MINISTRY OF TRUTH
After eight years of trying to get away with as much as possible while evading detection, the Bush administration, according to U.S. News, apparently plans to institutionalize that way of doing business -- literally:
President Bush isn't leaving it to strangers to take care of his legacy project, the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum. Playing key roles are political aide Karl Rove, first lady Laura Bush, and former Chief of Staff Andy Card. The trio has been interviewing architects and touring similar research campuses for tips.
And here's the best part:
We hear that some are urging Bush to put Rove in charge once it's built.
That would be this Karl Rove:
The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed.... The officials with RNC e-mail accounts include Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor....
...there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails. The RNC has preserved only 130 e-mails sent to Mr. Rove during President Bush’s first term and no e-mails sent by Mr. Rove prior to November 2003....
Yeah, maybe Karl and and Andy and Laura will ask their friend Alberto to help preserve the rich legacy of the Bush years. ("Oops! That was the Delete key, wasn't it?")
(Links via Achorn and Atrios.)
Monday, June 18, 2007
REJECTING CONDOM ADS TO PLEASE BUSH?
A story from the business section of today's New York Times:
IN a commercial for Trojan condoms that has its premiere tonight, women in a bar are surrounded by anthropomorphized, cellphone-toting pigs. One shuffles to the men's room, where, after procuring a condom from a vending machine, he is transformed into a head-turner in his 20s. When he returns to the bar, a fetching blond who had been indifferent now smiles at him invitingly.
...But the pigs did not fly at two of the four networks where Trojan tried to place the ad.
Fox and CBS both rejected the commercial. Both had accepted Trojan's previous campaign, which urged condom use because of the possibility that a partner might be H.I.V.-positive, perhaps unknowingly. A 2001 report about condom advertising by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that, "Some networks draw a strong line between messages about disease prevention -- which may be allowed -- and those about pregnancy prevention, which may be considered controversial for religious and moral reasons."
...In a written response to Trojan, ... Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."
In its rejection, CBS wrote, "while we understand and appreciate the humor of this creative, we do not find it appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions." ...
The commercial will run on ABC, NBC and nine cable networks, including MTV, Comedy Central and Adult Swim....
Hmmm -- who rejected it? The sister network to Fox News and the flagship network run by Sumner Redstone, who said in 2004 that, even though he's a "liberal Democrat," he was endorsing Bush because "I vote for Viacom."
Redstone's empire does include Comedy Central and MTV, so he's not rejecting the ad altogether -- but the cultural commissars of the right did let him get away with relegating The Reagans, a TV movie made for CBS that they didn't like, to one of his cable channels, Showtime, so I guess the assumption was that the same rules applied here.
Redstone's media outlets sometimes anger the right -- and he seems to like to respond by making grandiose gestures of apology, such as pulling a 60 Minutes story, scheduled for just before the '04 election, on the administration's use of forged documents to sell the Iraq War, or giving a publishing imprint to GOP strategist and Cheney flack Mary Matalin (that's the imprint that published the million-dollar flop book by Mary Cheney, though I'm sure Redstone thinks it was money well spent). This seems like more of the same.
A story from the business section of today's New York Times:
IN a commercial for Trojan condoms that has its premiere tonight, women in a bar are surrounded by anthropomorphized, cellphone-toting pigs. One shuffles to the men's room, where, after procuring a condom from a vending machine, he is transformed into a head-turner in his 20s. When he returns to the bar, a fetching blond who had been indifferent now smiles at him invitingly.
...But the pigs did not fly at two of the four networks where Trojan tried to place the ad.
Fox and CBS both rejected the commercial. Both had accepted Trojan's previous campaign, which urged condom use because of the possibility that a partner might be H.I.V.-positive, perhaps unknowingly. A 2001 report about condom advertising by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that, "Some networks draw a strong line between messages about disease prevention -- which may be allowed -- and those about pregnancy prevention, which may be considered controversial for religious and moral reasons."
...In a written response to Trojan, ... Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."
In its rejection, CBS wrote, "while we understand and appreciate the humor of this creative, we do not find it appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions." ...
The commercial will run on ABC, NBC and nine cable networks, including MTV, Comedy Central and Adult Swim....
Hmmm -- who rejected it? The sister network to Fox News and the flagship network run by Sumner Redstone, who said in 2004 that, even though he's a "liberal Democrat," he was endorsing Bush because "I vote for Viacom."
Redstone's empire does include Comedy Central and MTV, so he's not rejecting the ad altogether -- but the cultural commissars of the right did let him get away with relegating The Reagans, a TV movie made for CBS that they didn't like, to one of his cable channels, Showtime, so I guess the assumption was that the same rules applied here.
Redstone's media outlets sometimes anger the right -- and he seems to like to respond by making grandiose gestures of apology, such as pulling a 60 Minutes story, scheduled for just before the '04 election, on the administration's use of forged documents to sell the Iraq War, or giving a publishing imprint to GOP strategist and Cheney flack Mary Matalin (that's the imprint that published the million-dollar flop book by Mary Cheney, though I'm sure Redstone thinks it was money well spent). This seems like more of the same.
WE ARE THE HUNTED
Anyone else find this story, from the Southern Baptist Convention's news service, a bit creepy?
SAN ANTONIO (BP)--Comparing people who do evangelism to hunting dogs, and those who don't to lap dogs, Bobby Welch encouraged FAITH evangelism luncheon attendees to "get out of the house and do some huntin'!"
Welch, creator of the FAITH evangelism strategy and strategist for global evangelical relations for the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee, joined about 300 others June 12 in San Antonio at the luncheon sponsored by LifeWay Christian Resources.
"We've got the hunting dogs in this room," Welch said. "Lap dogs are those little dogs that stay in the house, sleep on the bed and shiver when it gets cold. You have to feed them certain things, pet them a certain way, and when they go out of the house, they're scared to death.
"But hunting dogs are the ones who live in the yard, always ready to go," he said. "They'll eat whatever you throw out to them and appreciate it. They're never happier than when they are in the back of the truck, heading out to the woods to see what they can track down."
..."The big news is you've been let loose," Welch said. "You can't whine now like a bunch of lap dogs about how LifeWay won't let you do something. It's time for you to get out and hunt."
Is that how Christian-conservative evangelicals see the rest of us -- as prey to be hunted by dogs? And we're the dangerous angry militants (especially those of us who are atheists and agnostics)?
By the way, if I were a white Southern Baptist, I might go a bit light on imagery like this -- for historical reasons.
Anyone else find this story, from the Southern Baptist Convention's news service, a bit creepy?
