Swing and Statis States

A quick note about my move from Connecticut to Massachusetts. While the two states have much in common (cruddy weather, hard to spell names, arugula), CT had the benefit of being a bit of a swing state.

The name "Swing" state became popular, IIRC, in the 90s to contrast with the red-blue split that pundits invented to make them sound intelligent. Red means Republican and blue means Democrat because, by some freaky coincidence, a number of the news networks decided to use these colors in their electoral maps. I remember when the colors were arbitrary based on independent decisions of the news editors, but when the hacks get a good hook they run with it, and now we're stuck.

Karl Rove and the millions who listen to him decided to press the "truth" that there was a red America (manly, religious, patriotic, land-locked), and a blue America (pansy, atheist, communist, coastal and/or cold). Yet there are some states that move between, 'swing' as it were, between being red or blue. These are the Swing States.

For those who depend on the red/blue dichotomy, the existence of swing states is difficult to rationalize. What makes it more difficult for these Manicheans, is that, if you look at a projected election map you'd see there are about 15-20 states that are credibly swinging. And, it bears to remind the uninformed voter, that there are only 50 states. Which means that if there are 17 swing states, that's one third of America. Which means that you can't really talk about red/blue without emphasizing that there's many places that don't identify as either.

I won't deny that there are some states that will never go "red" as well as those that won't go "blue." And there's a definite advantage to live in a "swing" state because the candidates will spend much more time, and make more crazy bribing promises, to pander to you.

And because of this dichotomy, that "swings" get all the attention while guaranteed reds and blues hardly get any, it suggests that red/blue is not that significant for analyzing an election while the swingy-ness is.

Hence my preferred dichotomy of Swing States (the 20 or so that could vote either way) and Static/Stasis States (ones that are reliably red or blue).

All of this leads to the contrast between Massachusetts and Connecticut. CT, being a swingish state (especially given McCain's popularity there), would mean that my single vote would matter in a national election. But now I live in Massachusetts. Which is as reliably a blue state as can be expected (1984 was a fluke).

My vote in November is basically useless. I should have kept my residency in CT.

Dowd and Hillary

Via TPM, the NYTimes Ombusperson (a.k.a. Public Editor) criticizes Maureen Dowd's coverage of Hillary (Pantsuits and the Presidency). I guess I don't expect much from Dowd to even bother outrage anymore. Dowd is an embarrasment to the profession, and that's saying a lot since 'pundits' are usually the lowest form of writer. 'Pundits' as we now have them are either bought-and-paid-for partisans or glib hacks. I really have no idea how Dowd got to her position (and I'm not surprised that she's won a Pulitzer - because those things are given out like meth at a hillbilly wedding).

But what makes this particular line of criticism important is the recognition that Dowd is basically gay-baiting. She applies a stark sexual politics onto Democrats - painting Democratic men as gay (unless they're like Bill Clinton and then they're pimps), and the women as lesbians. Considering Dowd is unmarried, and has attacked the notion of marriage in her book (Are Men Necessary?), her fixation on gender and sexuality goes beyond creepy into the pathology zone.

The whatever blog, Hullabaloo, put it very well:

"Again, the question isn't whether she should have treated Clinton any differently. It's that her entire worldview is toxic, both culturally and politically. She uses explicitly sexist and homophobic imagery that favors traditional authoritarian leadership to explain politics. She gets away with it because she has a rapier wit and is a physically beautiful person, thus insulating herself from the kind of criticism others would receive for writing this crud. But in truth she's a walking anachronism, more like a character in Mad Men than a modern sophisticate."

Pic self-made. Backpost finished 2009-12-03.

Why I Don't Read/Watch Iraq News

Pundits and associated bottom-dwellers have decried Americans' lack of interest in stories about Iraq. The Mainstream Media know of the lack of interest and comply by scaling back their stories about Iraq. The pundits (usually liberal ones) claim that because the horrific violence is no longer in our eyeballs every day that means we Americans are being fooled about how bad Iraq is.

Wrong.

I can't speak for my fellow Americans (unlike other pundits/bloggers/Hillaries), but I can talk about why I can't read/watch any news about Iraq.

Because I'm bitter about the war. Yeah, the magic word, 'bitter.' Obama said that blue-collar voters are bitter about their economic fate but have realized that Washington won't do anything about it. So they rely on things they do care about. And that's how I feel about Iraq.

