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)

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.

Yup, Even Better

Hillary is still fighting. What stubborness. In an interview with USA Today, Hillary explains why she should be the nominee (emphasis mine):

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.

Let's see an instant replay? "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Any penalty on the play? Unnecessary roughness? Nah. Wasn't that rough, just dumb. Offsides? Sure. Delay of game? Yup, for quite a while, but not this play. Clipping? Maybe. Gratuitous playing of the race card? Bingo.

To reiterate. Two days after her fate was sealed, a day after Feinstein implicitly told her to start wrapping this thing up, Hillary explicitly plays the race card. A new low! Bravo, Hillary.

h/t TPM. Photo from here.

Update: Let me explain why this is such a bad thing, and it revolves around what the first thing I thought when I read that sentence: 'does she know she just said that out loud?'

1. Hillary is a politician. Some people think that means her job (as a legislator) is to make policy. But no; policy can and often is made by staffers and other paid experts (a.k.a. economists and other elitists). What separates a politician from a staffer, the specific skill set that a politician needs to have, is to be POLITIC (asop. the staffer who makes POLICY). Now Hillary knows how to pander (exhibit 1: the beer and a chaser in Pennsylvania), but that's not being politic. Even if it were correct and even if it were to her benefit to get the idea in the open, explicitly saying: "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" is not politic.
   
2. Hillary defenders sound like Bush defending Harriet Miers (or GOPers defending Bush before Katrina): they keep needing to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Hillary truly is a great senator, leader, politician. No, she isn't.
   
3. If Hillary wanted to get the statement out that Obama is unacceptable to white voters, there's a hundred or so ways to do that without crudely burping that drivel to the largest circulation newspaper in America. True, she and her crew did try many of the 100 ways... but that's no excuse! It's a mema-nafshach: if it's so important that people know it, then the 100 politic tactics will work, and if the tactics don't work then people don't think it's important/relevant/true. Shouting your point louder doesn't convince another person you're correct. Teenagers learn that rule eventually, why hasn't Hillary?
   
4. When she says such anti-Democratic drivel out loud, she sounds like her fella, Mark Penn. Not like her nominal husband, who was much better about this before his heart was removed from his body.
   
5. Last point: every time she has the opportunity to do the classy thing, she goes into the gutter. Someone please remind me of another "politician" this pathetic? No state politicians please (who are JV), but players in the big show.

Hunters and Shooters Support Obama: He "Gets It"

A few days ago, the Huffington post reported that the American Hunters and Shooters Organization Supports Obama. This group, according to the Wiki, appears to be a moderate (Democrat) pro-gun lobby. In any case, in the wake of Hillary's Annie-Oakley offensive, this group endorsed Obama and repudiated Hillary:

"Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by his vote in support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency. Imagine how the citizens felt during Hurricane Katrina when government agents kicked in doors to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns at a time when they needed them the most. We know Senator Obama 'gets it.' To say that he is an elitist is patently ridiculous."

This is good news for Obama, both because the more endorsements the better, and because it shows just how judicious and wise Obama is. I also would support the Vitter amendment, and it's a great example of a smart pro-gun policy.

Women Veeps

Background: Back on Jan 9th, I was giving my ideas for Obama's possible VP, and said that he may have enough political capital to select a woman instead of a wrinkly white male. Since then, 3 months, I now think it would make even more sense to choose a woman; because the horse-race has gone on so long, and Hillary's supporters - many of them as stupid and deranged as W's pod-people - have gotten so cognitive dissonanty that they may stay home in November if Obama gets the nomination in a fashion that doesn't give proper obeisance to the altar of Her Highness Hillary I.

Hillary's support comes from four distinct groups:

1. Women over 30
   
2. Anyone over 50 (each year older increases the ardor for Hillary based on the hatred of a president being younger)
   
3. Low information voters who go on name recognition alone (and who vaguely remember that Clinton=Good President)
   
4. Racists (who also presume that they're actually voting for a third term of Bill)

Group 2, the old people, will split depending on how loyal they are to the party; many old people only feel comfortable with other old people. And McCain is the AARP poster child (especially now that Charlton Heston [Rabbeinu] has died). Group 3 will vote for whichever Democrat is on the ticket, unless the negative campaigning from Hillary, and soon the GOP, will convince them to enter into category 4 (e.g. that Obama is a coke-selling Muslim who hates America).

