planned to convene a panel of Republican political scientists -- to study just how wrong the polls were.
Arrogant jerk.
And what I find especially satisfying is that Rove, who's always believed he's several steps ahead of the Democrats, was making the same mistake many Democrats made two years ago. We learned back then that it was naive to look at troubling polls and say, "Oh, the pollsters are missing our big base of support among people who don't have land lines." We learned that, but the Boy Genius never figured it out? Tee-hee.
What's wrong with this passage (from Adam Nagourney in the Sunday New York Times)? Answer below:
... the campaign of 2006 has, to put it mildly, clearly diminished the prospects of three once-big-name prospective candidates.
[George] Allen leads the list. He ran a campaign that was marked by missteps, and he may well be remembered as the man who cost Republicans control of the Senate this year. That is not going to endear him to Republican activists or contributors.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his party’s contender in 2004, underlined doubts about his political skills when he told what he described as a botched joke, which President Bush pounced on and tried to portray as an insult to American troops. Mr. Kerry’s associates said they were resigned to the fact that he would have headed the Democrats’ blame list had they lost this time; at least he avoided that designation.
Finally, there’s Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader who is retiring but who just last spring won a Republican straw poll in Memphis that he portrayed as a sign of his strength as a presidential contender. No more. A contentious Senate session that failed to produce much major legislation — followed by this loss — has led many Republicans to cross Mr. Frist off their 2008 list.
What's wrong with it?
Well, notice who's not mentioned. Apparently Rick Santorum is such a big loser he couldn't even get a mention on Nagourney's list of big losers.
... the campaign of 2006 has, to put it mildly, clearly diminished the prospects of three once-big-name prospective candidates.
[George] Allen leads the list. He ran a campaign that was marked by missteps, and he may well be remembered as the man who cost Republicans control of the Senate this year. That is not going to endear him to Republican activists or contributors.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his party’s contender in 2004, underlined doubts about his political skills when he told what he described as a botched joke, which President Bush pounced on and tried to portray as an insult to American troops. Mr. Kerry’s associates said they were resigned to the fact that he would have headed the Democrats’ blame list had they lost this time; at least he avoided that designation.
Finally, there’s Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader who is retiring but who just last spring won a Republican straw poll in Memphis that he portrayed as a sign of his strength as a presidential contender. No more. A contentious Senate session that failed to produce much major legislation — followed by this loss — has led many Republicans to cross Mr. Frist off their 2008 list.
What's wrong with it?
Well, notice who's not mentioned. Apparently Rick Santorum is such a big loser he couldn't even get a mention on Nagourney's list of big losers.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Here's my favorite passage from a story in the current Nation about the Quiverfull movement, the movement that encourages religious conservatives to attempt to breed an Army of God by having as many children as possible:
Rachel Scott, who calls herself a "one-woman Quiverfull activist," describes her conversion moment. One night after the birth of her fourth child--their third "oops" baby due to birth-control failures--when the prospect of tuition for four consumed husband Christopher and their pastor was urging vasectomy, Christopher saw a warrior angel in his dream. A "large, worrying warrior angel" with a flaming sword that he pointed at Christopher's genitals, telling him, "Do not change God's plan."
Yikes.
You know about these people -- David Brooks wrote about them approvingly in 2004, and I wrote a post about them (not approvingly) that year also. As the Nation story notes, they're cultural extremists -- they don't believe in gender equality in marriage or birth control for anyone. They read and write books with titles such as Birthing God's Mighty Warriors. Oh, and there's this:
Among the first contemporary Protestants advancing the theory that contraception is anathema to Scripture was Charles Provan, an independent Pennsylvania printer, lay theologian and father to ten who was until recently deeply involved in the Holocaust revisionist movement.
He's cited as an inspiration by current movement leaders.
So -- naturally -- the Democratic Leadership Council is looking for a way to liaise with them:
[Social scientist Philip Longman is] searching--at the request of the Democratic Leadership Council, which published his policy proposals in its Blueprint magazine--for a way to appeal to the same voters.
