Young Obama Statue Officially Unveiled In Indonesia

From the TPM:

Young Obama Statue Officially Unveiled In Indonesia

Eric Kleefeld
December 9, 2009, 12:18PM

The new statue of Barack Obama in Jakarta, Indonesia, commemorating him from when he lived there as a child, has now been unveiled.The statute is made of bronze, and stands two meters tall, including the pedestal, with a nearly life-sized likeness of the young Obama. It is located at Taman Menteng Park, a site that was used as an athletic field by Obama's elementary school. It was paid for through a private non-profit group, called Friends of Obama.

Central Jakarta Mayor Sylviana Murni said at the unveiling ceremony: "There is a message through the young Obama statue that any child and anyone from any background can reach their dreams if they fight for it persistently."

The peanut gallery in the TPM comments think the right wingers will freak out. Even TPM pushes this with their headline: "Winger Bait."

First of all, stop caring about the freaks on the right. They need no substance to fuel their crazy. They live in a frictionless vacuum of stupid hate.

Second of all, why should the Right wing get angry about Obama when there's a life-size statue of George W. Bush passed out drunk in the basement of a Waco Arby's?

Bush Behind Bars?

One can dream...

{Pic from crooks and liars}

Onion's Bush: Conclusion

As I said here, the Onion has been printing over the past few weeks humorous - yet disgusting - stories of Bush being horribly, painfully maimed. My theory was that the Onion writers hate Bush as much as I do and realize that to write about his death may be treasonous, but there should be nothing to alarm the Secret Service if you etch a jocular tale of Bush having his testicles eaten by a crocodile... leaving the 43rd President in castrated pain.

So the series seems to have come to an end today; and proving my analysis correct, the last entry in this series is the death of Bush - achieved when it's no longer (possibly) illegal to write as such.

See the last 4 here:

Bush's Eyelid Accidentally Nailed To Wall
December 8, 2008 | Issue 44•50
WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush sustained a perforation injury to his right eyelid when a pneumatic nail gun malfunctioned and shot a 12-centimeter-long iron nail that entered Bush's superonasal sclera, exited through his upper eyelid, and then penetraed the wall of the White House Blue Room. The president remained pinned to the wall for a period of 27 hours before help arrived. According to witnesses, Bush was found passed out with blood dripping from his right tear duct. Doctors confirmed that the intraocular foreign body was removed during a four-hour operation Sunday, and reported significant damage to Bush's supratrochlear nerve, likely caused by the president's unsuccessful attempt to forcibly rip his eyelid in half to escape. It is unclear whether he will ever regain sight in his right eye. Bush is resting comfortably at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Single-Engine Cessna Crashes Into Bush
January 6, 2009 | Issue 45•02
CAMP DAVID, MD—The Federal Aviation Administration said engine failure was to blame for a pilot losing control of a four-seater Cessna aircraft that crashed head-on into President Bush Thursday. According to the FAA report, the nose of the Cessna 350 impacted with the president's face at 110 mph, instantly killing pilot James Morris, 45. Bush reportedly suffered third-degree burns on 95 percent of his body, a broken spine, 20 shattered ribs, one collapsed lung, a basilar skull fracture, and minor leakage of cerebrospinal fluid. Bush, who had been hiking alone in an isolated region of the 125-acre presidential retreat before the accident, was trapped under the burning engine block for 45 minutes before rescue crews reached the crash site. While doctors said they worked swiftly to remove the smoldering wreckage from the president's body, much of the plane's burning debris had already fused to his skeleton before he could be airlifted from the scene. Bush is resting comfortably at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Spider Eggs Hatch In Bush's Brain
January 14, 2009 | Issue 45•03
WASHINGTON—President Bush collapsed to the floor of the Oval Office during a meeting with advisers when spiderlings hatched from thousands of egg sacs affixed between the hemispheres of his brain, according to a White House memo released Monday. The spiders severed the president's corpus callosum and ate through the motor-control center of the brain, doctors said, causing Bush's body to jerk involuntarily as a scurrying mass of crab spiders emerged from his mouth and crawled down his face. Witnesses confirmed that a number of spiders also discharged from the president's tear ducts. Secret Service agents restrained the president and carried him to the White House medical facility, but doctors said that by the time Bush arrived, the arachnids had already consumed his corneas, pupils, and vitreous humor. Bush is resting comfortably at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Bush Dies Peacefully In His Sleep
January 20, 2009 | Issue 45•04
WASHINGTON—George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States of America, passed away painlessly in his sleep Monday night, White House sources confirmed. The 62-year-old Bush was reportedly discovered lying unresponsive in his bed by first lady Laura Bush, a gentle smile still on his lips. "It was as though he knew it was his time to go," said longtime family physician Dr. Harold Ditmas, who pronounced the president dead of natural causes at 7:24 a.m. Plans for Bush's funeral have been postponed indefinitely following an unexpected incident in which the president's corpse was sucked through an Air Force One jet engine.

No Bush Pardons?

I predicted here that Bush will give a blanket pardon for his whole administration. Did that happen and I just missed it or did the probable gambit (not indicting Cheney etc to allow future non-GOP prosecution) work?

He has 90 minutes left, maybe it will come. If not, then we all have a chance for prosecution of the war crimes!

Update: Some stories about Bush's (lack of) pardons. SF Chronicle. Toronto Star.

Bush Did Not Keep Us Safe

I know it's obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills but some things need to be said explicitly: Bush did not keep us safe.

1. He was asleep at the wheel for 9/11 despite clear warnings by the CIA and others. For that crime, he cannot be exonerated.
2. He drove us into a war based on false premises, killing thousands of our citizens (we call them "soldiers") - more than on 9/11 - and maiming thousands more. And killing/maiming hundreds of thousands of others. That's not "safe"
3. His direct actions have made the world much less safe to be an American.
   
4. The people of New Orleans were and are not safe.

There are more examples but between the Iraq War and Katrina, it is asinine to claim that Bush kept us safe.

Yes, there wasn't another 9/11 on our shores during his presidency (if you count the first 9/11 as a mulligan, and Katrina as a non-9/11) but that kinda irrelevant based on the other disasters. But it's the method of right wing idiots to move the goal-posts after the kick.