This leaves us with group 1, the women. Many women - and I've talked to a bunch - are voting for her out of the same, laudable, blind-loyalty that I expect yellow dog Democrats to have. The same loyalty that drives people to vote for whomever the Jew on the ticket is, even when the guy's a scumbag (exhibit a: Spitzer). These crazy women will be hopping mad if Hillary is 'forced' to concede the election. Because, as I've heard and read many times, it's just like the male phallus-oppressors to demand women to take second place to a man.

Setting aside the fact that Hillary has as much to do with honest feminism as Betty Crocker, when you have someone like Chris Dodd asking her to drop out - a guy who ran against her, who has more experience in public office than her, yet who already dropped out - then it's not about man/woman. But the Valkyries won't see that logic. Just as bullet-headed W supporters think that he'll be vindicated by history (much as James Buchanan and Warren Harding have), so type-1 Hillary supporters consider every slight to be one of gender.

And, yes, I do claim that there are those who are against Obama because they are racists. My claim is not the same thing as the Hillary claim. Why? Because I'm applying it to only a segment of his opposition, not the totality. And because I am not an idiot.

Anyway, the Valkyries can be mollified if Obama chooses a viable female VP. No mouth-breathing non-entities from useless states (paging Representative Ferraro). Obama would need a competent purple/red state Senator/Governor; preferably one who can run in '16. And since women live way longer than men, I think he can skew older than I suspect he could with male candidates.

OK, enough background. Now to the original post, back from Jan 9:

The Analysis:
For my list of current and former office holders, I'm using this Rutgers site, and any relevant Wiki sites (there's nothing comprehensive... maybe I'll make it). Also, I went through a list of women a few weeks ago, which I will reproduce as well. Following is their name, state, year first elected into office, and age.

Governors

1. Christine Gregoire (Washington, 2004, 61)
   
2. Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas, 2002, 60)
   
3. Janet Napolitano (Arizona, 2002, 51)
   
4. Ruth Ann Minner (Delaware, 2001, 73)
   
5. Jennifer Granholm (Michigan, 2002, 49)

Former Governors

1. Kathleen Blanco (Lousiana, 2004-2007, 66)
   
2. Jeanne Shaheen (New Hamp, 1997-2003, 61)

Senators

1. Barbara Boxer of California
   
2. Dianne Feinstein (California)
   
3. Amy Klobuchar Minnesota
   
4. Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas 1998, 48)
   
5. Claire McCaskill Missouri
   
6. Barbara Mikulski Maryland
   
7. Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House

Quick Analysis -

• Sebelius - in House from 86-94, Chair of Democratic Governors Association. Moderate but pro-choice, anti-death penalty.
  
• Napolitano - named one of the 5 best governors; US Atty for AZ under Clinton, former chair of Gov. Assoc.
  
• Gregoire - Atty Gen. of Wash from 1993-2005
  
• Blanco - In disgrace after Katrina mismanagement.
  
• Granholm - not a U.S. citizen (she's Canadaian)
  
• Minner - too old (73)
  
• Shaheen - pal of Hillary, will run for Senator of NH (which is more important for the party)

Now back to 4-7-08
I have a soft-spot for Blanche Lincoln. She's young, so she can run in '16, she Southern, and she has the great last name. If Obama really wants to channel the Abraham Lincoln vibe, what better way than to actually have one on the ticket. Yeah, Blanche has (after 1/9/08) endorsed Hillary, but whoop-de-doo. However, to get the older group, I think Napolitano or Sebelius. Napolitano is term limited so she'd be a good shot - and she can maybe embarrass the GOP by taking McCain's home state into the Democrats. Sebelius is also term limited and has a more strategic region/state (even if the Democrats can't win KS, we can maybe get a lot of the Midwest with two of them on the ticket).

Because of the regionalism - and her experience in the House as well as governor - I think Sebelius is the best pick for Obama.

Finished 4/7/08 11:48 PM, began January 9th, 2008. Honest.

Al Gore, Baby

Al Gore and bunch of UN things won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

A number of thoughts:

1. It's always good when the Peace Prize goes for something that's not directly antagonistic to Israel

2. It's nice to see that the American President-Elected who got the prize isn't a schmuck.

3. It's nice to see when the Nobel Peace Prize goes for something that actually helps people (like last year's as well).

4. While one could think, "hey maybe an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize in one year is worth not being [acknowledged as] President," just recall that the past 7 years have been one of bloodshed, torture and impoverishment and that a Gore-Lieberman Administration certainly would not have jackrabbited into the Iraq War, would probably have prevented 9/11, would have had a working FEMA to help with Katrina (and probably would have shored up the levees), wouldn't have bankrupted the country with misbegotten economic plans, etc. And since Gore is a decent human being, he would have wanted to be president to prevent the horrible Bush stuff, even if he didn't get to proactively do anything good.