The war is a terrible, horrible, failure. It can't get better. The House of Representatives is on board to end the war, the Senate is deadlocked (for why, see here), and the executive branch is hell-bent-for-leather to do whatever it wants. The war will not end before January 21, 2009 (and then, only if Obama wins).

So because the war won't end, and because it's so freakin' obvious except for solipsistic partisans that the war is hopeless, there's nothing nothing nothing I can do about it.

Hatred led to bittness. Bitterness led to this 'knowing apathy.' I don't avoid the news because I don't care, I avoid the news because I care so very much, and can't do anything about it, that to avoid bursting my ulcer every day, I need to avoid the news.

The Sad Tale of Wilentz

In the last post I described the core constituency of Hillary as basically women, old people, dumb people and racists. So where do Professor Sean Wilentz, and his fuzzy alter-ego Paul Krugman, fit in? Both are not women, dumb, or racist. Why do they hate Obama, and like Hillary, so much.

Part of the answer comes from analyzing their screeds. For Wilentz (who, I should add, was my professor in college and knows me personally, even if won't remember my name correctly), see this piece of guano in the New Republic:
"Making the Case... for Hillary Clinton" and for Krugman, just read any column over the past 4 months.

What both have in common is the small group of the Democratic elite who support Hillary:

1. Baby-boomers (who are the "old" category of the previous post)
   
2. and/or fierce liberals who hate the GOP so much that they want to keep fighting the fractious red-blue wars of the 90s (and the 60s, go figure).
   
3. and/or pundits who endorsed Hillary too early - before Obama showed himself the real deal - and are now trapped in either cognitive dissonance or, worse, Pundits Dissonance (the malady that afflicts moron commentators, disallowing them from admitting error).

Wilentz and Krugman are in all three of these groups.

Baby-Boomers Against the Youngin': These hypocrites were inspired by JFK as teenagers, flocked to an inexperienced hillbilly when he was in their age group, but now that the candidate is younger than they are - like the narcissitic nihilists they have been since the banana-peel smoking 60s - they can't handle it. Punk bastards. I'll be glad when they are shoved aside, because the next president will either be the anti-baby boomer Obama (say that 5 times fast) or the stodgy crew-cutted square that the hippie boomers rejected back in the day (McCain).

Liberal Fighters: Nothing quite so sad as a victim turned bully. Especially when they don't know how to bully well. Wilentz and Krugman don't want the culture war to end. They hate Bush and the GOP so much - for what happened to Bill and Hill in the 90s and for what Bush has done since then - and heck, maybe allaway back to Nixon - that they want to keep the fight going. The logic - and Wilentz/Krugman say this explicitly - is that the GOP needs crushing and Obama is a weenie and Hillary is a fighter.

Let's take this apart, because all three premises are wrong. First, we see what a great fighter Hillary has been (even when this was first proposed, back in 1-15, and its crystal clear now): she's awful. A shrill maladriot. She can't convince a drowning man to drink and she can't beat Obama - a political newcomer with a funny name, handicapped skin, and who refuses to fight back! Hillary is as good a fighter as Kerry/Dukakis/Gore. That is, she sucks.

But the real false premise combines the misdiagnosis of Obama and the nature of our battle with the GOP. Assume for a moment that the GOP needs to be punished for the horrific misdeeds of the past 15 years (the Clinton-Bush terms). What's the best way to do that? There's the shrill victim way - that of Hillary/Wilentz/Krugman - which is just fantasy. The victim getting the upper hand on the bully... doesn't happen in the schoolyard, and it certainly doesn't happen in the boardroom. Power is power and doesn't switch hands unless the bully is in a coma.

Which brings us to the weenie charge. Only true weenies - like Hillary/Krugman/Wilentz, and their mentors in weenie-dom: George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, John Yoo, Rush Limbaugh - think that direct conflict is the way to win a war. Obama's skill is that of great politicians (think FDR or LBJ): diplomacy. To quote LBJ: "Remember the prophet Isaiah: Come let us reason together. Telling a man to go to hell and making him go there are two different things." A diplomat will defeat a bully unless he's outnumberd 5:1.

Obama has the true political skill that converts enemies into allies and to get his agenda - which is delightfully left-wing - passed. Bullies and other weaklings want wars because they like the glory of battle (specifcally the glory of winning). Obama, following the principles of Master Sun Tzu, will win. And if Wilentz/Krugman were real culture warriors they would flock to Obama because of that. But they're blinded, or bullies, and can't escape their prisons of thought.