Update Here's Glenn "Freeper" McCoy to show you how stupid it is (he makes it worse by saying Bush "kept everyone alive" - a patent falsehood:
(click to enlarge)

Tomorrow is Finally Here

Even though I'm working hard on a number of projects, I feel it necessary to say (especially since I may not be able to blog tomorrow) that the Bush Era will finally be OVER! And, if that isn't enough, we're finally going to have what purports to be a decent, brilliant, ethical president. Finally, finally, finally.

One thing I've been doing over this long weekend is cleaning up the old blog posts from my archives (2003-2004) and I have been reading all of my apoplexy over the 2004 election. I was pretty angry back then and I knew in my bones about all the horror we were going to see in 4 years. And that will finally be over.

Let there be Truth and Reconciliation, let there be Justice. And thank God for a new president.

Constitutional Amendment for the 21st Century

The 20th Amendment changed the transition date of the US presidency from March 4th to January 20th. It was a swiftly passed change to the Constitution following the agony of Herbert Hoover. Not only was the bum thrown out of office in 1932 but we needed to wait 4 months to actually have the throwing occur.

I propose that while 4 months worked in the 18-19th centuries, and 2 months for the 20th, we live in an even more swift and dire age and can have an even quicker transition. I propose the transition should be in 2 weeks.

Oh, I hear you cry, that's not enough time for the new president to get up to speed! Look at Obama; he's filled his cabinet in a much faster time than his predecessors but it still takes time and even for him its not finished.

I counter-argue that the whole point of a chief executive is that he controls the cabinet. If the new president took over in two weeks, then even if the previous cabinet were to be in place, they would need to follow the directives of the new guy. And even if they were all to resign at once, then (a) the President could not accept the resignations, or (b) the career bureaucrats who fill up the cabinet offices could take over until new guys are found. Even as it stands it's not *enough* time to really get the new cabinet up to speed to their new jobs, and my solution could actually be a better way to transition in.

My ultimate point is that things are rapidly going to hell even quicker than in 1932 (Bush is like a combination of Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan - bad war and bad money) and we need new leadership fast fast fast.

My Idea! Pardon Prevention

I see from the TPM that Cong. Nadler has put in legislative words and idea I hafd for some time:

Nadler, who two weeks ago introduced a resolution demanding President Bush not issue 'pre-emptive' pardons of officials in his administration, said his amendment would bar presidents from pardoning members of their own administration for official acts. The president would retain the power to pardon the secretary of state for, say, beating his wife, Nadler said, but not for actions taken in an official capacity.

The presidential pardoning is a scary thing and especially for a criminal like Bush. Considering that his father was able to exonerate all his Iran-Contra co-conspirators is proof enough that we should be worried.

[Update from 11-11-2009 - I am still shocked, til this day, that Bush didn't actually cheese out and pardon everybody. My main theory why he didn't was to contrast with Clinton; i.e. people are still angry - from the Left, nukh - over Clinton's pardons, which tainted an otherwise remarkable presidency. Bush knew he was in trouble with the critics and craven pardons probably would have unleashed a vindictive backlash. As we see, he's has managed to avoid a lot of the opprobrium in the past few months, because he has lain low. Not so for Cheney...]

Backpost, finished Nov 11, 2009. Pic from here.

The Onion and Lame Duck Bush

I am not a fan of George Bush, as you may have surmised, but I guess I'm an amateur compared to the Onion staff writers who have had a series of "news" stories of brutal maimings of the lame duck President: here, here, here, and here.

The concept is brilliant, as usual for the onion: it's probably criminal to describe fantasies of the president being killed. That'll get the Secret Service up (or down?) your wazoo in a heartbeat. But it's no crime to want the president to be maimed by outside events, is it?

Anyway, some are so brutal, they are hard to read. Yet, I am a fair blogger (much like Fox News), so I'll report, and you decide:

Bush Dragged Behind Presidential Motorcade For 26 Blocks
DECEMBER 4, 2008 | ISSUE 44•49

KANSAS CITY, MO—President Bush sustained serious head injuries, massive internal bleeding, and a broken left leg Monday morning after being accidentally dragged behind the presidential motorcade for a period of 15 minutes. According to Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan, Bush's necktie became caught in the trunk of the motorcade's second vehicle at 4:13 p.m., shortly before the driver accelerated. The president was dragged down 175th Street for 26 blocks and through four stoplights, leaving a trail of blood more than a mile long. Upon hearing shouts emanating from behind his vehicle, the driver abruptly applied the brakes, causing the third car in the motorcade to run over the president's left leg at a speed of approximately 25 miles per hour. President Bush is resting comfortably in Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Bush Passes Three-Pound Kidney Stone
NOVEMBER 28, 2008 | ISSUE 44•48

WASHINGTON—President Bush collapsed in the Oval Office after spontaneously expelling a 3-pound kidney stone from his bladder, sources reported Tuesday. According to witnesses, the president was attending his daily Iraq War briefing when he suddenly began shrieking loudly and clutching his abdomen, a mixture of blood and urine pooling rapidly around his feet. Bush was able to maintain consciousness through more than 20 minutes of excruciating pain, even after the jagged, grapefruit-sized crystal aggregation shredded his urethra and dropped from his left pant leg, finally rolling to a stop on the presidential seal in the middle of the Oval Office carpet. Bush is resting comfortably at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Crocodile Bites Off Bush's Arm
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 | ISSUE 44•47

HOMESTEAD, FL— A 14-foot crocodile bit off President Bush's left arm at the shoulder Monday, a White House memo reported. Bush, who was reportedly standing waist-deep in a swamp at Everglades National Park when the crocodile struck, also sustained severe puncture wounds and torn flesh in his hip and upper thigh. According to witnesses, Bush attempted to fend off the large reptile with his left arm, but the crocodile latched onto it above the elbow, dragged the president underwater, and ripped his arm from its socket. Bush's severed arm was unable to be recovered. Doctors confirmed that he will be fitted with a prosthetic limb in a procedure Friday, and that he is currently being treated for sepsis. Bush is resting comfortably in Annapolis Naval Hospital.

