He's Beating Me To It

I have felt that were I ever to run for congress, it would be from the New Jersey 5th. It's a heavily Jewish area that can use a moderate democrat instead of it's current dipstick Republican. Well, seems this guy is beating me to it, with a similar gimmick (except that my being Orthodox would be better than his being conservative and blind).

Mukasey

I read all over the news and the liberal blogs that the Democrats surrendered again by allowing Mukasey to be Attorney General. See Sunday's Frank Rich, and the NYTimes editorials. Schumer, especially, is criticized for capitulating and blah blah blah.

Alas, this is another case of poor analysis and poor priorities. Read Schumer's op-ed on why he voted for Mukasey. Everything he says is plausible and reasonable. Here's the summary:

1. Chuck Schumer (CS) sympathizes with those who want to reject Mukasey over his bad answers.

2. But Bush has threatened that if Mukasey is rejected, there won't be another nominee. Rather a low-level staffer, who has not gone though Senate review, would be acting attorney general until Bush leaves office:

Should we reject Judge Mukasey, President Bush has said he would install an acting, caretaker attorney general who could serve for the rest of his term without the advice and consent of the Senate. To accept such an unaccountable attorney general, I believe, would be to surrender the department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington. All the work we did to pressure Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign would be undone in a moment.

3. Mukasey has said that if the Senate passes a law to clarify the waterboarding issue, Makesey will abide by it, even against the Unitary Executive horse-manure shoveled by Bush & Co.:

On Friday, he personally made clear to me that if the law were in place, the president would have no legal authority to ignore it — not even under some theory of inherent authority granted by Article II of the Constitution, as Vice President Cheney might argue. Nor would the president be able to evade a clear pronouncement on the subject from the courts. Judge Mukasey also pledged to enforce such a law.

4. Schumer felt that rebuilding the Justice department was far more of a serious issue than the ambiguity about waterboarding, especially given the Senate's ability to clarify issues with an actual law.

Yes, it's terribly disturbing that Mukasey isn't up-front about waterboarding as torture, but is the Senate's job to (a) prevent an otherwise important cabinet officer over that issue or (b) to actually make a law saying that waterboarding is torture. Just to remind you viewers at home, the Senate is part of Congress which - until the GOP took both houses over - is the body that makes the laws that govern the executive branch.

Schumer's points are correct: while torture needs to be rejected (and it's unbelievable that we're even talking about it as ambiguous - thank you Bush voters!) it's WAAAAAAY more important to actually clean up the Justice Department. Why? Because of (a) warrant-less wiretaps and (b) the vote-suppression tactics perpetrated by Karl Christian Rove and Alberto Gonzales.

In fact, any partisan Democrat should want Mukasey over some DOJ hack because until the DOJ is cleaned up, there's no way we can trust our own US elections to be held safely... yet another think we need to thank Bush voters for.

Oh, and why was the vote done so swiftly (midnight Thursday)? According to the TPM it's because Sen. Reid made a deal with the GOP:

According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And because the Times and other mush-heads don't understand what Reid did, I'll explain. Mukasey was supposed to be a cake-walk for the GOP. Because of Democratic opposition - which still wasn't enough to prevent his confirmation - Reid was able to pass a bill that funded the military WITHOUT FUNDING THE CRAZY WAR.

Reid triumphed; Schumer chose the lesser of the two evils that have been forced upon us by the scumbag Bush crew. And, yet, the Democrats are blamed for rolling over and playing dead.

Why doesn't the GOP get such bad press for all the crap they do? To be honest, because of the liberal bias in newspapers: the journalists *expect* the GOP to be scumbags.

One More Hillary Comment

As I've mentioned before, one reason why I don't like Hillary is from a feminist perspective. Yeah, she may be the first female US president but she won't be the first US woman to be elected to fill her husbands old political post. There's a long list (which I can't find right now) and it's not impressive. The whole idea that a woman can (only) become powerful if she's married/related to an even MORE powerful man is disturbing.