Pundit Dissonance - Just as Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge became towering figures because they were the populist opposition to Pres. Clinton, so academics like Wilentz and Krugman were the necessary opposition to Bush. Especially when the mainstream press rolled over and played dead during these years, these pundits were must-reads, providing information and courage during the dark times. These smart guys became talking-heads, and they lost their academic skills and fell into a papist 'just so' trap, where they considered that their words were incontrovertable truth (note: this is also known as the Charedi Rosh Yeshiva With Only a High School Education trap).

But times have changed since Krugman had been elevated into infallibility. From 2000-2006 his indispensibility was valid and unquestioned. But then came the realigning midterms of 2006, the explosion of trusted blogger journalism, and Youtube. The Democrats now have the GOP in a fair(ish) fight, the news and reality are getting out there. Krugman is not indispensible, and he seems to have let the revolution pass him by.

One proof of Wilentz/Krugman's failure is to assume that Hillary is experienced, and/or liberal, and/or a fighter, or whatever new guano comes out of her self-inflicted wounded bunker. Her claims are demonstrably false. Any intelligent person can see that. Wilentz/Krugman won't. They are infallible! They cannot be wrong. It is we mush-headed youngsters who are being snowed over by a talented black man! Whatever.

The mystery fourth category

Even were my above analysis to be wrong (and it isn't because I am now a pundit), I have discovered, through this painful primary, a mystery fourth category that Wilentz/Krugman - and many other wrinkly Democrats who support Hillary - are in: they are McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry Democrats (MMDKD). I'll explain that later.

Backpost: 1/15/08, 1:48 PM. All I had was the link. I'm adding the context and commentary now. Pic from here of Wilentz in 1994, 2 years after I had him in class.

Contra-Wilder Effect

From a letter I sent to the Reality Based Community Folks, in response to this point by Steven Teles.

I don’t buy the idea that Obama lost due to the “Wilder effect” (that voters told pollsters that they’d vote for a black candidate, but secretly voted for white candidates in the secrecy of the polling booth). The main reason is that there’s a plausible alternative hypothesis, which is that the large Obama lead in the polls sent independents into the Republican primary to vote for McCain. But we’ll have to take a look at the data tomorrow, when we’ll have fine-grained information.

One thing about the 'wilder/bradley-effect' that I haven't seen mentioned is why would racist voters choose Clinton over Edwards? Are pollsters and pundits suggesting that people will lie about voting for a black man and then choose a white woman when there's a perfectly acceptable (17% thought so) white man as a choice?

Backpost finished 2009-12-13.

Huffpo and More Hillary Myths

Two things from this widely linked article from the Huffington Post: "Shaken Clinton Camp Prepares For Trench Warfare After NH"

1. Yet another pundit uses the 1984 election as a model for Hillary vs. Obama. Hey, wait a tic, didn't i say that a few weeks ago? Heh heh

2. As the headline suggests, the Clinton camp is 'shaken.' There are two particular incidents in public eye that suggest the shaking and a lot of background murmurs. The two incidents were (a) Hillary getting all bug-eyed and angry at the Saturday night NH debate, when she defended her record of experience and change; (b) a bizarre account that she got all teary-eyed expressing her frustration that people don't see that she is all experienced.

OK, let's get one thing straight: Hillary has NO EXPERIENCE. Seriously, this is a persistent myth. Whenever Hillary supporters whine that she's been attacked in the press, they are overlooking that the press has given her a TOTAL WALK about her claims of 'experience.' Yeesh.

So what that leaves her with is her 'reputation' (or at least claims) that she will be a fierce fighter against the GOP smear machine (implying that Obama is a wusssy smiley dude who doesn't have the fire to fight back).

That particular claim is being destroyed right before our eyes... she lost ONE caucus. That's it. And even then she got 30% of the votes, not too shabby. Yet here she is whining like a stuck pig about how unfair it is. Waaah waah waah. This is the fighter? She can't even defend herself from a non-attacking smiley dude and she expects us to believe she can defend against Rove?!

From Overkill to Meltdown

At least I hope so; I hope Hillary's oozing bile is melting her candidacy apart from the inside. Her attacks on Obama have gone from "too-much" to "totally nuts."