SAN ANTONIO (BP)--Comparing people who do evangelism to hunting dogs, and those who don't to lap dogs, Bobby Welch encouraged FAITH evangelism luncheon attendees to "get out of the house and do some huntin'!"
Welch, creator of the FAITH evangelism strategy and strategist for global evangelical relations for the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee, joined about 300 others June 12 in San Antonio at the luncheon sponsored by LifeWay Christian Resources.
"We've got the hunting dogs in this room," Welch said. "Lap dogs are those little dogs that stay in the house, sleep on the bed and shiver when it gets cold. You have to feed them certain things, pet them a certain way, and when they go out of the house, they're scared to death.
"But hunting dogs are the ones who live in the yard, always ready to go," he said. "They'll eat whatever you throw out to them and appreciate it. They're never happier than when they are in the back of the truck, heading out to the woods to see what they can track down."
..."The big news is you've been let loose," Welch said. "You can't whine now like a bunch of lap dogs about how LifeWay won't let you do something. It's time for you to get out and hunt."
Is that how Christian-conservative evangelicals see the rest of us -- as prey to be hunted by dogs? And we're the dangerous angry militants (especially those of us who are atheists and agnostics)?
By the way, if I were a white Southern Baptist, I might go a bit light on imagery like this -- for historical reasons.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
MEME TIME
I told you a couple of days ago that this Sean Hannity line was going to become a meme, and now Hannity has Tim Russert agreeing with it:
Hannity to Dick Morris, June 11:
HANNITY: I think the Republicans will win the election because the Democrats are now so positioned left and I think it will be very hard for them to overcome that. Agree or disagree?
MORRIS: Disagree. Hillary will be the next president. But let's all work to try to stop it.
Hannity to Tim Russert, June 13:
Hannity: I think the Democrats have gone further left than anybody would have anticipated. I think these bloggers have really gotten to them. I think they're really positioning themselves that they’re gonna have a very difficult time moving center. Do you see that?
Russert: Absolutely...
Interesting that Democrat-hater Morris wouldn't say "Oh yes, you're so right, Sean" to Hannity, but the allegedly impartial Russert eagerly did so....
****
(Thanks again, Tom and Phil....)
I told you a couple of days ago that this Sean Hannity line was going to become a meme, and now Hannity has Tim Russert agreeing with it:
Hannity to Dick Morris, June 11:
HANNITY: I think the Republicans will win the election because the Democrats are now so positioned left and I think it will be very hard for them to overcome that. Agree or disagree?
MORRIS: Disagree. Hillary will be the next president. But let's all work to try to stop it.
Hannity to Tim Russert, June 13:
Hannity: I think the Democrats have gone further left than anybody would have anticipated. I think these bloggers have really gotten to them. I think they're really positioning themselves that they’re gonna have a very difficult time moving center. Do you see that?
Russert: Absolutely...
Interesting that Democrat-hater Morris wouldn't say "Oh yes, you're so right, Sean" to Hannity, but the allegedly impartial Russert eagerly did so....
****
(Thanks again, Tom and Phil....)
I agree with most of this, but I think Steve is a little unfair to Senator Obama. Obama is going for a post-ideological image, as Dukakis tried to do, but not as a technocrat. Obama is certainly no Dukakis; he's capable of inspiring people in a way Dukakis wasn't (try to imagine Dukakis giving Obama's 2004 convention speech).
I think a better analogy would be Jimmy Carter in 1976, who ran on a platform of...well, basic decency. His pitch was, in effect, that electing a nice not-too-ideological guy like him would help heal the nation from the trauma of Watergate. Obama, I think, is betting that a similar pitch will work after the trauma of Bush. At the same time, Obama's instincts are more progressive than Carter's were, and he's trying to frame progressive values in non-ideological terms--as American values. Which, I think, is exactly what we have to do.
(As for the much-derided part about toning down the rhetoric and healing divisions, I don't have a problem with it; I think some kind of rhetorical de-escalation is exactly what we need right now. Whether Obama can deliver it, whether it's possible at all at this point--those are separate questions, to which I don't have answers.)
From what I've read, where Obama falls short is that he doesn't have the I-feel-your-pain emotional connection to people that President Clinton had. He goes into a room full of seniors, say, and goes into all kinds of detail about policy...but doesn't establish an empathetic connection with them. That, I think, is where he gets the all-head-no-heart rap. He can ace the stump speeches; he can show passion; he just isn't as good at the retail-level emotional thing. (Which, I think, is one of Edwards's strengths.)
So I don't know. I still think Obama has a very good shot at the nomination, and a very good shot at winning if he's nominated. On the other hand, I don't really know anything this far out.
I think a better analogy would be Jimmy Carter in 1976, who ran on a platform of...well, basic decency. His pitch was, in effect, that electing a nice not-too-ideological guy like him would help heal the nation from the trauma of Watergate. Obama, I think, is betting that a similar pitch will work after the trauma of Bush. At the same time, Obama's instincts are more progressive than Carter's were, and he's trying to frame progressive values in non-ideological terms--as American values. Which, I think, is exactly what we have to do.
(As for the much-derided part about toning down the rhetoric and healing divisions, I don't have a problem with it; I think some kind of rhetorical de-escalation is exactly what we need right now. Whether Obama can deliver it, whether it's possible at all at this point--those are separate questions, to which I don't have answers.)
From what I've read, where Obama falls short is that he doesn't have the I-feel-your-pain emotional connection to people that President Clinton had. He goes into a room full of seniors, say, and goes into all kinds of detail about policy...but doesn't establish an empathetic connection with them. That, I think, is where he gets the all-head-no-heart rap. He can ace the stump speeches; he can show passion; he just isn't as good at the retail-level emotional thing. (Which, I think, is one of Edwards's strengths.)
So I don't know. I still think Obama has a very good shot at the nomination, and a very good shot at winning if he's nominated. On the other hand, I don't really know anything this far out.