Now she plays the second anti-feminist card. After the most recent debate - where she became the target of the other candidates - her PR team came out with this message: "What happens when the “politics of pile-on” replaces the “politics of hope?” Hillary comes out on top... One strong woman."

Ya see, she's trying to depict herself as a big strong woman, yet still a woman who cannot be attacked. She's trying to play the victim - which would NEVER be attempted if she were a man - and hope that the female Democratic base will rise up in anger at Obama/Edwards for being mean to a lady.

And, ya know, this tactic may work. Women may instinctively support Hillary even more because she's being treated badly by the old-boy club. And sure, playing the victim just enrages the menfolk who really don't want to ever see that tactic played. It enrages me because it's anti-feminist.

There's a Dilbert comic with Alice and Tina about the glass ceiling which I'm trying to find to illustrate this...

Update: There's a story in the Times right now about this.

Hawk & Dove

These terms are used in politics to describe those who want tough foreign policy ('hawks') and those who, uh, don't ('doves'). Since I am clearly a hawk, I don't actually understand how doves think, but that's OK, because hawks are considered bloodthirsty bandits by the doves and doves are considered cowardly and stupid by hawks.

Whenever you have a stark debate like this, the titles and terms are created by the partisans and used by everyone and make both sides sound pretty good. An example is in the abortion debate where the sides are called (by themselves first and then everyone got used to it): pro-life & pro-choice.

What I propose is that we force both sides to drop the euphemisms and be called by the terms the other side uses (or at least from an objective perspective). So pro-choice would be renamed "the Baby Butchers" and pro-life would be "pro-rape & incest" (or something like that).


A buzzard is actually part of the hawk family (when most people think 'buzzard' they actually visualize a vulture... they're different animals).When it comes to hawk & dove, I propose that we use better birds - buzzard & chicken.

Buzzards feed on corpses & carnage - exactly what doves think about hawks.

And hawks think doves are chicken.

Canada's View of America

Evidently, Canada has been receiving quite a number of investigative requests since Bush's overwhelming crushing stunning majority victory. The Toronto Star suggests that this be the new map of North America.

Polling Data on Track

A key datum for predicting an incumbent's chances for re-election is the question "do you think the country is on the right track."

According to this polling data (Direction of Country), the past three months show bad numbers for Bush.

Gallup Poll. May 2-4, 2004. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?"

Date:..............Satisfied........Dissatisfied........No Opinion
5/2-4/04...............36.....................62..............................2
4/5-8/04...............41.....................57..............................2
3/8-11/04.............39.....................60..............................1

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). May 1-3, 2004. N=1,012 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"All in all, do you think things in the nation are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are off on the wrong track?"

Date:.............Right Direction.....Wrong Track.....Mixed (vol.)....Not Sure
5/1-3/04:.............33............................50..................14......................3
3/6-8/04:.............43............................49..................4...................... 4

We Have Entered a Whole New World of Weird

This is embarrassing. Arnold "The Living Parody" Schwarzenegger is now Governor of California.

I voted, I hope you did. I could vote because, according to CA statute, you can vote either as a citizen of California or, and I quote, "a visitor from another planet" (Section 70200-70202 - this was passed in Prop 67).

Schwarzenegger is one of the only actors in our day who is able to be caricatured. If you check the pre-War 2 Bugs Bunnies, you'll see how the characters always imitate the famous movie stars - and can do so by the fact that until the 1970s, all actors sucked. Cagney, Bogart, Gable, Carey Grant - all of them speak funny and don't know how to play more than one type of character (a caricature of themselves). The last era of bad actortude was in the Shatner/Heston time - when you could breathe deeply after each syllable and still get away with it.

So who nowadays fits the old movie star caricature quality? Only Schwarzenegger.