I. Bad Mud

The first - and I'm not making this up - is accusing Obama of having his own secret life-long plot to become president. How does Hillary know this? Well, as her campaign pointed out in a long, resourced, press release, they have proof that Obama has been planning to president ever since kindergarten.

Again, I can understand you think that I'm making that up. It sounds like a joke. After two days of the press hammering Clinton, her lead campaign troglodyte, Mark Penn, tried to claim it was a joke. It ain't. Compare the first 'proof' of the press release to the last:

12/2/2007

Twice in One Day: Senator Obama Tries Rewriting History, Again Claims He Hasn't Been Planning White House Run

At an event in Boston this evening, Senator Obama claimed for the second time today that he is "not running to fulfill some long held plans" to be elected President, contradicting statements his friends, family, staff and teachers have all made about him.

[snip]

Immediately after joining the Senate, Senator Obama started planning run for President. "'The first order of business for Senator Obama's team was charting a course for his first two years in the Senate. The game plan was to send Senator Obama into the 2007-2008 election cycle in the strongest form possible'...The final act of the plan was turning up the talk about a potential Presidential bid, which was greatly aided by his positive press and suggestions by pundits that he run for President." [U.S. News and World Report, 6/19/07 ]

In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.' "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]

The first paragraph is opposition research; it's a bad attack, and one I'd expect from any bush-league outfit, but it fits the profile. The last paragraph follows the same format but it's completely bats**t crazy.

II. Really Bad Mud.

The second piece of Hillary meltdown overkill came out this afternoon. A bit of context first. The Washington Post has been under fire by the majority of the non-Fox news world for a story that ran last Friday on the front page that discussed the rumors of Obama being Muslim. The story topic ain't the problem... it's that the long news piece didn't actually say the magic words, that the rumors are completely false. It's a big issue, and others have been savaging the Post (including the heilige Tom Toles), so you can find out about that elsewhere.

Anyway, the false rumors about Obama have been spread by anonymous emails, much like the general mud and slime of electioneering (cf. push-polling, robo-calling, firing US Attorneys)

So, with that context, we can understand the crazy news today that an Iowa county chair for Hillary has been caught sending some of these "Obama is a Muslim" emails.

The Hillary campaign has dismissed the woman. The official statement is:

"There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail. This was wholly unauthorized and we were totally unaware of it. Let me be clear: No one should be engaging in this. We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."

Note that they describe her disgusting behavior as a 'mistake,' and don't bother explaining that the rumor is false.

For those who believe that this was a mistake by the Hillary campaign, I have a great bridge to sell you.

And we've got 4 more weeks. Obama is leading in Iowa now and is climbing in New Hampshire. And Hillary may already be having her "Dean Scream" moment except that the scream is lasting for weeks.

P.S. The cartoon above ran today on the front page of the Des Moines Register

Fear of a Female President?

Yet another column from the New Republic by Michelle Cottle, about how people just don't like Hillary because it's ingrained in the American psyche to assume that any high-ranking woman is automatically a Bit-h (or is it b-tch? or bi-ch?). Anyway, because we think powerful women are mean and unfeminine, Hillary is seen that way. And, using a hidden syllogism technique unknown to Socrates, that's why Hillary is unliked.

So, by the numbers:

1. I hated Hillary when she was Bill's wife. First ladies have no power.
   


2. I don't hate all first ladies. Yeah, I didn't like Nancy, but I am indifferent to Barabara & Laura Bush.
   


3. I have no problem with these women who are (currently) in power: Barbara Boxer, or Dianne Feinstein, or Elizabeth Dole, or Barbara Mikulski, or Amy Klobuchar, or Blanche Lincoln, or Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins, or Claire McCaskill, and Nancy Pelosi.
   
   These are the current Senators from California (2), North Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, Arkansas, Maine (2), Missouri and the Speaker of the House. I am bipartisan in my 'no-problem-ness' (except that I have an instinctive dislike for Kay Bailey Hutchison but just because she's a Texan and a Republican... I can only be so charitable).
   

Note, that Nancy Pelosi is the freakin' Speaker of the House. And I'm happy and proud that she's a decent, talented, Democrat. The only reason I may think she's unpleasant is that (a) she's from San Francisco and is probably more liberal than I could stand, and (b) her facial features seem pinched in public. But I have no negative feelings towards her and she's seriously in power.