In a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, President Bush's approvalnumbers have finally broken through to a lvel beneath 30 %. In Salon, Sidney Blumenthal writes that, in the wake of the president's European tour, foreign cabinet leaders are united in believing that "the chief issue in transatlantic relations is somehow making it through the last 18 months of the Bush administration without further major disaster," which is something that, as he wryly puts it, "None of the nonpartisan think tanks in Washington can organize seminars on." A sideshow designed to cheer people up and make them feel protected after 9/11, the Iraq War never had anything to do with national security; now that it is recognized by all undeluded observers as a failed and misbegotten policy, a machine for chewing up money and lives, it is set to grind on for another year and a half so that Bush can spend his retirement insisting that it was just about to start working when his predecessor turned off the tap. No one else will make a real move to stop it because we're heading into an election year and no one of either party wants his fingerprints on it in case it takes a turn for the even more horrible. Eager to whore themselves out to a base that really wants God knows what, Republican candidates like Rudy Giuliani have decided they're running against a move to bring back the '90s, a time when we were on the verge of ceasing to be a debtor nation and when people who blew up Americans were simply arrested and put on trial without anyone screaming that the world was ending unless we shredded the Constitution and declared basic decency "quaint". I didn't realize that Giuliani thought the '90s wereso godawful when he was living through them. I thought he looked as if he was having a fine time strutting around New York City and bragging of having cleaned the place up single-handedly. He claims to be aghast at the possibility that we might ever return to peace and properity, though, just as Trent Lott, reeling in dismay from the attempt to hold a vote of no confidence over Alberto Gonzalez's hollow head, rewarded the British for their role in the coalition of the willing by assuring Americans that we would never sink to the level of those Limey fancy pants and their weird ways. Lott seemed to think that if the vote passed, the next move would be holding Question Time in the U.S. Congress. Asking for competence from department heads, expecting the president to actually drop by and explain what the hell he's doing to a bunch of elected representatives of the loser American public: why not just send sky writing planes over Osama bin Laden's camp to spell out the message "YOU'VE WON!!" in the clouds? And then, in the midst of all this, the following story by Ted Gregory appeared in Chicago Tribune on Thursday, June 14:
About two years ago, Villa Park patriots came up with a noble plan to create a veterans memorial in Cortesi Veterans Memorial Park, a patch of tranquility that measures three-tenths of an acre in the center of town.
Led by Village President Joyce Stupegia and Trustee Richard Illian, the advocates collected about $2,000 from businesses, then designed and ordered a plaque.
But now, instead of celebrating community reverence for those who served in the military, Stupegia and the group find they have offended vets. Plans for a dedication ceremony have been scrapped, and Stupegia must return to donors with unfortunate news: The plaque will continue gathering dust.
The rub is, the plaque lists not a single local veteran, only business sponsors and local elected officials.
"It isn't a memorial plaque to our veterans," said Sid Bergh, a member of the local VFW who served as a Navy aerial gunner in World War II. "It's just an advertising plaque."
Bergh, 80, a former village trustee, was among three vets who voiced their opposition to the plaque at a Village Board meeting Monday, catching Stupegia by "complete surprise," she said. She had been searching for a date when VFW members, sponsors and veterans' families could attend a dedication ceremony.
"Obviously, they don't want it there," Stupegia said. "So, I wouldn't put it there. I'm not going to fight the military. That was not my objective."
The plaque measures about 18 inches tall by 14 inches wide. The top third of it contains the words "Veteran's Memorial of Villa Park," followed by the dedication: "To all the men and women of our village who have served in the military and to their families for their sacrifices."
The lower two-thirds of the plaque extends gratitude and lists seven businesses and the village for contributing to the project. Stupegia's and Illian's names are at the bottom.
"I looked at it and I said, `Oh my God,'" village trustee and Army vet Thomas Cullerton said Wednesday. "This is not a selfless act of dedication to our veterans."
A selfless act does not include the names of contributors, Cullerton said, adding that Stupegia and Illian proceeded without approval from the Village Board or local veterans.
"There are many different ways you can do this," Cullerton said. "The key is learning how to partner with other people instead of figuring out a way to get your name on a plaque on display in the village forever."
Stupegia contends that she referred to the plan two years ago in a talk to the local VFW and asked for the organization's help in obtaining funding. In the weeks after, Stupegia said, she sought support from businesses throughout town.
"Our letters went out and those that responded are those that are thanked with a name on the plaque," Stupegia said. "The business people came forward. They wanted to be involved."
Bergh said he did not recall Stupegia's request at the VFW. Cullerton said he first heard of the plaque in January, when, he said, Stupegia announced it at a Village Board meeting. He hadn't heard anything more about it until he saw the plaque in a municipal building about two months ago.
He showed a rendering to veterans a few weeks ago. All of them objected to it, he said.
"Anything you want to do is fine," Bergh said Wednesday, "but I just don't want to make a joke out of it by turning it into an advertisement."
Bergh and Cullerton suggested that veterans' names be listed on the plaque. But Stupegia said naming all veterans from Villa Park would be impossible, a realization that prompted her to direct that the plaque be "a little more generic."
Stupegia said that her plans are up in the air, and that she would consult with donors.
"I'm disappointed," she said. "I believe this is somewhat of a slap in the face to the business community who contributes so much to so many projects in town."
I'm disappointed, too. I think the plaque sounds perfect. Writing the names of fallen soldiers that they might be remembered is so Vietnam! Sid Bergh and Thomas Cullerton need to get with the program. Repeat after me: you don't show support for troops by respecting their lives and giving them body armor, you respect the troops by cooking up unnecessary situations in which they can get killed, making sure they're underfunded and overextended, and then keeping things dragged out for as long as possible--not because dragging things out does any good or serves some point, but because you can always tell people that things might be even worse if you stopped dragging them out. As for this business of listing the names of the fallen, where were these guys when the White House was explaining that the news media shouldn't show pictures of soldiers' coffins, and reporters shouldn't read the names of dead soldiers, and the president certainly can't be going to any funerals, because all these things wouls make it seem that actual human beings are losing their lives over this stupid, needless operation, and that would eat into public support and make it harder to keep it going so that others can have the honor of not having their deaths reported or their funerals attended by the president?
By contrast, Ms. Stupegia understands what it means to pay tribute to war veterans in the modern Republican age. She understands this as well as President Bush and Vice-President Cheney and any of the Republican presidential candidates. One pays tribute to those who have died defending our country by inviting others to applaud your show of patriotism in claiming to care about the veterans. You wouldn't want to actually cite any veterans by name or see their faces or even pictures of their coffins; that would be a bringdown. It might even discourage war, and then what would you support to show your patriotism, especially at a time when the president himself and his abettors have declared their own contempt for the outdated principles our country stands for? If the Vietnam War Memorial had been designed in the age of Bush, it would have been decorated with the names of the companies that manufactured defolient and Agent Orange, and indeed, what could be more patriotic at a time when average Americans are called upon to show their defiance against terrorism by shopping till they drop? The fact that there were protests against Ms. Stupegia's effort to demonstrate her and her friends' nobility by giving people a chance to appreciate how much more patriotic they are than business owners who don't have a plaque testifying to how doggedly, come hell or high water, they support the troops--this is evidence that there are still traces in our culture of a sentimentality that associates real heroism with action and sacrifice, something that you can't pay to have printed on something you special-ordered at the gift and trophy shop. But even if the Ms. Stupegias of this world have to bide their time, they will ultimately prevail. They are on the cutting edge.