5. Moreover, after he stepped down in 2009, Gore would have gone on to do important work - possibly on Global Warming (if he wasn't successful in tackling it as President) - and would have won a Nobel in 2016 or so.

6. Will he run for president now? I still think not (again, his Taco Grande belly is the best barometer, as it were, than his many prizes). What he can do is tilt the balance to either Hillary or Obama.

{2009 Update: Pic from here.}

St. Bush

During the Bush Honeymoon Period (from 9/11 until Katrina), when he seemed unstoppable, triumphalist Christers would state proudly that they love the fact that a devout Christian was in the White House. Even back then, I was advising them to not adopt him as their own as he appeared to be a mean and stupid person. We can't always choose who will be successful from our ethnic/cultural subgroup, but we can choose to adopt the person as a hero. As a Jewish-American, I want to adopt Albert Einstein (even though he wasn't very religious) and not Jonathan Pollard (who has found Jehovah in prison, I've been told). So it is with religious Christians and Bush... don't adopt him! - he's a cruel moron! - but I'm not sure they've gotten the message yet.

Here's a list of 50 quotes from Bush about his religious faith from the Aug 8 2007 London Times, compiled by their Religion reporter Libby Purves.

In the list are famous lines (like #17 "I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah" - White House, Dec. 10, 2001), but also just inane statements of his "simple" faith. I say simple because he seems as committed to religious terminology but not religious behavior. He probably likes praying because it's done alone and in direct communication with his chosen, self-defined Deity. As such, it is an act of egotism, not devotion. Minyan forces you to pray with others, to depend on others. Kneeling on your rich carpet to communicate one-on-one with Heaven as if you were a modern-day Moshe Rabbeinu is barely tolerated in halakha.

And outside of prayer, what does Bush do that can be called religious? I doubt he gives much to charity (I'm trying to find the numbers online; download his disclosures here). And let's not forget about the last president who was gloriously touted as a religious man who'd bring Christian principles to bear on White House policy: James Earl Carter.

6 Degress of Larry Craig

In addition to being a 'tearoom cruiser' (I now know more about this stuff than I ever thought it healthy t do), Senator Craig is/was a member of The Singing Senators - a quartet of Republican crooners: (1) John Ashcroft (R-MO) Baritone, (2) Larry Craig (R-ID) - Lead, (3) James Jeffords (R-VT) - Tenor, (4) Trent Lott (R-MS) - Bass.

Now, I am not saying there's anything wrong with being the lead in a male a-capella group. I'm certainly not saying it's in any way gay.

The Wiki explains the origin:

"In 1995, at New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith's birthday party, Ashcroft, Jeffords, Lott, and Connie Mack of Florida sang 'Happy Birthday.' Later, when Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon was having a birthday party, Jeffords called Lott and suggested that the four of them sing at the party. Mack declined, but Larry Craig joined. "

How nice of Larry to join! And all for Bob "Mr. Morals" Packwood. If anything, this explains that Larry has some important friends (e.g. Lott has so far been holding off from calling for his resignation).

The funny thing about the GOP is that they want him to resign for his sin of being gay; I would want him to resign because, uh, he was arrested (and plead guilty) for public lewdness.

I read on some blog that we should feel compassion for Craig. I guess because he's embarrassed. OK. Sure. But our standards are pretty low if we have such compassion for a ranking Senator who was arrested in a public bathroom.

We should have compassion for the victims of Katrina - many of whom have still been left homeless two years after Bush's Hurricane. Give them sympathy, give Craig ridicule.

Email-Gate Anyone?

Hey, remember Filegate? That was fun. Back in 1996, the rabid Republicans controlled congress and the press was playing along with their every single manufactured scandal against Bill Clinton.

Why? I have my theories. It's likely a mixture of commerce and contempt. Commerce = Bill Clinton was transformed - because of his innate charismatic celebrity, because he was poor white trash and because he was an inveterate horndog - into tabloid fodder. Just as Angelina Jolie can't cross the street without front-page tabloid coverage, so too everything Bill did became celebritous and shocking. He was interesting in all the tabloidy ways and the media stopped caring about journalism and all about selling themselves. Contempt = because Bill was a hillbilly cracker from a broken home and the press corps, even by the 90s, was filled with wannabe cultural elitists. They hated him for the same reason Rush hates blacks.