I have no problem with Elizabeth Dole, even. Maybe because she's Southern and they've always been good at softening a politician's image.

But I hate Hillary!

I have hated her ever since the first Clinton term because she was a king-hell gonzo biyatch back then. She caused every single self-inflicted wound his administration: specifically the way she would attack the press, or anybody who she felt disagreed with her. Bill doesn't do that; he's truly a lover not a fighter. If Bill were married to any woman on earth, he would have been president because he is immensely talented. Hillary would never be near the Senate or now the White House if she hadn't married the big-horndog-teddy bear Bill.

So, sorry, Michelle and your brain-dead "pundit" ilk. Hillary is considered a b-tch by me and most of Creation not because she's a "powerful woman" but because she is a mean, nasty, woman.

{2009 Update: Weird Bill-Hillary mashup pic from here.}

Celebrities vs. Pundits vs. Journalists

I am cleaning up my hard-drive and I saw an old clip (at least June 2006) of a Charlie Rose interview with George Clooney. Rose spoke about how Clooney challenged Bill O'Reilly to a debate. It's a weird combination of talking heads and it reminds me of a standard Right-Wing talking point: that celebrities have no right and/or no place to be commenting on political matters.

Why should anybody care about what Jane Fonda, Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Rosie O'Donnell, or George Clooney have to say about politics.

On one side, I agree. I think actors are, for the most part, vain and stupid. The job requires vanity as part of it's skill set and there's no reason to believe an actor is any more intelligent than a person engaged in any other type of physical profession. I don't think athletes are presumed to be intelligent, and acting is just another form of athletics.

Comedians are generally pretty intelligent (it's a brutal business), so maybe they should be able to offer their political views. But then the second aspect of the Right Wing Point is: these people are famous for making people laugh, what expertise, experience, training, or skills do they have that would allow them to offer political positions?

Here's where I differ from my Right Wing brethren. Cuz, uh, what expertise does any specific journalist have that would allow them to offer *their* opinions about politics. When a journalist does actual journalism - ya know, find out facts and report them accurately - then I will give them credit for being a specific and separate profession. [This is holding aside the fact that journalists, by and large, seem to be unintelligent, conceited, and as a group not very good at what they are supposed to be doing; exhibit A: the lead up to Operation Iraqi SNAFU]

But what in the world is the difference between a pundit - a talking head who offers his/her opinions about politics - and an actor? Opinions are opinions. And when you recognize that the 'pundits' are themselves in the entertainment business, then you realize that the reason why the Right Wingers don't like celebrities talking about politics is because the real celebrities (e.g. Clooney) are more believeable and convincing than the Right Wing celebrities (e.g. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter).

Krugman Rediscovered

Paul Krugman is a great pundit (he was right about Iraq, doncha know). Yet I can't read him from the NYTimes because, darn them, they started charging for the best parts of the paper. Sure, I've done without the Bridge column for years, but when they took away my Krugman, there was no one left to complain. Ahem. Anyway, I swore off giving money to the Times in 2001 when I joined the NY community's boycott, so I had no Krugman source for a while.

However, the wacko liberal website Truthout were surreptitiously carrying the NYT columnists but were told to cease and desist. But sometime around the 2006 election they started carrying some of them again. And now Free Krugman is back!

Here are some recent columns
Jan 5
Jan 8
Jan 15
Jan 19
Jan 22
Jan 29

Clinton, Nixon and Bush

In the modern era we have two bars set for impeachment. The high bar is Nixon. He obstructed justice, he stole an election, and when he found that his staff was caught breaking and entering Democratic HQ in the Water-something hotel, he covered it up. Investigations went on for months and finally Nixon resigned because Barry Goldwater (Senator from Arizona) told Tricky Dick that impeachment was inevitable.

The low bar is Clinton. After years of flagrantly flaunting his Billclintonness, going so far as to marry the most evil person on earth, Hillary Satan. He was caught red-handed being not guilty of shady land deals in Whitewater. He was caught red-handed getting a haircut, or something like that. But worst of all, he was a sitting Democratic president when a ravenous bunch of Reaganite pod-people, led by some guy named Newt and then a soon-to-be convict named Tom DeLay, took over Congress. Since 1994 they tried to crush the Democratic party and started with the best president since Truman. Ultimately, the multitude of special prosecutors caught him lying about an affair he had with a White House intern. As I said, the low water mark.