Bush Tumbles Wildly Down Washington Monument Staircase
NOVEMBER 12, 2008 | ISSUE 44•46

WASHINGTON—President George W. Bush sustained 24 broken bones, massive internal hemorrhaging, and a severe concussion Monday after falling down the entire staircase of the 555-foot-tall Washington Monument. According to White House press secretary Dana Perino, Bush was making his weekly climb to the monument's observation floor when he lost his footing on the top step, slipped, and struck each of the obelisk's 897 stairs with the back of his skull during an uncontrolled descent to the base of the structure. President Bush is resting comfortably in Bethesda Naval Hospital.

The Racist Belt

From Sullivan who got it from Yglesias who got it from the Times, a map of the sectors where McCain did better than Bush... I wonder why?

More Thoughts on the Victory

Some points on the incredible victory:

1. We just elected a black guy with a Muslim name president. Just gotta say that, over and over, until I fully understand how incredible this all is.
   
   
2. I see the Obama election as a type of 'virtual impeachment' of Bush. We won't get the chance to do the real thing - we still may be able to put the SOB behind bars - but the election of a brilliant, articulate, African-American, Muslim-named, liberal intellectual Constitutional scholar is a point-by-point repudiation of the stupid, mush-mouthed, pampered patrician rich-boy Texas oil-millionaire, white-bread legacy Christian conservative incurious human rights abuser.
   
   
3. Democrats haven't had a win like this since 1964. And as a result of that election, we received Civil Rights and the Great Society. And even if you think the latter was bad or flawed, you have to take into account how bad it was to be in America *before* those programs were enacted. 1964 ushered in a state of civility and greatness - as the names declare - to America. And that's great change. And that's what we can do in 2008.
   
   
4. For my fellow Hebrew brethren who are worried that Obama's win will bring about the destruction of Israel, or whatever: There is no support or proof for your fears. The fears are based on innuendo, ignorance and in some cases racism. The worst thing to happen to Israel in the past few years wasn't Oslo (which was a mitigated disaster), nor the Clinton Camp David Accords (whose blame can be laid on Ehud "the Other" Barak's feet), rather the worst has been the legitimizing election of Hamas to the Palestinian leadership and the subsequent creation of a pure terrorist state in Gaza. And that was all Bush, baby. Bush also created a terrible threat to Israel vis-a-vis the Iraq war - which has strengthen Iran (taking away it's biggest foe, replacing it with a sympathetic Shiite regime) and emboldened Tehran to pursue nukes. All Bush. And McCain would have continued this insanity. Even if Obama turns out to be like Carter - which isn't borne out by evidence - Carter was better for Israel than Bush!
   
   
5. It's a press axiom - which naturally means its boneheaded - that Obama's toughest job now begins: the cleaning up of the nation. Blah blah blah. No. That was not the toughest job. Becoming the first black president, as a first term Senator with a Muslim name, defeating both the Clinton machine and the Republican party, was the toughest job. Cleaning up the country will be not be as tough. Why? Well, first of all because it's just an obvious point. But second of all, because most of our problems were CAUSED, they didn't just 'happen.' Bush created this fate. All Obama needs to do is not be a horrible person/executive and it's already an epic win.
   
   
6. I'm disheartened by the possibility that Coleman and Smith may have been re-elected. While the landslide for president is a nice thing, if Obama's coattails weren't enough to defeat Republicans in blue states, then its a bad sign.
   
   
7. It's so sweet that Elizabeth Dole was spanked by her opponent, Democrat Kay Hagan. Dole ran a disgusting race and deserves to have lost. It's ironic: her husband ran for president in 1996 and conducted a comparatively clean and honorable race. Yeah, he lost, (159-379, see map to the left) but he kept his dignity, soul, and the good graces of history. I've long said that 1996 was one the only years where both major tickets had great candidates such that a victory either way would have been palatable for the country (as opposed to, lets say, 1988 which was wretched either way). So Bob Dole ran with respect and his name can be seen as a watchword for how to lose with grace. Then came Dole's doppelganger, John McCain. Another war-hero, Senate lion, known for bipartisanship and moderate views (note: McCain's rep was largely myth while Bobdole's was true)... and McCain ran a shameless, horrid campaign (see more below). And "Liddy" Dole chose, for her defeat, to be like McCain instead of Bob. And her name is mud.
   
   
8. The great victory for America, and the world, has a the concomitant benefit of validating the clean, respectful style of Obama and repudiating the sewer methods of McCain-Palin. That will have far-reaching consequences and all for the best. After Bush-Rove won dirty in 2000, and dirtier in 2004, it seemed we were doomed to a future of sleaze and fear every election cycle. Not anymore. True, many unregenerate Goopers will believe that were it not for the cratering economy etc. the slash-burn tactics would have worked. I disagree (for the billion reasons I've written about before), and the Goopers may not learn from their mistakes (considering they are now the party against science, evidence, and expertise), but I trust cooler brains will prevail.
   
   
9. Related to the horrible Republican tactics, and the paradox of the McCain campaign, was the McCain concession speech. So odd. Just like how John Kerry and Al Gore spoke with fire and talent at the Democratic convention - and many of us asked where these people were when they ran their national campaigns! - so too with McCain last night. What a gracious and honorable speech. And it was delivered so well! With clarity, confidence and decency. We should ask "where was this guy on the campaign trail?" but also note that any person who sounds better when no longer campaigning (Gore, Kerry, McCain) obviously has mental reservations, and a fundamental problem as a politician. Does this 'mental game' automatically presage defeat? Not sure; which successful politician sounded better when out of office than in? I can think of a number, successful pols, who were better while running than not. Something to inspect.
   
   
10. And, of course, at that same concession speech we heard the base of the Republicans booing Obama's name, shouting and bellowing out who-can-imagine-what craziness. The crowd was the embodiment of the McCain campaign, the speech was the embodiment of the mythical McCain that the press apotheosized and who I had liked back at the beginning of the millennium.
    
    
11. Let's not forget Joe Biden. I am very happy for him; I genuinely like the guy. And - speaking as a rabbi and a budding scholar of the sociology of religion - the president-elect is just another Protestant, but we just elected our first Catholic VP, and only the second non-Protestant in the White House. Wow.

More later.