[x-posted at The Phil Nugent Experience]
Saturday, June 16, 2007
IRAQ: OPINIONS DIFFER
One man's opinion:
One man's opinion:
Gen. Petraeus and other U.S. officials in Iraq emphasize that it is still too soon to draw hard judgments about the success of our new security strategy--but during my visit I saw hopeful signs of progress. Consider Anbar province, Iraq's heart of darkness for most of the past four years....When I returned to Anbar on this trip, however, the security environment had undergone a dramatic reversal.And the opinions of some other men:
In Baghdad, U.S. forces have cut in half the number of Iraqi deaths from sectarian violence since the surge began in February....
Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite gains in Baghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country, such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the "surge" has focused....
To be sure, there are still daunting challenges ahead. Iraqi political leaders, in particular, need to step forward and urgently work through difficult political questions....
I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw....And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there....
"We're not making any progress," Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. "It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at."Who you gonna believe: a bunch of nobodies, or a United States Senator?
But as he waited two chairs down from where Lieberman would sit, Hedin said he'd never voice his true feelings to the senator.
"I think I'd be a private if I did," he joked. "It's just more troops, more targets."
In the past two months, the unit has lost two men. In May alone, at least 120 U.S. troops died in Iraq, the bloodiest month in 2007 and the highest number since the battles of Fallujah in 2004.
Spc. Kevin Krasco, 20, of Medford, Mass., and Spc. Kevin Adams, 20, of Moosup, Conn., chimed in with their dismay before turning the conversation to baseball.
"It's like everything else in this war," Adams said, referring to Baghdad. "It hasn't changed."
Friday, June 15, 2007
NO COUNTERMOBILIZATION IN MASSACHUSETTS
Yesterday's victory for marriage equality in Massachusetts prompted me to revisit something I wrote back in October 2005, and rereading it I think it's still valid today:
Yesterday's victory for marriage equality in Massachusetts prompted me to revisit something I wrote back in October 2005, and rereading it I think it's still valid today:
Last month, a year or so after the Massachusetts Supreme Court invalidated the state's marriage laws (effectively establishing same-sex marriage in the state), the Massachusetts legislature voted 157 - 39 against a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. This is a bill that passed 102 - 92 just last year. Meanwhile, polls show that something like 56% of Massachusetts residents approve of gay marriage--a huge turnaround in public opinion from a year ago. So what's changed since then? One thing: people in Massachusetts are now responding to the reality of gay marriage, instead of their preconceptions about it. Apparently, the reality isn't so bad, more Ozzie and Harriet and less Folsom Street than they envisioned....The struggle for marriage equality is really 50 different struggles in 50 states, and most of them aren't going to be much like Massachusetts. At the same time, the Massachusetts experience does show that countermobilization isn't a given, and makes a lousy argument against progressive change--especially where the long-term trend is overwhelmingly favorable to change.
All of which serves to undermine the position of people who, like Debra Saunders, argue that gay marriage should be established by referendum rather than by the courts or the legislature. Saunders, a libertarian-leaning Republican who is sympathetic on gay rights, misses the point when she argues thatSupporters of same-sex marriage should ask themselves if they want to win their cause without public support or -- even if it takes a little longer -- with public support.Because the Massachusetts experience, like Executive Order 9981, shows that it doesn't always happen that way. Because prejudice is fear, and people naturally fear the unknown, and so to defeat prejudice sometimes you have to make them know the thing they feared instead of waiting for them to stop fearing it.
HILLARY, ALAS
I'm glad Jerome Armstrong wrote "Hillary's Race to Lose" (also available here) because it's high time Democrats realized that we really are on the verge of nominating our most beatable top-tier candidate, and she really does seem unstoppable. Any Democrat who runs is going to have trouble getting past the man-crushes most Beltway journalists have on Fred and Mitt and Rudy and John, but Hillary is hobbled beyond that by a level of voter skepticism she doesn't know how to reverse. Short version: We're in trouble. If Jerome's post helps people come to terms with that reality, hallelujah.
But the headline misrepresents the post, which is less about Hillary and more about the shortcomings of the Obama and Edwards campaigns. I think Jerome is off base regarding Obama -- Obama may not be building a genuine netroots-based movement, but that's not why he's mired in second place. He's mired because he seems to be running as a taller, less pale Dukakis. (Obama: "When you focus on solving problems instead of scoring political points, and emphasize common sense over ideology, you'd be surprised what can be accomplished"; Dukakis: "This election is not about ideology, it's about competence.") Obama doesn't seem to want to rouse voters, doesn't seem to want to lose his white-collar Ivy League cool, doesn't seem to want to say anything bold or say anything boldly.
I wonder if he fears he'll be put in the angry-black pigeonhole if he ever raises his voice or lets the passion show. I understand that; but as an Italian -- as a member, in other words, of a white ethnic group that's also sometimes stereotyped as favoring emotion over thought -- I see that it's a problem that can be overcome. Giuliani doesn't talk like Joe Pesci, yet the emotion shows through. Mario Cuomo, in his prime, put emotion into great oratory. You have to find a middle ground where voters see thought and passion. Obama relies almost exclusively on the former, and it's killing him at the polls.
I think Jerome is on firmer ground regarding Edwards -- he doesn't seem to know how to avoid bad press. He doesn't seem to grasp that the GOP attack machine is a violent, abusive dad, and you have to walk into the house every day knowing it might take a swing at you. You have to have an intuitive sense of what sets it off, and you have to know how to avoid getting seriously hurt when it is set off. I guess it's no surprise that the one Democratic president we've elected in the past thirty years was the stepson of just such an abuser -- and maybe Hillary's survived this far in combat with the GOP because (if Carl Bernstein's book is correct) her father was rather nasty as well. Nevertheless, Edwards has to learn how to deal with that challenge, or he's toast.
And yet Edwards and Obama are still doing better in head-to-head matchups with Republicans than Hillary is. I guess my pessimism derives from that: We have three front-runners -- two apparently unable to win the nomination and the other apparently unable to win the election.