Anyway, filegate was a hoot. Naturally, there was absolutely no wrongdoing, but that didn't stop the media from flogging this dead horse for a big long while.

My question, though, about that "gate" is: how long did it take for the allegations to surface before the 'gate' was appended it? And, related to that, how many newspapers/cable news shows used the term thereafter?

I ask that especially now because the Bush administration has so many real honest-to-goodness unbelievable-in-this-modern-enlightened-age scandals yet I don't know of a single 'gate.'

True, they tried doing that to the Plame/Libby case (plamegate, libbygate) but not only didn't those names stick, they weren't really widely used. And, if that's all we can dredge up, then that just proves my point. Check out this index page . None of the scandals that should be going on have been bandied about enough to get 'gated.' Torture? WMDs? Katrina? Cheney shooting a guy?!

Well, we have a chance now. If you've been following the news recently, it appears that the White House has misplaced millions of emails that relate to, uh, everything. And it happens to be a big ol' law that the emails be kept. Forever. Not ever to be deleted.

Will this scandal take off? Will the fact that the government has been eliminating evidence of its behavior cause a 'gate' to be appended? Let's see how long it takes, if it even does.

Oh, and just in case you're one of those Rush Limbaugh type listeners who won't believe that Bush would do anything wrong because he's a by-golly tough talkin' Texan born-again Christer, then see this list of all the times Bush's pardners have lost evidence:

Greenwald: The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents

Kurt Vonnegut & Don Imus

Well Kurt Vonnegut died yesterday at 84. This happened the same day that Don Imus was fired by MSNBC (and suspended by CBS) for saying nasty stuff.

The contrast between these two is instructive. Vonnegut was (until yesterday) the most important living American writer - because he was imaginative, knew how to write true satire, and generally he knew right from wrong. He was often compared to Mark Twain - and that's a fine comparison because the two were fine-thinking humorists. As such, even though I often disagreed with Vonnegut's politics, he was a hero to those of us who try to see the world realistically and communicate that realia to others. He was successful while most of us aren't. Hence, a hero.

Seeing Vonnegut a few months ago on The Daily Show was a defining nexus of this moment in time's highest culture. It was like witnessing Einstein meeting Freud (which never happened) or Twain meeting Churchill (which did). True, Jon Stewart and Kurt Vonnegut aren't at the stature of the above four, but we take what we can get.

Then there's Don Imus. I have not listened to the show for any decent length. I first heard of him from a relative, back in the late 80s, who liked the show because Imus told sick, racist jokes. Since that description, I have steered away from anything to do with him. Which was why I was so surprised a couple of years ago when I heard that he was a powerful interviewer of the powerful political elite. Huh? The racist-joke slimeball interviews presidential candidates and NYTimes reporters?!

Naturally, I am happy that Imus has finally been hoisted by his own petard. But the more important question is why he had been able to continue for so very long? Related to that question is: why did this obviously noxious and racist bonehead get caught LAST WEEK for what he has been doing for years?

The same holds true for Ann Coulter. She has been saying unconscionable things for years. Yet she gets smacked down for calling Jon Edwards a bad word. Huh? Especially since, if you've seen the footage, she actually did not call Edwards the fg-word. It was actually a botched joke. [Which, when it's as obvious as it has been in the case of Kerry and Coulter is a valid defense; it also applies to a recent flap over Garrison Keillor and can even apply to Imus's last straw.]

Why does it take so long to catch on to the vile nature of people like Imus and Coulter and why does the tide turn, often, on a small action and not on a grand error?

The same is holding true for the current government, by the way. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were obviously criminal incompetents from day one. Yet America only figured this out around September 2006. Not after Katrina, not after no WMD, not after the economic policies written by Daddy Warbucks. It was before the Foley scandal, too. It just kinda happened. And the big revulsion - the one that should be in place now - has yet to happen. What I mean is that just as Imus and Coulter are now exposed for being the kind of people I knew they were years ago, so too Bush & Cheney will be exposed... it's this freakish new law of perception... but I don't know how or when it happens.

It does fall under the Tipping Point kind of dynamics, for sure. It's frustrating to me because until the point tips, the slimeball in question is given honor and access. Imus and Coulter were given respect, Bush and Cheney still are, yet when the point tips people will see them and revile them just as I see them and revile them now. Yet my revulsion, before the point tips, is heretical and unacceptable.