Miscellaneous from My Files, part 1

I'm dedicating today to writing & blogging so here's some stuff from my unsorted inbox, basically brief links/commentaries:

1. Sept 9 2008; from Huffy herself, inventing a great image, Sarah Palin as a Trojan Moose.
   
   
2. Sept 10 2008; Why Obama will actually beat the poll numbers, because of his incredible ground game. And see here.
   
   
3. From the Atlantic, the GOP dirty trick machine of 2004.
   
   
4. Sept 11 2008, from the NYTimes, about vote suppression/dirty tricks in 2008 Mississippi.
   
   
5. Sept 10 2008, from McClatchy [the best single news organization in the world, IMHO], about how the U.S. is in similar danger from al Qaida in 2008 as we were in 2001.
   
   
6. Sept 11 2008, the Washpost describing an underhanded smearing tactic by McCain.
   
   
7. From Salon, how CBS capitulated in 2004 and did not show a documentary about the Bush Administration lies about the Iraq War.
   
   
8. Sept 13 2008, from Digby, more about voter suppression.
   
   
9. Good New Yorker humor about Palin.
   
   
10. Excellent piece by Ezra Klein about the problem with political reporting. Shorter EK: "I think one aspect of the modern press that doesn't get enough attention -- either among folks in the media or folks critiquing it -- is the transition from the fundamental scarcity being information to information being in abundance and the fundamental scarcity being mediation." It's especially sweet because his target is the fatuous Marc Ambinder - who over this election season has been twisting himself into pretzels to be 'even-handed' first with Hillary and now with McCain. His only value comes from his stature allowing him to receive equal opportunity leaks from all camps. Otherwise, he's a dolt.

Am I Worried About November?

Well, in a large abstract way, I am worried about the election in the same way I'm worried about death or Nazis. Two national elections have been awarded to a profoundly unqualified man (Bush) and a party that decided to commit themselves to strange and evil policies.

2000 was terrible but until 9/11 most of us thought that the damage would be temporary, given that we were living through peace and prosperity. 2004 was heart-rending because it was clear how bad Bush was and things were getting worse and worse. The past 4 years have been horrifying and I know my kids will ask me about them with the same hushed awe I asked my parents about 1963-1968 (assassinations, Vietnam, Nixon). And if things were teetering on the bad in 2004, the re-election of Bush in 2008 would be a full-gonzo catastrophe.

It bears repeating: all of us who warned about the horrors of a second Bush term, and were ridiculed by Goopers who claimed we were being paranoid hysterics, were proven to be correct. And I was not correct by accident - i.e. many people are correct only by chance. For example, the smartasses who said that John Edwards was *of course* cheating on his wife... basing their assertions on the sole facts that (a) Edwards was good-looking, and (b) they disagreed with Edwards' policies/profession/accent.

Not liking somebody, and thus attributing to the disliked person all sorts of crimes, does not make your criticisms prophetic. You just got lucky.

However, if you said that Edwards was a wife-cheater because of certain provable factors (e.g. you knew of some shady behaviors, you read in his book that 'cheating on your cancer-stricken wife ain't the worst thing a person can do', or if you personally slept with him), then - fine - you can be considered a perceptive prognosticator.

For the record, I didn't believe the rumors that Edwards was cheating on his wife because I didn't think that someone as successful as him (self-made multi-millionaire, young Democratic senator in a red-state) would do something so destructive and stupid. I mean, it was Spitzer-esque! And even then, I had some glimmering that Spitzer was a sexual-schkutz because he intermarried. Ya see, that's a provable indicator. Sex crime here leads to sex crime there. But Edwards? Why would someone running for president - someone who constantly references his wife's terminal cancer - have an affair on the campaign trail.

Anyway, I went on this tangent to talk about the stakes of the election: just as the loss in 2004 was bad, and I knew it would be bad beforehand, I can say with confidence that McCain winning in November would mean total freakin' disaster for the U.S. of A. McCain is unfit to lead and will most likely die soon in office (based on simple actuarial prediction) leaving the country in the hands of a serial-fabricator hillbilly Evangelical.

And, as some dude pointed out, Bush managed to destroy our country from the starting point of Clinton's peace and prosperity. McCain - an uck-fup of Bushian magnitude - would be elected in the midst of two draining wars and an economy teetering on the brink.

Stop, You're Scaring Me!

I hear you cry. Yes, if McCain wins in November, we are totally screwed. But I don't expect it to happen. In fact, and you can quote me, the only way for the GOP to win in November is through fraud. I say this based on three proofs: (1) the frauds of 2000 & 2004, (2) the 2006 midterms, and (3) American history.

1. The only way the GOP won in 2000 and 2004 was through fraud.

Yeah, the Goopers amongst you will deny that 2000 was fraud, even though, based on facts, it's clear that Gore *would* have won in Florida if the votes that the voters cast were actually tabulated. If you prefer winning at all costs, and see a 'win' as proving retroactively everything done as right and correct, then the fact that the Supreme Court allowed Bush to win Florida, and thus the whole election, to be enough to say that Bush actually won.

But in the world of facts, it's important to remember than no matter what the weird rules stated, Gore won in 2000. A sports analogy, if I may. If quarterback Jack Drake throws a 95 yard touchdown pass while being tackled by a blitz of linebackers, yet the play is invalidated because the second-string slotback was barely offsides, do you credit the QB with a touchdown.

In the official game scoring, Jack Drake does not get credit for a touchdown. In the world of real life and of commerce, Jack Drake will be known as an amazing athlete who can perform under pressure and whose expertise was proven in real events. The rules of sports, while important to those who follow sports, are arbitrary and do not determine actual events.

Gore *should* have won in 2000; and for this argument it means that the country was willing to have a third Clinton term, and to elect Gore-Lieberman, even though arbitrary (and ultimately skewed rules) undermined the true events.

2004 was not as close as 2000 and for months after the election I was devastated not only because Bush was still in office, but with enough of a margin to suggest that people approved of his idiocies.

However, as the numerous scandals that were uncovered from 2006 on have shown, the Bush administration was involved in systematic voter fraud in every election since they took over the Justice department. I don't have time or space to get into great details - yet, they are easily found all over the internet - but event after event has shown that Bush administration politicized every aspect of the executive branch, skewing policy and actions to help Republicans get elected. The very core of the attorney scandal was that Bush/Gonzales were forcing the U.S. Attorneys to (a) suppress the vote of probable democratic voters (e.g. minorities), and (b) indict Democratic politicians or their staff-members close to the election date. The 8 attorneys who were fired all refused to engage in malfeasance.