Also, normally, big actors don't go into politics. The biggest til Arnie was Clint Eastwood; but he became the mayor of his own community, which is not a national office. Until Arnie, the only actors who became high level, national, politicians were rinky-dinkers: Sonny Bono, Jessie "The Mind Body Problem" Ventura, Ben Jones ("Cooter" on Dukes of Hazzard - a Rep. from GA, he lost his seat to Newt Gingrich), Fred Grandy ("Gopher" on Love Boat, a Rep. from Iowa), and the biggest small actor to get big office, Ronald "Bedtime for Bonzo" Reagan.

With Arnie's win, that makes Predator the highest ranking movie in the electoral college (he and Ventura star). And it's a fine fine film.

Fair and Square (so far)

In any case, the way the numbers turned out, the vote satisfies my fear of "tyranny by the masses." According to the Times (Voters Voice Deep Dissatisfaction With Governor's Record):

"With more than 98 percent of the votes counted, the recall question on the two-part ballot was passing by 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent, .... In the contest to replace Mr. Davis, Mr. Schwarzenegger led his nearest competitor, Lt. Gov. Cruz M. Bustamante, 48.1 percent to 32.2 percent"

That's fine: as a straight election, Schwarzenegger beat Davis by 48.1 to 45.3. I'm cool with that.

California Recall

My favorite part of politics is the way that intelligent people invent bogus reasons why they support certain candidates. There are two ways to vote: for or against. It is very rare to vote for an individual. So all we get - for individuals - is an "against" style.

In general, people vote for parties. And that's when the contradictions start abursting like cheap internet ads. Republicans, great and small, need to defend: (a) the Recall, (b) punch-card voting, and (c) Schwarzenegger as a candidate.

And, because the Democrats feel like they were backing a winner, they were perfectly fine to defend Bill Clinton for all of his major and minor problems. And were the tables turned in California, they would be saying and doing the same things as the GOP now.

My point is that it's disgusting no matter which side does it (and it should be expected that people will do it). Just don't act so high and mighty when you're "defending your principles" about this because, face it, you don't have any.

By the numbers: a rational person knows that: (a) the recall is legal, because it's in the State constitution, but it's a pretty stinky way to run a state; it's as close as we get to having a cheap European style parliamentary system - with all the concomitant instability and populism. But Republicans are supporting it because they can win this one.

Same thing with (b) the "chads" The voting system is stupid, antiquated, and very well should be unconstitutional. But it worked for the GOP in 2000 - and will work again here - so they need to defend it even though it should be against their "patriotic" principles.

Rational people also know that (c) Schwarzenegger is a very poor candidate. He doesn't seem to have any knowledge of governance; he has ducked debates (a sign of a figurehead politician, and also bad citizenship and bad judgment); and his personal qualities are shady.

But the same GOP two-faced hypocrites who went after Bill Clinton on Feminist terms - and, hilariously still attack Hillary C on those same grounds - defend Schwarzenegger against all the abuse accusations. And as for having no executive branch qualities? That never stopped the GOP before - they seem to take pride in having brain-dead pretty boys be their executives. It may actually prove the GOP point that big government is wrong and it's only use is to preserve the status-quo and not take so much (if at all) of their money.

My opinion? Schwarzenegger is a pig. He's a no-nothing celebrity who is chosen only because he's electable. Which makes him a perfect Kennedy.

What did I tell ya?

The newest in the Governator assault (from the Times): Schwarzenegger Admired Hitler, Book Proposal Says

And there will be more. There are videos of Arnie groping the women who accuse him (I read about this in a Premiere magazine expose a few years ago). I predict that these videos will find their way onto the nightly news. The image of the Teutonic body-builder pawing petite victims will be shown over-and-over-again. California, the land of Rodney King, can't resist the power of the image.

The Governator

As I had predicted, the enemies of Schwarzenegger's candidacy are waiting until the week before the vote to bring out the big guns: his history of chronic sexual harassment. More, I'm sure, to come. See the story here: Schwarzenegger Says He's 'Behaved Badly'