...Longman's answer ... is for progressives to beat conservatives by joining them, emulating the large patriarchal families that conservatives promote in order not to be overrun by a reactionary baby boom. Any mention of social good occurring in regions with low birthrates is swept away by the escalating rhetoric of a "birth dearth," a "baby bust," a dying hemisphere undone by its own progressive politics.
Close your eyes and think of President Hillary.
Meanwhile, there's this from the Catholic Church, which opposed contraception when opposing contraception wasn't cool:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will examine a new document this week that gives an overview of Church teaching on married life and human sexuality.
Authored by the conference's Pro-Life Committee, Married Love and the Gift of Life is intended to help Catholics understand God's plan for married life and clarify why the Church cannot condone contraception....
Theresa Notare, assistant director for the bishops' Natural Family Planning Program, tells us this:
"... you don't even have to be religious at this point; a thinking person can look at how poorly we treat sexual intercourse and connect the dots to pedophilia, the gross rise in pornography, abortion, divorce, delay in age in marriage, and the number of children we're having."
We can have a long discussion about the other items, but pedophilia? That's a consequence of contraception?
This suggests that, after getting smacked in the head by reality in its own sexual-abuse scandals, the church still doesn't get it -- it still thinks pedophilia is not a deep-seated tendency but rather a lifestyle choice, one that's the fault of us nasty liberals because we dare to suggest that non-procreative sex can be fun without bringing about the end of civilization as we know it.
Then again, it's not just the church that has wacky ideas about all this -- there's also
Lionel Tiger, a professor of anthropology from Rutgers University and an atheist, who [at the recent national conference of Pro-Life Action Ministries] showed how the contraceptive mentality has affected men and possibly led to the rise in homosexuality.
Yup -- use birth control and you'll make your next-door neighbor gay. People actually believe this.
Rachel Scott, who calls herself a "one-woman Quiverfull activist," describes her conversion moment. One night after the birth of her fourth child--their third "oops" baby due to birth-control failures--when the prospect of tuition for four consumed husband Christopher and their pastor was urging vasectomy, Christopher saw a warrior angel in his dream. A "large, worrying warrior angel" with a flaming sword that he pointed at Christopher's genitals, telling him, "Do not change God's plan."
Yikes.
You know about these people -- David Brooks wrote about them approvingly in 2004, and I wrote a post about them (not approvingly) that year also. As the Nation story notes, they're cultural extremists -- they don't believe in gender equality in marriage or birth control for anyone. They read and write books with titles such as Birthing God's Mighty Warriors. Oh, and there's this:
Among the first contemporary Protestants advancing the theory that contraception is anathema to Scripture was Charles Provan, an independent Pennsylvania printer, lay theologian and father to ten who was until recently deeply involved in the Holocaust revisionist movement.
He's cited as an inspiration by current movement leaders.
So -- naturally -- the Democratic Leadership Council is looking for a way to liaise with them:
[Social scientist Philip Longman is] searching--at the request of the Democratic Leadership Council, which published his policy proposals in its Blueprint magazine--for a way to appeal to the same voters.
...Longman's answer ... is for progressives to beat conservatives by joining them, emulating the large patriarchal families that conservatives promote in order not to be overrun by a reactionary baby boom. Any mention of social good occurring in regions with low birthrates is swept away by the escalating rhetoric of a "birth dearth," a "baby bust," a dying hemisphere undone by its own progressive politics.
Close your eyes and think of President Hillary.
Meanwhile, there's this from the Catholic Church, which opposed contraception when opposing contraception wasn't cool:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will examine a new document this week that gives an overview of Church teaching on married life and human sexuality.
Authored by the conference's Pro-Life Committee, Married Love and the Gift of Life is intended to help Catholics understand God's plan for married life and clarify why the Church cannot condone contraception....