Read the data, get scared, and conclude - as you should - that 2004 was won via fraud.

Now, this does not deny that the Democratic candidates of 2000 and 2004 were poor candidates. They were pusillanimous, uncharismatic, and not great leaders. But also recognize that conditions were such in 2000 and 2004 that would have made the country vote for an accept a mediocre Democrat.

Barack Obama is not a mediocre politician. He has many detriments, tis' true - he's young, black, and smart. But he also is a galvanizing speaker and a sober thinker who has raised the most money in history and did so with small donations. Which means he excites millions of people. These facts militate against the not-unfounded anxieties that Americans won't vote for a black man with a funny name. I'd have said that - and in fact did - back in 2007. Today, it's an unfounded fear.

2. The 2006 Midterms showed that the country wants change.

Even with the Justice Dept. vote-fraud, even with the Senate lineup stacked against the Democrats, we still managed to win Congress in 2006. Things were so terrible, in just 2 years, that the country threw their bums out. And, it needs to be said, it's hard to throw out congressional incumbents, and a switch-over in the Senate is not a great way to gauge public mood since only 32-33 people are up for election and not always in states that express the public mood. Even with all that, the Democrats won in 2006.

In 2008, the country is in even WORSE shape. The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, the Iraq war is still hated (and our soldiers are still dying), etc. Add onto that the fact that congressional oversight of the Executive has led to mass firings in the Justice Dept. and elsewhere, making it very hard to repeat the fraud of 2002, 2004 and 2006.

Without the fraud, it's very hard for the GOP to win... even in a good year. And this year is one of the worst.

3. The past 100 years have shown that it's very hard for the incumbent party to win a third term in the presidency.

Since 1900, there have been a few third terms:

1. 1896-1912: McKinley was re-elected, but his assassination makes things difficult to gauge, so we start with Teddy Roosevelt. He had two terms, and he was succeeded by Taft who only had 1. Note, Taft would have been re-elected if Roosevelt hadn't run against him in '12, so following my Gore-2000 rules above, I think the GOP should get real-world credit for winning in 1912.
   
2. 1920-1932: Harding's death led to Coolidge's ascension and his two terms was followed by Hoover's 1.
   
3. 1932-1952: FDR had four terms - the only true 'third term' proof we have - and he was succeeded by Truman who won 1 term on his own right. He would have lost in '52 if he had run.
   
4. 1952-1960: Eisenhower almost won a third term; Nixon barely lost in 1960 (and, following Gore-2000 rules, it could be that this is a third term).
   
5. 1960-1968: LBJ, despite being elected via a grief-fueled nostalgia landslide in 1964, was quite unpopular in 1968. His successor didn't get a third term (even though I could hear an argument that he would have won if Wallace wasn't a third-party spoiler, but it was a complicated year).
   
6. 1968-1976: Nixon led to Ford who lost to Jimmy Freakin' Carter.
   
7. 1980-1992: Reagan was able to secure a third term for his bland VP.
   
8. 1992-2000: Clinton won a third term, but just just barely.

What does the chart prove? That a party can win a third party only when things are going very well, and the incumbent is popular. Coolidge, FDR and Reagan are the successes that prove this rule. Even when the incumbent is pretty popular, and the country is in good shape, the party still has a hard time staying in power: Nixon in '60 and Gore in '00 show this. Even if you want to say that Nixon and Gore actually were cheated out of their deserved victory, it's also demonstrable that the elections were very very close.

The bottom line is that a party gets a third term when (1) people like the outgoing president and (2) the country is in good shape.

In 2008, Americans hate George W Bush and 80% think the country is on the wrong track. The Iraq War is killing our soldiers, breaking our military and draining our coffers. The economy is going through shocks unseen since Herbert Hoover. Just on history alone, it's nearly inconceivable that the voters will reward the incumbent party with a third term.

This is why, ultimately, I'm not so worried about 2008. Barring fraud, which will be hard to do this year, the GOP will lose.

P.S. If my enormously long-winded description above doesn't comfort you, doesn't quiet the 2004-embedded fears that the GOP is so scummy and/or the American people so stupid, that they will defy the rules of logic and history and elect Growly McSame and Jesus S. Palin, I will just say that there are three presidential debates coming up. If the polls are still depressing after the debates, then it will be time to panic.

Way Ahead of Them

Even when it wasn't trendy, I was asserting that George W. Bush was quite clearly stupid. People would gainsay; claiming that - according to unsourced anecdotal evidence - Bush was quite intelligent in a one-on-one conversation. Proofs were also brought as to his education (Yale undergrad, Harvard MBA) and his success in life (president, hello?).

I would counter-argue that (1) education does not correlate to intelligence - especially for wealthy brahmins before 1970 (when most Universities were compelled to matriculate women and minorities). The fact that W's younger siblings were not accepted in Yale (Jeb = UT, Neil = Tulane, Marvin = UVA, Dorothy, BC) is good proof of the pre/post 1970 theory.

(2) Bush, sorry to say, has not been successful on his own. Note, most of the millionaires I know, self-made and otherwise, are not particularly smart. The ones who are intelligent are the exception, to be honest. Bush's successes came from his being well-born. See proof #1 about his education. Anything he did on his own (his businesses are exhibit A-Z) failed. When he became a vapid stooge for the GOP elite - as governor of Texas and Looter-in-Chief of the federal government - then he 'succeeded.' It's in fact much more probable to use Bush as proof that intelligence is *not* predictive of success more than the other way around.

(3) Unsourced anecdotal evidence are not very compelling when punched in the face by facts.

The facts are that intelligence is demonstrated by doing and saying smart things. And for the most part, smart people don't need third-party confirmation for their intelligence. If a person is smart, other people aren't compelled to say "oh, but he's really smart, believe me." Nobody has to confirm Clinton's intelligence, or Cheney's, or Rove's. Their intelligence is assumed because they sound smart. George W Bush, Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, and Gerald Ford all sound really stupid; hence why their friends have to confirm and reconfirm the doubts of their intelligence.