I'm glad Jerome Armstrong wrote "Hillary's Race to Lose" (also available here) because it's high time Democrats realized that we really are on the verge of nominating our most beatable top-tier candidate, and she really does seem unstoppable. Any Democrat who runs is going to have trouble getting past the man-crushes most Beltway journalists have on Fred and Mitt and Rudy and John, but Hillary is hobbled beyond that by a level of voter skepticism she doesn't know how to reverse. Short version: We're in trouble. If Jerome's post helps people come to terms with that reality, hallelujah.
But the headline misrepresents the post, which is less about Hillary and more about the shortcomings of the Obama and Edwards campaigns. I think Jerome is off base regarding Obama -- Obama may not be building a genuine netroots-based movement, but that's not why he's mired in second place. He's mired because he seems to be running as a taller, less pale Dukakis. (Obama: "When you focus on solving problems instead of scoring political points, and emphasize common sense over ideology, you'd be surprised what can be accomplished"; Dukakis: "This election is not about ideology, it's about competence.") Obama doesn't seem to want to rouse voters, doesn't seem to want to lose his white-collar Ivy League cool, doesn't seem to want to say anything bold or say anything boldly.
I wonder if he fears he'll be put in the angry-black pigeonhole if he ever raises his voice or lets the passion show. I understand that; but as an Italian -- as a member, in other words, of a white ethnic group that's also sometimes stereotyped as favoring emotion over thought -- I see that it's a problem that can be overcome. Giuliani doesn't talk like Joe Pesci, yet the emotion shows through. Mario Cuomo, in his prime, put emotion into great oratory. You have to find a middle ground where voters see thought and passion. Obama relies almost exclusively on the former, and it's killing him at the polls.
I think Jerome is on firmer ground regarding Edwards -- he doesn't seem to know how to avoid bad press. He doesn't seem to grasp that the GOP attack machine is a violent, abusive dad, and you have to walk into the house every day knowing it might take a swing at you. You have to have an intuitive sense of what sets it off, and you have to know how to avoid getting seriously hurt when it is set off. I guess it's no surprise that the one Democratic president we've elected in the past thirty years was the stepson of just such an abuser -- and maybe Hillary's survived this far in combat with the GOP because (if Carl Bernstein's book is correct) her father was rather nasty as well. Nevertheless, Edwards has to learn how to deal with that challenge, or he's toast.
And yet Edwards and Obama are still doing better in head-to-head matchups with Republicans than Hillary is. I guess my pessimism derives from that: We have three front-runners -- two apparently unable to win the nomination and the other apparently unable to win the election.
GIULIANI/LIEBERMAN '08?
I don't call it "The War on Terror," I call it "The Terrorists War Against Us."
--Rudy Giuliani, fund-raiser in California, March 5
The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.
--Rudy Giuliani, campaign appearance, April 24
The term "global war on terror" ... "served its purpose for a while" but he now thinks "terrorists' war against us" is more helpful and accurate, he said.
--USA Today on Rudy Giuliani, May 2
In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us.
--Senator Joe Lieberman, Wall Street Journal op-ed today
Coincidence?
Or are these two self-righteous blowhards from neighboring states, both of whom believe they embody the foreign policy of the United States personally, starting to exchange pompous-rhetoric tips?
We know Lieberman will endorse Giuliani in '08 (or Thompson or Romney or McCain). But is there more to this than that?
****
As for the rest of the Lieberman op-ed: Don't bother. It's exactly what you'd expect -- the evildoers want to kill us so no criticism of the war strategy is ever acceptable, Baghdad and Anbar are better and pay no attention to the rest of the country where violence is increasing. Well, maybe that's not exactly what he's saying. What he's actually saying is that the Whack-a-Mole results of the surge actually prove we're winning:
Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite gains in Baghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country, such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the "surge" has focused. Al Qaeda has shifted its operations to places like Diyala in large measure because we have made progress in pushing them out of Anbar and Baghdad. The question now is, do we consolidate and build on the successes that the new strategy has achieved, keeping al Qaeda on the run, or do we abandon them?
Yeah, that's the question. So what's the answer, Joe? A surge on top of a surge? With what troops?
I don't call it "The War on Terror," I call it "The Terrorists War Against Us."
--Rudy Giuliani, fund-raiser in California, March 5
The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.
--Rudy Giuliani, campaign appearance, April 24
The term "global war on terror" ... "served its purpose for a while" but he now thinks "terrorists' war against us" is more helpful and accurate, he said.
--USA Today on Rudy Giuliani, May 2
In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us.
--Senator Joe Lieberman, Wall Street Journal op-ed today
Coincidence?
Or are these two self-righteous blowhards from neighboring states, both of whom believe they embody the foreign policy of the United States personally, starting to exchange pompous-rhetoric tips?
We know Lieberman will endorse Giuliani in '08 (or Thompson or Romney or McCain). But is there more to this than that?
****
As for the rest of the Lieberman op-ed: Don't bother. It's exactly what you'd expect -- the evildoers want to kill us so no criticism of the war strategy is ever acceptable, Baghdad and Anbar are better and pay no attention to the rest of the country where violence is increasing. Well, maybe that's not exactly what he's saying. What he's actually saying is that the Whack-a-Mole results of the surge actually prove we're winning:
Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite gains in Baghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country, such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the "surge" has focused. Al Qaeda has shifted its operations to places like Diyala in large measure because we have made progress in pushing them out of Anbar and Baghdad. The question now is, do we consolidate and build on the successes that the new strategy has achieved, keeping al Qaeda on the run, or do we abandon them?
Yeah, that's the question. So what's the answer, Joe? A surge on top of a surge? With what troops?
Thursday, June 14, 2007
WINGNUTTERY'S SECOND FRONT
You know Albania worships Bush as a god and Poland fears gay marriage and gay Teletubbies. Well, here's Czech presidentVaclas Vaclav Klaus in the Financial Times with an op-ed that makes him sound like the third Limbaugh brother:
We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough -- irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent -- for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.
In the past year, Al Gore's so-called "documentary" film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain's -- more or less Tony Blair’s -- Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.
The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: "the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda"....
Crichton? OK, I've had enough.
I guess I've adjusted to the fact that the nations of Eastern Europe are exceedingly fond of the U.S., even (or perhaps especially) under our current president. What surprises -- and scares -- me is that we have here a head of state writing as if he's auditioning for a weekly column at Townhall. And probably passing the audition.
My favorite Klaus line:
Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus", which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.
Always? Is that true for, say, the assertion that HIV causes AIDS, or that the planets revolve around the sun? Were these beliefs forced on us by a "loud minority"?
You know Albania worships Bush as a god and Poland fears gay marriage and gay Teletubbies. Well, here's Czech president
We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough -- irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent -- for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.