Theresa Notare, assistant director for the bishops' Natural Family Planning Program, tells us this:
"... you don't even have to be religious at this point; a thinking person can look at how poorly we treat sexual intercourse and connect the dots to pedophilia, the gross rise in pornography, abortion, divorce, delay in age in marriage, and the number of children we're having."
We can have a long discussion about the other items, but pedophilia? That's a consequence of contraception?
This suggests that, after getting smacked in the head by reality in its own sexual-abuse scandals, the church still doesn't get it -- it still thinks pedophilia is not a deep-seated tendency but rather a lifestyle choice, one that's the fault of us nasty liberals because we dare to suggest that non-procreative sex can be fun without bringing about the end of civilization as we know it.
Then again, it's not just the church that has wacky ideas about all this -- there's also
Lionel Tiger, a professor of anthropology from Rutgers University and an atheist, who [at the recent national conference of Pro-Life Action Ministries] showed how the contraceptive mentality has affected men and possibly led to the rise in homosexuality.
Yup -- use birth control and you'll make your next-door neighbor gay. People actually believe this.
Posted yesterday at The American Spectator's blog:
[Ken] Mehlman has not publicly stated where he intends to hang his hat, but talk along K Street and elsewhere is that he is going to help former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani decide whether a presidential run is a good idea.
And from the October 25 New York Daily News:
Rudy Giuliani has hired a new fund-raiser who used to work for top presidential adviser Karl Rove -- the latest sign the former mayor may be eying the White House.
Margaret Hoover, 28, made $10,000 last month as the new deputy finance director for Solutions America, Giuliani's federal political action committee, records show.
Hoover's resume includes working on intergovernmental affairs for Rove ... and working for Bush's 2004 campaign operation.
Hoover, the great-granddaughter of former President Herbert Hoover, will report directly to Anne Dickinson, Giuliani's top fund-raiser and another veteran of Bush's 2004 campaign....
If you read this blog regularly, you know I worry about Giuliani more than about any other GOP candidate for '08 -- if he makes a pre-campaign promise to the religious right that he'll pick a far-right running mate and far-right judges (likely) and if he survives the primaries (quite possible), I think he'll win the presidency in a landslide, as the white knight the GOP base wants and the camera-ready coastal celebrity the Northeast admires. I worry about him because he's a moral scold and a big believer in government secrecy, and because the jodhpurs and riding crop of the Bush presidency at the height of its popularity fit him like a glove. I think his presidency would be Bush and Cheney's third term -- and reports of Bush-Cheney people working with him make me wonder whether they think so, too.
[Ken] Mehlman has not publicly stated where he intends to hang his hat, but talk along K Street and elsewhere is that he is going to help former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani decide whether a presidential run is a good idea.
And from the October 25 New York Daily News:
Rudy Giuliani has hired a new fund-raiser who used to work for top presidential adviser Karl Rove -- the latest sign the former mayor may be eying the White House.
Margaret Hoover, 28, made $10,000 last month as the new deputy finance director for Solutions America, Giuliani's federal political action committee, records show.
Hoover's resume includes working on intergovernmental affairs for Rove ... and working for Bush's 2004 campaign operation.
Hoover, the great-granddaughter of former President Herbert Hoover, will report directly to Anne Dickinson, Giuliani's top fund-raiser and another veteran of Bush's 2004 campaign....
If you read this blog regularly, you know I worry about Giuliani more than about any other GOP candidate for '08 -- if he makes a pre-campaign promise to the religious right that he'll pick a far-right running mate and far-right judges (likely) and if he survives the primaries (quite possible), I think he'll win the presidency in a landslide, as the white knight the GOP base wants and the camera-ready coastal celebrity the Northeast admires. I worry about him because he's a moral scold and a big believer in government secrecy, and because the jodhpurs and riding crop of the Bush presidency at the height of its popularity fit him like a glove. I think his presidency would be Bush and Cheney's third term -- and reports of Bush-Cheney people working with him make me wonder whether they think so, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)