Answer this about Bush: what smart things has he done? Has he written (on his own) intelligent books/articles/essays? When he speaks, does he say smart things or does he sound barely sentient? Note, I'm not even arguing about whether Bush is smart "enough" to be entrusted with great power (an idea - that the president should be talented and competent - that used to be held as an article of belief by most Americans), I'm saying that Bush's speech and behavior is indicative of someone barely smart enough to whiz with his pants down.

The real question about Bush isn't "how smart is he" but the larger question of "how dumb can you be before they start calling you that in public."

Which brings us to John McCain.

I've said on previous occasions that McCain strikes me as a dumb person. There are certain hallmarks of intelligence in his record (e.g. his willingness, before 2008, to speak unfiltered to reporters), so he's in a category above the profoundly stupid George W. But in our present day, whether it's because of age-induced brain-damage, or just inborn handicap, McCain doesn't seem to be that smart.

His inconsistencies in belief and action - what he's done his whole life - are proof for his stupidity. He did one thing right, that I know about: his refusal to be let out of the Hanoi Hilton early because of his family connections. But his undistinguished military career before his imprisonment, his erratic public behavior in Congress, and his despicable acts of private behavior (e.g. adultery), make me think that he just ain't bright.

So, anyway, other people are starting to notice. John Cole, of Balloon-Juice, for example: "Is McCain Just Dumb?" (based on this latest show of idiocy).

Well That Didn't Take Long

Yesterday, the Supreme Court miraculously reinstated habeas corpus. The country is slowly edging back from the Bush precipice. In Boumediene v. Bush:

The majority found that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus review applies to persons held in Guantanamo and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory. If Congress intends to suspend the right, an adequate substitute must offer the prisoner a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate he is held pursuant to an erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law, and the reviewing decision-making must have some ability to correct errors, to assess the sufficiency of the government's evidence, and to consider relevant exculpating evidence. The petitioners met their burden of establishing that Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 fails to provide an adequate substitute for habeas.

This is great news, right? Well, not to John McCain.

From Time, McCain Slams The Supreme Court's Habeas Decision, direct quote from the campaign trail:

The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. ... So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material....

One of the worst decisions? Really?

When I say "didn't take long" that means that McCain has swiftly shown himself to be unfit to be President of the United States. Bush and Co. (which alas has now included Hillary) like to describe the president as "commander in chief" - using military terminology and military imagery. This allows Bush, Hillary, McCain to talk all cowboy like about punching cowpokes in the varmints, or whatever they do in Texas. But the president is actually Chief Executive of the Constitution first and foremost. Which means that he needs to protect our rights, liberties, and freedoms above everything else. That's his job.

I don't want to get all 2nd Amendment here, but ultimately that amendment makes clear that individual safety doesn't stop with the Federal government but with each individual citizen. The president's job is to make sure that government doesn't take away the liberties of the citizen. Bush failed spectacularly at that job. By rejecting Boumediene, McCain plans to fail even more. McCain is standing square on Bush's shoulders and appears to be proud to extend Bush's legacy.

If the 2004 election was about the war, 2008 is about the Constitution. McCain has failed.

h/t Sullivan.

Update: More reading - Scott Horton, Dahlia Lithwick, Marty Lederman.

Why There is no 'Liberal' Mass Media

From the TPM, an editorial writer explains why she had to censor her writing about the Iraq War:

"And yet, in the years following 9/11, I felt editorial restraints that never allowed us to tell the whole truth about the lies and deception that led to America's most catastrophic foreign policy disaster. Others in the mainstream media felt far greater restraints. Jessica Yellin, a CNN journalist, for example, says she felt pressured by corporate executives at her previous network to support the Iraq War. To Anderson Cooper, she described how she and others were 'under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.'"

As has been said before, while the writers and even editors of newspapers/TVnews may be "liberal", because these are for-profit businesses, the corporate ownership requires the news to be biased for marketability.

This bias is institutional and also completely understandable and obvious. It's a business; you need to sell papers and/or sell advertising minutes. And since the reporters/owners believed that the country supported a crazy revenge war against the man who tried to kill the president's daddy, then that's the story they were going to sell.

The midterm election of 2002 and the crazy thin-win of 2004 convinced the media ownership that the country was perfectly OK in ignoring the Bush malfeasance. To go against Bush meant to lose advertisers. And since FOXnews was the most profitable 24hr station at the time, it showed the other owners and bureaucrats that Bush-smooching sells.

I believe that the breakdown in this corporate collusion came from two sources: (1) Katrina and then (2) the 2006 midterms.

Katrina gave the rank-and-file reporters some backbone to try to buck their corporate 'responsibilities' and actually report the horrible effects of the Bush administration. Then the polls showed most people agreed (Miers, Schiavo, war dead all helped) then it became more lucrative to allow some criticism of Bush (or at least less slavish coverage). Then the 2006 midterms showed that the country actually wanted to attack Bush, and so that's where we are.

Press 'bias' is a market decision, pure and simple.

I think another bellwether moment was Colbert at the 2006 Correspondents Dinner. At the time, the press corps (following their owners' lead) was horrified that Colbert would dare challenge the naked emperor.

Anyway, this trend of press bias following the conservative business impulse of their owners won't go away until newspapers/newsTV becomes a non-for-profit business again. And I don't know how that will happen.

But read the TPM article to see what I'm talking about.

The Jacket Can Come Off

Obama has (putatively) won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in what may be the biggest upset in (modern) American political history. Now the jacket comes off. Two jackets, really. The first jacket is doffed when gentlemen prepare for fisticuffs. Or a duel. Of all Republicans, McCain is a gentleman, and we know over and over that Obama is, so this battle of two men of honor will be as bloody as a hillside duel, but it portends to be on a higher level than other contests in the past.

The other jacket is a straight-jacket that Obama has had to wear since Hillary announced her intention to run for president. Bill Clinton was enormously popular in America and even moreso in the Democratic party, where he was the Democrat to leave office as popular and powerful (contrast to Carter, LBJ, Truman; this point was first made by Marshall). And the Clinton's fought dirty.

Obama was straight-jacketed, hamstrung, shackled by having his opponents be the most popular Democrats in a generation. And Hillary compounded the trouble by invoking female-disempowerment at every slight. Her "unconcession" speech last night - a disgusting display of narcissism, hubris, and neurosis - contained an especially galling line in this vein. I was fortunate to hear the line uttered live (we get only one TV news channel, it was showing her speech, and I could only listen to her for a minute or two at a time), transcribed passage from here:

You know, I understand that a lot of people are asking, what does Hillary want? ... I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.