This is why it's an irony that Vonnegut dies the day a slimeball is unfrocked. Because Vonnegut saw the truth and was able to tell people about it. Yet his books were often and still are banned and reviled. While people like Imus walked free, Vonnegut's books were even burned. But I, like Twain and Vonnegut, can look at these ironies, inconsistencies and infuriations and find solace in the attempt to tell the truth of it all.

Paul Krugman Says it Better Than I

I find it useful to quote people who agree with me because it's too weird to actually quote your own self. So here's today's Krugman (Don't Cry for Reagan):

"... both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package. In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs."

This is why Bush, Bush & Reagan negligently and actively destroyed the government. And as Katrina and Walter Reed has taught America, there are just some things that we need and that only government can do.

Webb, The Blame for Iraq

Letter sent to TPM re: The blame the American people for Bush's screw-ups meme

Dear Josh,

1. In reference to the new GOP/Conservative talking point (Stanley Kurtz, Morton Kondracke) about blaming the American People for not letting Bush fight the war. I could give a long answer to this, refuting this disgusting accusation & complaining about how terrible Bush and his proxies are, but we already know all that. The short answer is that the American people knew about the price of the war in Iraq and paid for it: in the 2004 election.

If you remember, Bush won the 2000 election because his team successfully convinced the American Voters that he was just slightly ideologically to the right to Gore. He was another 'moderate' (which they called a 'compassionate conservative'). This pose was so convincing that the far-left consumed it whole and voted for Nader, thinking that there was no real difference between Gore and Bush. The American people back then wanted a moderate and before 9/11 Bush had low popularity numbers because Rove quickly ripped off the face-mask and shoved a hard-right agenda down America's throats. Rove needed to do this - because the country was teetering on the 50-50 edge in 2000 and Nader's people made the difference so Rove needed to galvanize the Christianists to offset the Greens.

Then 9/11.

And the American people, who disliked the Conservative crap, rallied behind Bush because we had just been savagely attacked on our own soil. And Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of the whackos from Nixon/Ford felt that the time had come to create the New Executive Branch, and to get even with Saddam, all in one fell swoop. So we attacked Iraq. But I think we need to remind ourselves, and everyone, that the American People went ahead with that war because they were told that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons, already owned chemical & biologicals and had used them before on Kurds, was an old enemy, and was a state sponsor of Al Queda. That's why we attacked Iraq and if it was all true - the WMD, the nukes, the Al Queda link - then the war would have been the moral equivalent of the war in Afghanistan (which nobody really disputes, do they?)

The 2004 election was the American voter biting the bullet and sacrificing themselves for the greater good. It wasn't a validation for Conservatism, it was in spite of that. It was the American voter thinking that they hated the Conservative politics but needing to vote for Bush anyway because the war in Iraq was still being depicted by the MSM as a necessary part of our 9/11 reaction and Kerry was a feckless, talentless, cipher. As we saw with the botched joke, if Kerry would have run against Bush in November 2006, Bush would have won.

After Katrina and after the war became exposed for its nonsense and after the American Voter was asked to give up more and more freedom (wire-taps?, torture?) the price they paid in 2004 just seemed to be too steep to pay in 2006.

2. About the Webb question: I agree with a watered-down JS. I don't think Webb was avoiding Bush as part of a sophisticated ploy. Webb reminds me of the Andrew Jackson form of politician - the straight-talk economic populist military man. And Americans would vote for Andrew Jackson over and over and over - historically I think he's the most significant president because he's the first non-Founding Father and the first American stereotype, the first non-elite, the first populist. Webb, as far as I can tell, seems to walk around as a ball of barely contained rage against all those who've slighted him in person and in the abstract. And his abstract enemies include draft-avoiders like Clinton and Bush. His hatred for Clinton is known (see that recent New yorker piece) and I imagine he hates Bush even more because of the class issue.

Bush, as we know, is a bully. He doesn't have an ounce of compassion in his putrid soul. He asked Webb about his son because he was picking a fight with someone he thinks he can beat. But as we've seen over and over, Bush underestimates his resources and strength. He doesn't know that Webb is going to mop him up. Webb truly scares the GOP because he has a better executive branch record than Cheney and Rumsfeld (who would America rather have, Sec of Defense under Ford & Bush or Sec of Navy from Reagan). Webb makes Bush look to be the wonder-wimp that he is.

And remember what Andrew Jackson (Webb) did to John Quincy Adams (Bush).

all the best, JC

Backpost put up on 2009-12-08.