In the past year, Al Gore's so-called "documentary" film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain's -- more or less Tony Blair’s -- Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.
The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: "the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda"....
Crichton? OK, I've had enough.
I guess I've adjusted to the fact that the nations of Eastern Europe are exceedingly fond of the U.S., even (or perhaps especially) under our current president. What surprises -- and scares -- me is that we have here a head of state writing as if he's auditioning for a weekly column at Townhall. And probably passing the audition.
My favorite Klaus line:
Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus", which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.
Always? Is that true for, say, the assertion that HIV causes AIDS, or that the planets revolve around the sun? Were these beliefs forced on us by a "loud minority"?
BEGGING THE MONSTER TO COME BACK TO THE LAB
Oh my -- it appears that the White House actually sent an underling to Free Republic, in a desperate attempt to get the rabble to stop being mean about the immigration bill:
A spokeman for the Bush administration sent an e-mail to Jim Robinson and myself confirming the authenticity of a post on Free Republic this afternoon regarding the immigration bill currently before the Senate as having been posted on behalf of the White House.
The spokesman, Nicholas Thompson, works for the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. The Politico reported yesterday that Thompson and Kerrie Rushton, associate directors in the Office of Strategic Initiatives who work under Karl Rove, would be engaging the blogosphere on the immigration bill.
Thompson's post is on the thread titled Penalty Mitigation in the Immigration Reform Bill, a vanity posted by philman_36. Thompson posted at comment #53....
Thompson's confirmation e-mail includes a brief introduction ("...The White House appreciates the opportunity to respond on Free Republic...."), followed by the text of comment #53, which explains that the White House thinks hiring illegals is bad and should be punished, but not when an employer really-really-really didn't know the employees were undocumented -- oh, and by the way, the administration has assessed a lot of fines.
The Freepers are unmoved:
Hi, Nicholas. We will be able to have a reasonable discussion only AFTER you close the borders, build a wall, make Mexico pay for the criminals they have sent us, make Mexico pay for medical care for their citizens, and send employers to jail who have violated the law.
Until the President has proven he has taken his oath of office seriously in this matter, go pound sand.
*****
WHERE’S THE FENCE?
*****
How is this different from the current law? BS! Screw this administration!
*****
They can post and spin all the cr*p they want, but I don’t buy it, I don’t like it, I don’t trust them and I’m furious. I will never again dontate money or vote for any politian who supports this Zamnisty bill!!!
*****
1-20-2009
I campaigned very hard and spent a lot of money twice to help elect Bush. I don’t think I have ever been as disappointed politically in a winning candidate....
Granted, he scored some hits and was stellar after 9-11, but the dogs just kept coming and his desire to make mexican illegals a plurality or majority in my country that my ancestors have lived and fought in since Jamestown makes my blood boil...livid is the right word.
All I want the next 16 months from this outfit is to pack their bags and not do anymore damage and pray to God we can get someone who understands the base and the culture war and at the same times stave off the Democrats who represent their base and what they stand all too well.
Coulda been a contender.
The Free Republic/talk radio/Fox News crowd is a mob the Republican Party has used for years to keep the rest of us in line; it's not a physically violent mob, but for years the GOP has been able to rally it whenever the political tide has threatened to go in a way Republicans don't like.
And now it's turned on the head of the party.
Oh my -- it appears that the White House actually sent an underling to Free Republic, in a desperate attempt to get the rabble to stop being mean about the immigration bill:
A spokeman for the Bush administration sent an e-mail to Jim Robinson and myself confirming the authenticity of a post on Free Republic this afternoon regarding the immigration bill currently before the Senate as having been posted on behalf of the White House.
The spokesman, Nicholas Thompson, works for the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. The Politico reported yesterday that Thompson and Kerrie Rushton, associate directors in the Office of Strategic Initiatives who work under Karl Rove, would be engaging the blogosphere on the immigration bill.
Thompson's post is on the thread titled Penalty Mitigation in the Immigration Reform Bill, a vanity posted by philman_36. Thompson posted at comment #53....
Thompson's confirmation e-mail includes a brief introduction ("...The White House appreciates the opportunity to respond on Free Republic...."), followed by the text of comment #53, which explains that the White House thinks hiring illegals is bad and should be punished, but not when an employer really-really-really didn't know the employees were undocumented -- oh, and by the way, the administration has assessed a lot of fines.
The Freepers are unmoved:
Hi, Nicholas. We will be able to have a reasonable discussion only AFTER you close the borders, build a wall, make Mexico pay for the criminals they have sent us, make Mexico pay for medical care for their citizens, and send employers to jail who have violated the law.
Until the President has proven he has taken his oath of office seriously in this matter, go pound sand.
*****
WHERE’S THE FENCE?
*****
How is this different from the current law? BS! Screw this administration!
*****
They can post and spin all the cr*p they want, but I don’t buy it, I don’t like it, I don’t trust them and I’m furious. I will never again dontate money or vote for any politian who supports this Zamnisty bill!!!
*****
1-20-2009
I campaigned very hard and spent a lot of money twice to help elect Bush. I don’t think I have ever been as disappointed politically in a winning candidate....
Granted, he scored some hits and was stellar after 9-11, but the dogs just kept coming and his desire to make mexican illegals a plurality or majority in my country that my ancestors have lived and fought in since Jamestown makes my blood boil...livid is the right word.
All I want the next 16 months from this outfit is to pack their bags and not do anymore damage and pray to God we can get someone who understands the base and the culture war and at the same times stave off the Democrats who represent their base and what they stand all too well.
Coulda been a contender.
The Free Republic/talk radio/Fox News crowd is a mob the Republican Party has used for years to keep the rest of us in line; it's not a physically violent mob, but for years the GOP has been able to rally it whenever the political tide has threatened to go in a way Republicans don't like.
And now it's turned on the head of the party.
SHORTER DAVID BRODER
The public is really going to punish Harry Reid for blocking an immigrational bill that nobody actually likes.
Yeah, right -- the entire base of the president's party absolutely despises this bill and considers killing it an absolute top priority, yet its failure to pass is Harry Reid's fault. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Right now, I don't know which beef is sillier -- McCain's beef with Romney (has anyone ever expended more effort to finish third?) or Broder's beef with Reid.
The public is really going to punish Harry Reid for blocking an immigrational bill that nobody actually likes.
Yeah, right -- the entire base of the president's party absolutely despises this bill and considers killing it an absolute top priority, yet its failure to pass is Harry Reid's fault. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Right now, I don't know which beef is sillier -- McCain's beef with Romney (has anyone ever expended more effort to finish third?) or Broder's beef with Reid.