In between those two marks we had Reagan & Bush escaping culpability for Iran-Contra - and I still don't understand how…

Anyway, where will Bush be? It's infuriating that Bush gets away with stuff that Clinton was pilloried for. Every and any little thing was flung at Clinton - mainly through a structural consanguinity between the Gingrich crew and trash journalism (which grew in size and strength in the 90s). But Bush escapes through the combination of a vigorous right-wing pundit machine and a national press cowed by 9/11.

In any case, Bush & Crew have been operating under a veil of secrecy and lies for the past 6 years. It was Nixonian in design and scope because it was created by two of the lowest and meanest of the Nixon crew: Rumsfeld and Cheney. Instead of learning that being Nixon-like is wrong, those dogs learned that Nixon just wasn't Nixony enough. So they sought out Karl Rove to find them a meathead they could pound into shape to be an Uber-Nixon - a Chief of Executive Power.

Bush Jr. was a perfect meathead because he is both a dumb dumb man and a religious fundamentalist (two important GOP voting blocs).

I keep reading these fluff pieces in the press about how the Democrats need to plan a moderate agenda of legislation and blah-blah if they hope to win the presidency in 2008. Gridlock is bad to these press pundits (yeah, the same nobodies who let Bush destroy the country… literally destroy, mind you).

Legislation? Gridlock? Huh?! The Democrats, if they know what's good for them and the country, will grab a ten-foot flashlight and ram it down Bush's corrupt throat! Oversight, investigate, uncover! The veil of secrecy and lies is fragile and will come crashing down. Who needs legislation?

If the investigations make public what I've been reading online for the past few years (but, because of press collusion has not made it to the TV viewers) then Bush's approval ratings (which are already at an average of 38%) will plummet.

And, even with this horrible, ossified, desiccated, deracinated, moronic press corps will be able to state clearly the crimes of this administration. And it may even convince the majority of the population that Bush did something worse than history's greatest monster's husband, Bill.

{2009 Update, stat photo from here.}

Left Wing Lebanon Commentary

Background:

18 months ago, my twin blog obsessions were about the flailing Lebanon War and the primary challenge to Joe Lieberman. It was as a result of Israel's botched mission in Lebanon that even centrist blogs like TPM were taken over by yammering leftists who considered that every action in the Middle East that didn't snuggle up to Muslim terrorists was a bad thing. So the following quote, from the until-then reliable TPM, shows the crazy extent of the leftist backslide.

Grrrr. From TPM:

"In any particular flare-up in this unhappy region, debating who shot first is a distraction, since the conflict has been going on for generations. The question is, or should be, does the US have a policy with a realistic chance of success, and is the US involved in a process to further that policy...in this case, to resolve the flare-up of the moment? Whether a long term 'solution' is possible is always another question....see Bill Clinton/Camp David, etc."

What's wrong with this?

1. It's inane to think that "who shot first" is irrelevant because "the conflict has been going on for generations." The first statement is immoral and the second is incorrect. The myth that the Arab-Israeli conflict is an ethnic stranglehold, like Bosnia or Iraq, is pure intellectual laziness. Besides the fact that Israel has been existence for 60 years means that it's a young conflict. It's just a way that pundits can sweep everything under the rug and start their comments afresh, as if they had a right not to look up facts anymore.
   
   
2. Another problem is why on earth should the U.S. have a responsibility to mediate this conflict? It's the flip-side of Iraq, in my opinion. If you don't think that the US should have been involved in Iraq, and these Leftists don't, then why get involved in Lebanon? It's Israel's problem, Israel is an ALLY (and Hezbollah, not), so let's let the ally do what it needs.

Backpost finished 4/11/08 1:20 PM, started 7/24/06, 9:40 PM. I just had the link, quote, and 'grrr'.

Lieberman Letter

I agree with you on the disaffection with Lieberman from Democrats. But Connecticut is a strange state. According to the Secretary of State, the voter registration in 2005 was, out of 1,952,648 total active registrations, 427,803 Republicans, 653,055 Democrats and 867,761 Independents. That shows that any Connecticut politician needs to court many types of voters (it also suggests that an independent run isn't the suicide-path the pundits have been claiming).

Two things about Lieberman that I think need to be emphasized: his backing of the Iraq war, like many of his actions, comes from a sincere belief not from cynical posturing. He is wrong to support the war (and I've written him often about that), but I think he's a remarkably honest politician and that's a rarity.