What's galling about the 'invisible' line is that it is red-meat to angry feminists who have cried 'sexism' at every criticism of Holy St. Hillary.

I won't refute the 'invisible' remark because it is beneath contempt; I bring it up to show the lines of the straight-jacket that has now been removed. Other bindings that have been loosed: now every single Democrat can, with full voice, support Obama. Many have been silenced because (a) they don't want to unleash the Clinton fury or worse (b) the fury of Clinton voters. So Reid, Pelosi, Webb, Emmanuel, Salazar, Gore - all big names with set constituencies who have had to remain 'neutral' can now plaster the walls of America with pro-Democratic, pro-Obama words and ideas.

As a number of smart commentators have noted, until last night McCain was at the highest point he could be and Obama the lowest. McCain enjoyed a unified GOP and comparitively little press scrutiny while Obama had a deeply divided party and attacks coming from three sides (GOP, Clinton Democrats, the Press) with only 1/4 of a defense (his part of the party). No longer.

McCain and Obama may be in a dead-heat today, but now that Obama is unrestrained? It's going to be a slaughter.

As an anonymous blogger from the Economist online (UK) wrote last night, comparing the speeches of all three candidates:

At the risk of bolstering the reporters-mooning-at-Obama stereotype, if this evening's speeches were a video game, a wrinkled wizard would be hollering "Finish Him!" to Barack Obama while a dizzied John McCain wobbled. And Hillary Clinton would be frenetically mashing the buttons on an unplugged controller.

The biggest proof that Obama will destroy McCain comes from simple structure. The same structure that elected Harding in 1920 and Carter in 1976: that when the populace has had enough of the status-quo, they will elect the other party.

The only person, truly, who could have screwed that up this year was Hillary. Because she's so divisive, so hated, and quite frankly such a bad campaigner, that it would have been possible for the Democrats to have lost. It would have been a repeat of '04, when an unpopular incumbent was ALMOST unseated by a deeply flawed, lackluster candidate. And while I'm no fan of Kerry, he didn't prompt the deep visceral hatred that Hillary can and does. We just dodged the bullet.

Ah, but I hear you cry, what about Obama's weaknesses? The ones that are skin-deep, if you catch my drift. Well, 16 months ago, I thought the strongest ticket for the fall was Edwards-Obama, and I claimed that I didn't think America would vote for an inexperienced Black man with Hussein for a middle name. But, uh, he won. He won over whites, blacks, hispanics, in all the states.

Yeah, but he lost Ohio and Pennsylvania! Yes, and no. As I said earlier, he lost *closed primaries* in those states. A closed primary has no bearing on the fall general election. All a closed-primary proves is that he's not as popular to Democrats. And while, intuitively, that may bother people (how can a guy win when his party doesn't like him as much as another), it also repudiates the biggest weakness of the primary process which is that it rewards the extremists of each party, which give a rather poor general election contender.

More open primaries may have spared us from Dukakis and Kerry. And if PA/OH were open, I would wager that Obama would have won them handily, like he did in Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Minnesota (all open).

Obama is a very strong candidate, which is how he beat the Clintons. Let that settle into your skin for a moment: he beat Bill and Hillary Clinton. Nobody beat the Clintons since 1980! And Obama is inspiring, a historic orator, a gifted thinker, a talented writer, and damn near perfect campaigner. He has also just campaigned in all 50 states - something not done in any previous primary - which means he has already run a general election campaign once. From now til November, it's just picking up the lost sheaves.

And the structural reason why Obama/Democrats will win? The Iraq War is enough. And McCain, god love him, has decided to embrace the Iraq War as his running mate. It's the one thing which may be more unpopular than Bush, and McCain's embracing it?! And he embraces Bush, too. Why else would McCain reject the improved GI Bill? In an election year, the Republican nominee rejects a veteran-friendly piece of pork, a rejection not shared by his party but only by the incumbant president who enjoys the lowest approval rating since Andrew Johnson.

And you think McCain can win? Running on a platform of "I like the Iraq War and Bush's treatment of the country!" The only way Obama can lose now is if there's a crippling scandal. Could happen, sure. But I don't play lotto, and I don't bet on long-shots when the stakes are this high.

The twin jackets are now off. It's a great day for America.

Diplomacy, Appeasement, GOP Credibility

I was on the road for Appeasement-Gate (or Bush-Knesset-gate), when Bush accused strawmen of appeasing dictators, just like bad people did back in the 30s with Hitler. (Oh, funny side-point, turns out Prescott Bush, the president's Senator grandfather, was one of those appeasers... heh). Anyway, in the past 8 years, Bush has shown either to mean exactly what his words sound like or to be a complete liar, whichever happens to be worst at the time. That is not a joke. When he sounds like he's saying something good, he's lying ("heckuva job", "we don't torture") and when it sounds bad, it is bad.

Bush's comments at the Knesset were OBVIOUSLY referring to Obama and the Democrats in general. Duh. Duh duh duh. And the Press understood it too, which is an uncommon admission, given their slavish acceptance of every lie uttered by the Bush administration so far (cf. Iraq war, Iran, torture, civil liberties, the attorney firing).

Yeah, some bullet-heads are still claiming that Obama overreacted, but they're the same people who believe that Bush is the reincarnation of King Arthur and Richard "First Crusade" Lionheart, so whatever.

McCain, gotta love him, is so maverick-y that he immediately followed Bush's lead. That'll show 'em how independent you are John! You mavericky mavericking maverick, you.

What I wonder is why ANYBODY believes that the GOP knows what it's doing with foreign policy anymore. Seriously. The concept that diplomacy=appeasement has resonance only if you are 6 years old and are presently in a schoolyard. Outside of that puerile universe, diplomacy is how actual real life occurs. I'd go so far as to say that the bright-shining-line between childish and adult personality is the recognition that life is about compromise and negotiation and not about violence and absolutes.

Bush is a big baby, this is clear. He is a bully and a spoiled brat. Bully proof comes from how he treats those out of power; spoiled brattishness has been amply shown with his recent comments about nobly giving up golf in recognition of the sacrifice of the thousands of casualties from his foolish war.