Impeachment, Gonzales

As I've said before, I am looking forward to the impeachment of the major up-foulers in the Executive Branch. It should be inevitable, given the levels of malfeasance and criminality. Wireless wiretaps and torture lead the day but the fabricated intelligence that lead to the Iraq War, or the negligence with Katrina could also work.

It's similar to how Saddam will be executed for a teeny-weeny mass murder (hundreds of victims) instead of the full hundreds of thousands. Murder is murder, dead will be dead. I just want Saddam to stay alive until all his misdeeds are put into public record. Killing him too quick may prevent us from finding the full truth (and who else participated).

So too with Bush. He should be impeached for every single sickbag thing he's done. And his dog Cheney too. How the information is revealed will determine whether he'll go out like Nixon or stay in office like Reagan/Bush 41. My feeling tends to Nixon because the horrors were domestic. All Reagan/Bush did in Iran-Contra was dupe congress and fund atrocities abroad. Yawn. Nixon, however, helped cover up for a freakin' burglary. It was pathetic.

However, it's not just that the American people don't particularly mind if a president declares a stupid war but they do care about criminal negligence on these shores. Nixon was impeached because the FBI hated him and kept the heat on, leaking information from the Grand Jury to Woodward and Bernstein, etc. The FBI killed Nixon, the FBI/CIA didn't care about Iran-Contra.

That's why Bush is likely to go down like Nixon - because Bush has tried to destroy the CIA and Bush/Rumsfeld has been abusing the military. Two big institutions with a lot of domestic support (military) and/or access to skeletons (CIA). If the Democrats play this right, they'll get all the info they need from the Army/CIA and Bush will be toast. The Republicans will dump him so they can save 2008.

My prediction of impeachment, now that the Democrats won, is that as soon as the water starts to boil, Cheney will bail. Health reasons, ya know. If we're lucky, he'll go out like Casey. But his early departure can come with a promise of leniency if he names names. He would, too. It's just that he's the top prize, but like Kaiser Sose he'll leave the Meathead In Chief to take the fall.

Anyway, when Cheney leaves, Kaiser Rove will find someone to replace him. At this point, were the GOP to have decency and sanity, they would find a lone Republican with a brain and a heart. Someone untainted by this administration who can plausibly run in 2008 from a position of experience and strength. Any of the putative, moderate, front-runners like McCain or Giuliani. Or someone completely free and clean, like John Danforth. That won't happen. My prediction is that they'll choose Alberto Gonzales.

Yup, Torturin' Al. He'll be chosen because (as seen below) the GOP believes they can purchase respectability by trotting out their token minorities. Who cares if Alberto is a horrible, talentless lackey? What matters is that he is loyal to the Bush Family and can use his skin-color as a get-out-jail-free card.

Once the VP is in place, Bush's impeachment will follow. He may resign before it gets too far. I hope he won't and he actually might not.

Bush's defining characteristic, even more than his staggering stupidity or his lack of any positive moral quality (compassion? no; respect for human dignity? no; generosity? no), is his need to appear strong despite crushing internal weakness. He's a bully; a dumb, rich bully.

Being a dumb rich bully leads to his well documented inability to distinguish between success and failure. Exhibit A: Iraq; B: Katrina; etc. So in the disused piece of meat that is his brain, he may think that sticking through an impeachment hearing will be the strong, manly thing. He'll repeatedly ask "What Would Jesus Do [Were Jesus mean stupid and corrupt]?" and come up with the answer that he wants.

It would be nice to have a successful impeachment after 217 years; to finally set the bar for malfeasance to come.

All this means that we may be looking at a President Gonzales or Rice in a year.

Letter to TPM About Foley

This is a letter I sent this morning to the Talking Points Memo about an open question about why the GOP is steadily falling in the polls.  The question, basically put, is "Is it all Foley?":

Dear Josh,

 

Re: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010338.php

 

I would say that the paradigm shift you describe (without calling it that, poor Kuhn has been abused by too many to risk even an accurate reference), that the country has said 'enough' started in earnest with Katrina. 

 

The whole episode showed that Homeland Security was a farce and that the GOP activity does not care about people.  The fact that Bush ignored Sheehan helped set that context.  Then came Miers, to show the GOP core that Bush doesn't even know he has lost credibility.  Then the Iraq war kept getting worse and worse and more communinties across America were losing native children.  Then major players of a distinct Republican identity - the heads of military - were almost unanimously against the conduct of the war.  Then the public break of GOP Senators over the torture bill (John McCain! John "Elizabeth Taylor" Warner!) made it clearer.