Which means, actually, that he's a really *bad* politician. As we've seen with his commericials and his public behavior, Lieberman is uncharismatic, clumsy and a nerd. He is not very good at the politics game. Ned Lamont is much better at commericals and he'd make a very good politician for the state (and I hope he continues to be active), but I hate to see Lieberman get punished for not being slick. Maybe it's the nerd in me...

[Ed. note: My views on the Iraq war will be in a later post]

Posted July 26, 2006. Sent to the Editor of the TPM on Friday, July 14th.

Political Reading After November's Debacle

Because of my busy schedule, I was unable to read every single article in every single magazine I subscribe to at the moment it arrives in my house; I give myself several weeks (months) of idle or throne time to get through them all. However, now that the Disaster of '04 has happened, I find that all of these pompous, under-thought political articles are just terrifying.

[Update: My reflections on my mindset 3 months ago]

The spitting rage I was in 3 months ago has dulled into a lugubrious torpor. This is what it must have felt like in February 1973 in the shadow of Nixon. Except that the dirty tricks were more obvious under the Trickster (whose intelligence was a disadvantage, we see - the worst presidents were usually the meatheads and they were worst because they got away with it: see Harding, Bush).

The biggest - if not only - factor in Bush's victory was that we were attacked on our own soil. He's a fool to play it as a mandate but he's gotten where he is by being a fool, so for him it works. Bush is the Disaster President in more ways than one.

Backpost started 11/14/04 & finished 2/16/05.

The Definition of a Hack

William Safire wrote in his paean for the Second Bush Second Inauguaral that

"I rate it among the top 5 of the 20 second-inaugurals in our history."

No kidding. Safire really said that.

To be honest, Safire probably wrote those lines a few days ago in anticipation of his needed approval. Safire is an expert on language (even though his language columns reek with doctrinaire pedantry) and I challenge him to define himself as anything but a hack, at this point.

Shameless too.

Backpost finished 2/11/05

Spin for Sale! Get your red-hot Spin!

The conservative pundits are trying very hard to put a pretty face on the fact that their boys, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc, have a lot of explaining to do about the Iraq abuse.

Here's the summary of the spin:

1. What the soldiers did wasn't bad.

(This is from Rush Limbaugh, essential quote: This is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?)

2. The soldiers are just isolated bad-apples. (This is from the US Government)

3. There may have been widespread abuses but that's not torture (this is initially from Rumsfeld)

4. There are many people who are guilty, but certainly not the top members of government (this is from nearly all the conservative pundits).

5. A new one for me: from Jonah Goldberg (Jonah Goldberg on CBS & Abu Ghraib on National Review Online) that the abuses are bad and that's all we need to say about it but another entity to be blamed is CBS News for showing the pictures of the abuse. In his words CBS should be ashamed for running those photos.

Wow. I kid you not. That's what this guy - who is employed as a journalist (although pundits are not exactly journalists) - says.

He tries to stave off arguments by saying:

The good reasons [for showing the pictures] are obvious. The people have the right to know. The scandal firestorm sharpens the resolve of politicians and the military to investigate and stop the abuse of prisoners. The bad is that uproar from these pictures drowns out all other messages, explanations, and journalistic "context."

Huh?

The "context" is that: "Lost is the fact that in America torturers get punished, while in the Arab world they get promotions. "

Yeah, dude, you lost it all right. If he is correct, and it's unlikely he is, then Rumsfeld and Bush will ride the rails back to the Old Republican War Criminals Home. Because, hey, they are guilty, and hey, they won't be punished.

The only reason why the country knows about these vicious crimes is because of CBS and The New Yorker.

Proof in point: Rumsfeld met with Congressional leaders last week and did not mention to them about these atrocities. See the AP story, with this quote:

[Senator. Carl Levin, D-Mich ] and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the [Senate Armed Services] committee chairman, both expressed displeasure that they had not been informed earlier.

Levin noted with "deep dismay'' that Rumsfeld and Myers had briefed the panel about Iraq in a classified session last week but did not mention the scandal the government knew was about to break in the news media.

Basically, the executive branch felt that Congressional oversight was unnecessary for the conduct of a war. That hasn't happened since the jolly days of Ollie North!

What Jonah G and the rest of his Fox New Channel types are afraid of is the truth coming out. Where will their White House access go? What about all those sweet little dreams of four more years of theft and menace?