McCain is following along because he doesn't actually appear to possess leadership qualities. Yeah, maybe when he was in the military, but in the Senate? That's the downside of being a maverick: unless you can translate your rebellion into a movement, then you're just a troublemaker, a noisemaker, not a leader.

Why is diplomacy not appeasement. Here's a good summary by Matt Yglesias:

The problem here is that, once again, we see hawks not understanding what diplomacy is. But think of diplomacy as a kind of bargaining. Like you might do at a yard sale or something. Diplomacy doesn't exist at one end of a spectrum of coercive measures -- we try war, we try sanctions, we try diplomacy -- any more than bargaining operates on a smooth continuum with robbery. The point of bargaining with a vendor is to see whether or not it's possible to find mutually acceptable terms that improve both parties' positions. In terms of diplomacy with Iran, the idea isn't that Obama's steely gaze would force concessions out of the Iranians, the idea is that we might be able to give Iran something Iran deems more valuable than weapons-grade nuclear material, and in exchange we would get verifiable disarmament.

The "something" here would presumably be some form of security assurances plus an accommodation to Iranian interests in Iraq, along with Teheran and Washington laying out a pathway to gradual normalization of relations in exchange for an end to Iranian support for terrorism and Palestinian rejectionist groups. Would it be possible to strike such a deal? Maybe, maybe not. But the purpose of a negotiating session would be to find out by attempting to do the bargaining rather than having five more years of back-and-forth blog posts speculating about the possibility. The general theory of diplomacy is that rational actors should, through negotiations, be able to achieve positive-sum settlements rather than negative-sum conflicts. It's always possible that your would-be negotiating partner will prove irrational (as George W. Bush did when he rejected Iranian peace overtures several years back) and the process will fail, but it's worth attempting in good faith.

And just in case Yglesias is too much of a squishy leftie to truly understand things, here are two recent examples of (sane) Republicans who agree, Sen. Specter (from Yglesias) and James Baker III (from Sullivan):





Summaries: Specter is asking Sec of Defense Gates why Bush is calling negotiation appeasement when negotiation is normal, logical, and sensible. Specter assails the Bush perspective and hopes Gates can talk some sense into the President.

Baker is even more clear; he says that a strong leader talks to enemies. He himself travelled to Syria 15 times, on Bush Sr's request, to get Syria to recognize Israel and on the 16th trip Syria agreed to negotiate at the Madrid Peace Talks. Baker, while an anti-Semite GOP running-dog, is also from the time when the GOP were considered competent. Not any more; Baker (and Specter) are as slimy as Obama. Only Bush and McCain know what to do!

Flag Pins in American History

This is too good to be true, but it's on the internets, so it must be. From The American Conservative blog (a real conservative magazine, and thus anti-Bush), linked by Sullivan, a quote in Bill Kaufmann's 2008 book "Ain't my America:"

American flag lapel pins had been distributed to members before the president spoke to Congress on April 2, 1917, requesting a declaration of war. It took a certain obdurate courage to refuse to wear the colors; Senator La Follette was among the refusers, as was the Mississippi senator Vardaman. (Wilson had called for “stern repression” of disloyalty in his speech of April 2–a Prussian formulation that ought to have set American throats to gagging.)

It's possible the story is true but it sounds almost mythic. I don't have Kaufmann's book and I don't know his ultimate source, but since it's a new book, it's not inconceivable that he is trying to apply current events to earlier times.

Why it sounds too good to be true: the match up between Wilson & La Follette is too much like Bush/Hillary and Obama. Bush's foreign policy is Wilsonian (and for the record, despite his affiliiation with Princeton, I think he was a bad president and a bad person) and La Follette was the head of the Progressive party (and the Hair Club for Men, evidently). He's considered one of the best Senators in history, a real thinker and patriot, who was beacon of sanity in the insane 1920s.

A myth, to my hoax-busting ears, always sounds *too* neat and pat. Let's see how this plays out.

It's Worse Than I Thought

TPM has this clip up of a Hillary "surrogate," the hacktacular Senator Menendez (D-NJ) defending the gas-tax holiday:

Things to learn from this, and why this is an even lower low than before:

1. This is a glimpse to what a Hillary administration would be like - denying reality, and good policy, just to rustle up votes by assuming the voters are dumb as dirt.
   
2. On the other hand, the press - who gave Bush a free ride when he did the very same things - is going after Hillary's idiocy. Democrats get press scrutiny (as we saw in the 'first' Clinton administration) and that has to be factored into everything.
   
3. As noted by TPM reader GP, while the press is mocking Hillary for having no economists, they aren't challenging the 'surrogates' over the fact that it won't actually save the consumers (voters) ANY MONEY. Not a cent. So why not ask that? The press is allowing the Clintons to pull their "Bush" and attack the elitist economists who, in Menendez' words don't know what it's like to have to pinch pennies to get by. Barf.
   
4. Just wondering why people - sitting senators! - are willing to shill such destruction to the party by helping Hillary this way, so late in the game. Hillary is not worth it at this point, why is Jersey Bob doing this?!

Just to highlight the folly of the Clinton supporters, I wrote this reaction to the TPM about a letter they printed from some moron who supported the "Clinton as Gut Fighter" myth:

I vehemently disagree with the sentiment of reader "RP" in the mega-meta post, especially in light of David Kurtz' MSNBC clip. First of all, the whole "Hillary as fighter" canard doesn't play in reality. Her fighting may have gotten her a few-popular-vote pushes every few days before critical primaries, but she is still losing. Bottom line, her fighting can't even get her to win Democrats, so how is she going to get independents. It's a Hillary-supporter myth that her fightingness is an asset.

But the MSNBC clip shows something more sobering which is that the press does not give Democrats the same free-ride that was given to Bush (and now to McCain). We saw this under Bill Clinton; the press was all over everything he did. In fact, I'd assume one reason why you started your blog was because of the lack of scrutiny given to what Bush did in the recount (and for the whole primary/general in 2000).

Hillary (and Obama) will be given heavy crazy scrutiny. Her bellicosity and dirty tricks won't get any traction against McCain because the rules are different. But just as she didn't understand the rules for the primaries, she - or her supporters - don't understand the rules for the general either.

Update: Menendez tries to ratchet down the crazy here.