I sense a meme coming on.
Sean Hannity on Fox News, June 11:
I think the Republicans will win the election because the Democrats are now so positioned left and I think it will be very hard for them to overcome that.
Republican-pretending-to-be-a-Democrat Camille Paglia in Salon, June 13:
...too many Democrats seem to believe that their party will simply sail into the White House in 2008.... The confident Republican foregrounding of military and security issues is going to present a very high hurdle to the Democratic nominee. Democrats are already acquiring a dismaying reputation for underestimating the threat of global terrorism.
Can the righties get this one to cross over? Sure, why not? Never mind the fact that everyone who could possibly get the Republican presidential nomination is beyond the pale on Iraq as far as the American public is concerned, and every Democrat who can be nominated is well within the mainstream -- we'll just be told, repeatedly, that the Republicans are in the sensible center and the Democrats are scarily off to the left. I think this line is going mainstream soon.
****
Oh, and a bit more from Paglia's column. Just try to follow the logic of this if you have unaltered brain cells:
As a global warming agnostic, I dislike the way that Gore's preachy, apocalyptic fundamentalism has fomented an atmosphere of hysteria around this issue and potentially compromised the long-term credibility of environmentalism....
My own philosophy about earth's titanic, humanity-dwarfing operations is contained in a curious video I recently found on YouTube.com. Clips of volcanic eruptions and magma flows are set to the abstract "psychedelic" music of a California rock group, the Danbury Shakes. This eerie fusion of lurid natural images with a distorted, clashing soundscape is richly evocative of a 1960s vision that has been lost. The '60s revolution, as I've argued elsewhere, was about much more than politics. Fanaticism about global warming reduces the eternal terrors of nature to a banal political melodrama.
Yeah! Volcanos erupt, therefore global warming can't really be a big problem -- the connection is just so obvious! The whole planet can't possibly be getting warmer because people in Pompeii were, like, sealed in magma, man! Volcanoes are, like, so cosmic. Did I tell you my aunt Camille knew a guy who knew a guy who used to buy blotter from Owsley?
Duuuude! Look at your hands! No, I'm serious, dude -- have you ever really looked at your hands?
Sean Hannity on Fox News, June 11:
I think the Republicans will win the election because the Democrats are now so positioned left and I think it will be very hard for them to overcome that.
Republican-pretending-to-be-a-Democrat Camille Paglia in Salon, June 13:
...too many Democrats seem to believe that their party will simply sail into the White House in 2008.... The confident Republican foregrounding of military and security issues is going to present a very high hurdle to the Democratic nominee. Democrats are already acquiring a dismaying reputation for underestimating the threat of global terrorism.
Can the righties get this one to cross over? Sure, why not? Never mind the fact that everyone who could possibly get the Republican presidential nomination is beyond the pale on Iraq as far as the American public is concerned, and every Democrat who can be nominated is well within the mainstream -- we'll just be told, repeatedly, that the Republicans are in the sensible center and the Democrats are scarily off to the left. I think this line is going mainstream soon.
****
Oh, and a bit more from Paglia's column. Just try to follow the logic of this if you have unaltered brain cells:
As a global warming agnostic, I dislike the way that Gore's preachy, apocalyptic fundamentalism has fomented an atmosphere of hysteria around this issue and potentially compromised the long-term credibility of environmentalism....
My own philosophy about earth's titanic, humanity-dwarfing operations is contained in a curious video I recently found on YouTube.com. Clips of volcanic eruptions and magma flows are set to the abstract "psychedelic" music of a California rock group, the Danbury Shakes. This eerie fusion of lurid natural images with a distorted, clashing soundscape is richly evocative of a 1960s vision that has been lost. The '60s revolution, as I've argued elsewhere, was about much more than politics. Fanaticism about global warming reduces the eternal terrors of nature to a banal political melodrama.
Yeah! Volcanos erupt, therefore global warming can't really be a big problem -- the connection is just so obvious! The whole planet can't possibly be getting warmer because people in Pompeii were, like, sealed in magma, man! Volcanoes are, like, so cosmic. Did I tell you my aunt Camille knew a guy who knew a guy who used to buy blotter from Owsley?
Duuuude! Look at your hands! No, I'm serious, dude -- have you ever really looked at your hands?
FAMILY VALUES IN THE LOUISIANA GOP
Being a Northeasterner, I didn't realize until just now that country singer Lorrie Morgan is now on her fifth husband -- which is relevant to the usual subject matter of this blog not only because a guy she dated but didn't marry, Fred Thompson, might become the next (Republican) president of the United States, but also because fellow country singer Sammy Kershaw, her current husband (who is also one of her previous husbands), is now a (Republican) candidate for lieutenant governor of Louisiana and says he intends to be governor one day.
So much for the GOP as the party of "family values." (And, once again, we see that "Shut Up and Sing!" applies exclusively to Democrats.)
Oh, and I seem to have heard that voters nationwide might reject Hillary Clinton's presidential bid because (in the words of the Politico's John Harris) "There's going to be a lot of people who say look, I just don't want to go back and relive the 1990s. I've had it with the soap opera." Apparently no one in the Kershaw campaign (or the Thompson campaign) thinks an aversion to reliving soap operas will be a problem vis-a-vis Lorrie Morgan. (Did I mention another previous husband of hers, Keith Whitley, who died of alcohol poisoning? And getting back to Kershaw, did I mention his recent bankruptcy filing?)
The GOP: the party of "family values" and "traditional values" -- for other people.
****
CLARIFICATION: I'm not saying Lorrie Morgan's values were the cause of Keith Whitley's death -- though if she were the possible future Democratic First Lady of a U.S. state, or the ex-girlfriend of a possible future Democratic president, I think someone might say just that.
Being a Northeasterner, I didn't realize until just now that country singer Lorrie Morgan is now on her fifth husband -- which is relevant to the usual subject matter of this blog not only because a guy she dated but didn't marry, Fred Thompson, might become the next (Republican) president of the United States, but also because fellow country singer Sammy Kershaw, her current husband (who is also one of her previous husbands), is now a (Republican) candidate for lieutenant governor of Louisiana and says he intends to be governor one day.
So much for the GOP as the party of "family values." (And, once again, we see that "Shut Up and Sing!" applies exclusively to Democrats.)