 

None of the real substance - the stuff we who read newspapers/internet know about - mattered.  Torture, habeas corpus, NIE reports are either too detailed or easily spun.  Even the massive corruption scandals of Abrahamoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney are either 'business as usual' (corrupt politicians? i'm shocked, shocked) or in someone else's backyard. 

 

I think the Foley case and North Korea coming almost simultaneously were the one-two punch that finally made people snap (as you described it).  Basically because both are Katrina, one domestic, one foreign.  North Korea getting the bomb is absurd in light of the war in Iraq.  Most people in America felt that we had to go in because Saddam Hussein, after killing James Bond, deployed the planes that destroyed the WTC and that was only the beginning.  The WMD were ready to be aimed at us.  Because we didnt find any doesn't mean they didn't exist, just like there still can be Dragons over the lip of the flat earth. But when one of the Axis of Evil countries actually develops WMD while we just sit and mumble destroys whatever credibility was left about the rectitude of attacking Iraq.  It's thank God not as bad as another attack on US soil, but its almost the same thing rhetorically.

 

Then Foley.  Which shows that, like Katrina, the GOP just doesn't care about people.  The wonderful denials, the blaming of Democrats, the belief that the creepy IMs didnt look troubling, the fact that Foley has repeatedly shown up drunk at the Page dorms - these things hit home. 

 

And, to again use the paradigm-shift theory, because the Catholic church scandals of the past few years have already prepared people's opinions on the matter, people instantly knew what to think when Foleygate hit.  Everyone except die-hards attacked the Catholic Church hierarchy; how could they ignore the abuse etc.  This is why Foley's actions are considered so bad (even though it wasn't near the levels of the priests') - because we already knew what this was.

 

Lastly, Foleygate shows the hypocracy of the GOP gay-bashing to the Christianist Fundamentalists.  The Christianists all believe that gay men prey on young boys.  They didn't know that the GOP leaders (Hastert, Santorum) had openly gay chiefs-of-staff.  That, I believe, is the real snapping point.  To use a crude metaphor it's as if Strom Thurmond in 1948 had a black chief-of-staff [when he ran for President as the anti-segregationist 'Dixiecrat' party]

 

However, all my wonderful analysis is moot because who cares what the majority of people think.  Its all GOTV and Karl Rove is the world's master.  It reminds me of how badly I do at predicting the Oscars; I base my predictions on what I think deserves an award and the Oscar goes to whomever receives the most votes.  And I have no idea who is in the Academy nor how those people think.  Adrien Brody?  Roman 'Pederast' Polanksi?!  

 

As we saw in 2004, Rove managed to find enough people - people who had not been responding to pre-polling - to get their tushes in the voting booth.  So all the outrage, and the poll numbers, all the scandals mean nothing if we don't know who Rove has managed to connive into voting this year.  And what is most frustrating is that Rove is 100% correct - who cares about the issues if all that matters is getting enough votes in one 18 hour period on one day in history.

 

My 25 cents. 

 

All the best,

[The Styx]

 

 

Foley and the GOP for November

A letter I sent TPM, Re: Is It All Foley? - about the dismal state of the GOP's electoral chances in November:

Dear Josh,

I would say that the paradigm shift you describe (without calling it that, poor Kuhn has been abused by too many to risk even an accurate reference), that the country has said 'enough' started in earnest with Katrina.

The whole episode showed that Homeland Security was a farce and that the GOP activity does not care about people. The fact that Bush ignored Sheehan helped set that context. Then came Miers, to show the GOP core that Bush doesn't even know he has lost credibility. Then the Iraq war kept getting worse and worse and more communities across America were losing native children. Then major players of a distinct Republican identity - the heads of military - were almost unanimously against the conduct of the war. Then the public break of GOP Senators over the torture bill (John McCain! John "Elizabeth Taylor" Warner!) made it clearer.

None of the real substance - the stuff we who read newspapers/internet know about - mattered. Torture, habeas corpus, NIE reports are either too detailed or easily spun. Even the massive corruption scandals of Abrahamoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney are either 'business as usual' (corrupt politicians? I'm shocked, shocked) or in someone else's backyard.

I think the Foley case and North Korea coming almost simultaneously were the one-two punch that finally made people snap (as you described it). Basically because both are Katrina, one domestic, one foreign. North Korea getting the bomb is absurd in light of the war in Iraq. Most people in America felt that we had to go in because Saddam Hussein, after killing James Bond, deployed the planes that destroyed the WTC and that was only the beginning. The WMD were ready to be aimed at us. Because we didn't find any doesn't mean they didn't exist, just like there still can be Dragons over the lip of the flat earth. But when one of the Axis of Evil countries actually develops WMD while we just sit and mumble destroys whatever credibility was left about the rectitude of attacking Iraq. It's thank God not as bad as another attack on US soil, but its almost the same thing rhetorically.

Then Foley. Which shows that, like Katrina, the GOP just doesn't care about people. The wonderful denials, the blaming of Democrats, the belief that the creepy IMs didn't look troubling, the fact that Foley has repeatedly shown up drunk at the Page dorms - these things hit home.

And, to again use the paradigm-shift theory, because the Catholic church scandals of the past few years have already prepared people's opinions on the matter, people instantly knew what to think when Foleygate hit. Everyone except die-hards attacked the Catholic Church hierarchy; how could they ignore the abuse etc. This is why Foley's actions are considered so bad (even though it wasn't near the levels of the priests') - because we already knew what this was.

Lastly, Foleygate shows the hypocrisy of the GOP gay-bashing to the Christianists. The Christianists all believe that gay men prey on young boys. They didn't know that the GOP leaders (Hastert, Santorum) had openly gay chiefs-of-staff. That, I believe, is the real snapping point. To use a crude metaphor its as if Strom Thurmond in 1948 had a black chief-of-staff.

However, all my wonderful analysis is moot because who cares what the majority of people think. Its all GOTV and Karl Rove is the world's master. It reminds me of how badly I do at predicting the Oscars; I base my predictions on what I think deserves an award and the Oscar goes to whomever receives the most votes. And I have no idea who is in the Academy nor how those people think. Adrien Brody? Roman 'Pederast' Polanksi?!

As we saw in 2004, Rove managed to find enough people - people who had not been responding to pre-polling - to get their tushes in the voting booth. So all the outrage, and the poll numbers, all the outrages mean nothing if we don't know who Rove has managed to connive into voting this year. And what is most frustrating is that Rove is 100% correct - who cares about the issues if all that matters is getting enough votes in one 18 hour period on one day in history.

My 25 cents.
All the best,
JC

Pic from here. Backpost put up 2009-12-08.

Nobel Peace Odds

Tomorrow they will announce the Nobel Peace Prize, the most important - and most farcical - prize of them all. Because we live in a degenerate age, the best way to calibrate who will win is to go to a sports betting site, like this one (Centrebet). Note, Slate sent me to this link.

Personally, I think that Bill Clinton should have better odds (he's not even listed).

Ya see, Literature and Peace have by design or adaptation become purely political. Literature is basically a second peace prize (does anybody actually consider a bunch of Swedes capable of determining the quality of art? The Lit prize is a joke. Science is universal and a group of scientists in scandanavia have probably as much acumen as anywhere else as to what research deserves a prize. And in the past years there's been very little dissent over appropriateness of the receipients - if there has its over people who were overlooked). But Literature?! How much world lit is written in Swedish? Which means these bozos are reading it in translation. And its art. Ah well)

As I, and anybody with a brain, predicted, Literature went to a Muslim (Orhan Pamuk). Considering that the Muslim world has shown in the past 12 months that they are against any form of free expression no matter how benign (cartoons?!) or important (Mozart), this seemed inevitable just as last year's lit that went to an anti-war (and anti-British) activist (Pinker).

The fact that both Lit and Peace are given by the Swedes/Norse to change the world's direction, I wouldn't be surprised if the Peace Prize went to someone that repudiates the current American administration. Given that Bill Clinton has spearheaded in the past year the US relief efforts for the Tsunami, for Katrina, and his Clinton Foundation Thingie has been doing high-profile do-goody things all over... and because he is getting more popular in world opinion every living second when held in comparison to the unhinged brute malevolence of his successor.

The odds for peace this year seem to be for Martti Ahtisaari of the "Crisis Management Initiative." Now that I've seen his bio on the wiki, I'm seeing why he's a front runner. First, his group negotiated a peace treaty in Indonesia. He also was in charge of the Vienna Peace Treaty for Kosovo. Most importantly, he was the former President of Finland. That's locks it - those lapland types stick together.

Sick enough, there's decent odds on Mordechai Frickin Vanunu (the traitor who revealed Israel's Nuclear program). That should also favor heavily into the Nobelian system. What better way to send a message for world peace than to thump Israel?