Oh, and I seem to have heard that voters nationwide might reject Hillary Clinton's presidential bid because (in the words of the Politico's John Harris) "There's going to be a lot of people who say look, I just don't want to go back and relive the 1990s. I've had it with the soap opera." Apparently no one in the Kershaw campaign (or the Thompson campaign) thinks an aversion to reliving soap operas will be a problem vis-a-vis Lorrie Morgan. (Did I mention another previous husband of hers, Keith Whitley, who died of alcohol poisoning? And getting back to Kershaw, did I mention his recent bankruptcy filing?)
The GOP: the party of "family values" and "traditional values" -- for other people.
****
CLARIFICATION: I'm not saying Lorrie Morgan's values were the cause of Keith Whitley's death -- though if she were the possible future Democratic First Lady of a U.S. state, or the ex-girlfriend of a possible future Democratic president, I think someone might say just that.
HILLARY CLINTON AND PANCHO VILLA
What's the connection? Let Tom Hilton explain.
(Bumped up because I buried it last night trying to respond to that tempest in a teapot about Obama's general counsel calling for a Libby pardon.)
What's the connection? Let Tom Hilton explain.
(Bumped up because I buried it last night trying to respond to that tempest in a teapot about Obama's general counsel calling for a Libby pardon.)
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
IN ROBERT BAUER'S DEFENSE
There's a lot of piling on in the left blogosphere right now, in reaction to a Huffington Post article in which Robert Bauer, Barack Obama's general counsel, says a Scooter Libby pardon would be a good thing because it would taint Bush in a way he's managed to avoid being tainted by Plamegate.
I'm not going to defend Bauer's argument, which I think is a crock (as Digby says, Bush won't be harshly criticized by the chatterers, and as I've said for months, Bush generally doesn't give a crap about the approval of anyone but right-wingers in any case), but I will say this: Can you blame Bauer for thinking a pardon carries political risks for Bush? He's just reciting what practically everyone in the Beltway thinks.
The Washington Post:
The sentence imposed on former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby yesterday put President Bush in the position of making a decision he has tried to avoid for months: Trigger a fresh political storm by pardoning a convicted perjurer or let one of the early architects of his administration head to prison.
The New York Times:
A pardon for Mr. Libby would attract more painful attention to a case from which Mr. Bush had managed to keep his distance for more than three years, a case inextricably linked to the flawed intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and an administration effort to discredit a critic that ultimately exposed a C.I.A. officer. The Democrats who control Congress would be none too pleased, either.
A pardon could harm his reputation and spoil his legacy -- our papers of record say so, therefore it must be true.
And by the way, what's the difference between what Bauer published today and what Ezra Klein wrote in March? Ezra:
I'd actually prefer a pardon -- it would focus the historical attention on the Bush administration, leave his legacy stained from the outset, and come closer to harming the prime movers behind the Plame Affair...
Bauer:
A pardon brings the president into the heart of the case. It compels him to do what he has so far managed to avoid: accept in some way responsibility for the conduct of his Administration in communicating with the public about national security and in its treatment of dissent. If the pardon would be politically explosive, then this is what the administration's critics, hungering for accountability, have been waiting for.
I don't recall any piling on in response to Ezra's post. Why is Bauer being subjected to worse treatment?
There's a lot of piling on in the left blogosphere right now, in reaction to a Huffington Post article in which Robert Bauer, Barack Obama's general counsel, says a Scooter Libby pardon would be a good thing because it would taint Bush in a way he's managed to avoid being tainted by Plamegate.
I'm not going to defend Bauer's argument, which I think is a crock (as Digby says, Bush won't be harshly criticized by the chatterers, and as I've said for months, Bush generally doesn't give a crap about the approval of anyone but right-wingers in any case), but I will say this: Can you blame Bauer for thinking a pardon carries political risks for Bush? He's just reciting what practically everyone in the Beltway thinks.
The Washington Post:
The sentence imposed on former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby yesterday put President Bush in the position of making a decision he has tried to avoid for months: Trigger a fresh political storm by pardoning a convicted perjurer or let one of the early architects of his administration head to prison.
The New York Times:
A pardon for Mr. Libby would attract more painful attention to a case from which Mr. Bush had managed to keep his distance for more than three years, a case inextricably linked to the flawed intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and an administration effort to discredit a critic that ultimately exposed a C.I.A. officer. The Democrats who control Congress would be none too pleased, either.
A pardon could harm his reputation and spoil his legacy -- our papers of record say so, therefore it must be true.
And by the way, what's the difference between what Bauer published today and what Ezra Klein wrote in March? Ezra:
I'd actually prefer a pardon -- it would focus the historical attention on the Bush administration, leave his legacy stained from the outset, and come closer to harming the prime movers behind the Plame Affair...
Bauer:
A pardon brings the president into the heart of the case. It compels him to do what he has so far managed to avoid: accept in some way responsibility for the conduct of his Administration in communicating with the public about national security and in its treatment of dissent. If the pardon would be politically explosive, then this is what the administration's critics, hungering for accountability, have been waiting for.
I don't recall any piling on in response to Ezra's post. Why is Bauer being subjected to worse treatment?
THOSE DAMN HILLARY CLINTON BOOKS
The Carl Bernstein book couldn't get any higher on the New York Times bestseller list in its first week out than #7.
The Gerth/Van Natta book isn't even in the top 35 (though it didn't arrive in the stores until later in the week).
Moral (choose one): The number of people who are fascinated by her is greatly exaggerated. The number of people who despise her enough to buy these books is greatly exaggerated.
What's #1? The Reagan Diaries. Oh, Christ, let's just bow to the inevitable and elect his corpse president in '08.
(This list has been circulated via e-mail and will appear on the Times Web site over the weekend.)
****
OH, AND: Now at #3 on the Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous hardcover list is Culturally Incorrect by Rod Parsley, a favorite pulpit-pounder of Ann Coulter, Alan Keyes, and Ken Blackwell. Ick.
The Carl Bernstein book couldn't get any higher on the New York Times bestseller list in its first week out than #7.
The Gerth/Van Natta book isn't even in the top 35 (though it didn't arrive in the stores until later in the week).
Moral (choose one): The number of people who are fascinated by her is greatly exaggerated. The number of people who despise her enough to buy these books is greatly exaggerated.
What's #1? The Reagan Diaries. Oh, Christ, let's just bow to the inevitable and elect his corpse president in '08.
(This list has been circulated via e-mail and will appear on the Times Web site over the weekend.)
****
OH, AND: Now at #3 on the Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous hardcover list is Culturally Incorrect by Rod Parsley, a favorite pulpit-pounder of Ann Coulter, Alan Keyes, and Ken Blackwell. Ick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)