But Senator Barack Obama is a very different kind of candidate, judging by his performance at his own town-hall-style debate on Tuesday night and on the campaign trail. There are no volcanic explosions with Mr. Obama, rarely any finger-waving or lip-biting, and far less of the undisciplined campaigning that Mr. Clinton perfected.
SNIP
(More after the jump.)
Mr. Obama’s response has been to keep firm control of his public image: That of a very cool customer, someone who is deliberative and not easily distracted, who is willing to risk appearing a bit remote if it means that at the same time he appears unruffled by pressure and crisis.
Obama advisers say that, just as Mr. Clinton’s temperament worked for him against the patrician Mr. Bush and the cranky Mr. Perot, Mr. Obama’s steadiness is proving effective in this race against Mr. McCain. These advisers note, too, that Mr. Clinton only won a plurality of the general election vote in the three-way contest; a majority of the nation never voted for him. The advisers say they believe that Mr. Obama’s temperament is more broadly appealing than Mr. Clinton’s was, and that it will help him win over larger swaths of the electorate.
But the orders from Republican Party Headquarters are clear: No praise of Obama allowed unless followed by a patronizing, cancelling "But ..."
And yet: At a time of real financial turmoil for so many Americans, is there really not much desire for a feel-your-pain politician? At the town hall debate Tuesday night, Mr. Obama largely stuck to facts, figures, and programmatic detail as he talked about the economy and domestic issues. He didn’t take advantage of the town hall format to show a bit of leg, humanity-wise. It was enough to make anxious voters feel a little lonely, whereas Mr. Clinton would have offered a psychic hug.
Are you fucking kidding me? I've lost my job, the sheriff is tossing my belongings out in the yard, my spouse is running up six-figure bills for cancer treatment our insurer won't cover, and the NY Times thinks what I need most is a HUG?!
It gets worse.
“Obama did not vary his tone of voice at all — it’s one of his main problems in connecting,” said Ruth Sherman, a political communications consultant. “It is a beautiful voice, with lots of highs and lows of pitch, but the general tone is always the same. There is much, much more he could do, just with his voice, to increase his impact.”
Yeah, I've maxed out my contributions to Obama, I spend every spare minute knocking on doors for him, but now that I read in the New York Times that his voice isn't quite right, I just can't vote for him.
Barack Obama is the most brilliant, talented Democratic politician since JFK, and possibly since FDR. He's run a flawless campaign, something many of us thought we'd never see from a Democratic candidate. He's about to win an election that will change the nation and the world for decades to come.
And the New York Times can't fucking stand it.
Read the whole thing, if you have the stomach for it.
In reviewing the upcoming HBO film, Recount, (which takes a look at the 2000 election fiasco), The New York Times continues to peddle the fairy tale that George W. Bush won the state of Florida in 2000.
In reviewing Recount, the Times makes this claim:
"In 2001 painstaking postmortems of the Florida count, one by The New York Times and another by a consortium of newspapers, concluded that Mr. Bush would have come out slightly ahead, even if all the votes counted throughout the state had been retallied."
But it's important to note exactly what the 2001 consortium report said. As the Times' own November 2001 article on the report stated, in Florida, "...a statewide recount---could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his (Gore's) way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent."
As Thom Hartmann pointed out in a 2004 article, the Times downplayed this shocking revelation (that Gore actually won the 2000 election) in its 2001 article on the story. Hartmann notes that the Times buried this fact in the 15th paragraph of the story.
In its review of Recount, the Times' does go on to include some confusing language that points out that Gore "probably" could have had the edge in the 2000 election. But the main impact of the article is that Bush won Florida and that this was supposedly confirmed by "painstaking postmortems of the Florida count."
It appears that the nation's self-appointed "newspaper of record" seems to be determined to continue muddy the waters on the historical record on this issue.
"Recount" will be shown on HBO at 9 p.m. Eastern Time on Sunday.
In between comments I made at Washington Monthly yesterday about “la Mésalliance McCain,” somebody commented about Mitt Romney being upset about the New York Times endorsing McCain instead of him; that person also wondered a bit about the process involved.
I touched a bit on the process here, but thought I could do a bit more public service by detailing the editorial endorsement process, from my experience at (much smaller) daily newspapers.
The NYT editorial board would likely have publisher Pinch Sulzberger, Executive Editor Bill Keller, Managing Editor Jill Abramson, Opinion Editor Gail Collins, possibly the top editorial writer (editorial writers and bylined op-ed columnists are different critters at major dailies), possibly/probably the deputy managing editor for politics, or similar position, and perhaps a couple of others.
You’d also have some ad hoc members. For example, for New York City mayoral endorsements, the city editor might sit in. For gubernatorial endorsements, the Albany editor. For presidential endorsements, Dean Baquet, the Washington editor.
First, outside of campaign endorsements, here’s a bit of how an editorial board operates in general. It will meet once, maybe twice a week, plus special meetings on hot button issues. At the NYT, for example, the board would develop a consensus on what issues the paper needs to officially opine about in the next week. It then, after discussion and some sort of vote, especially in a division of house on tough issues, decides the official stance to take, talking points to be mentioned, etc. (If the division on an issue is fierce, an op-ed column might be devoted to the leading representative of the minority view.) Collins would then, after the meeting, assign different editorials to her various writers, copy edit them, etc.
Details of the process in editorial endorsements below the fold.
When it comes time for endorsements, the board would first schedule interviews, whenever possible, with the candidates involved, in elections big enough to warrant. (The full editorial board is not going to interview NYC municipal judge candidates, or even get involved in the process.) Before the interviews, board members will discuss questions they want to raise, angles they want to pursue, issues they see of importance, etc. For endorsements in primaries, rather than general elections, these issues will also be connected to some degree with party stances, etc. Interviews may be in person, speakerphone, video, e-mail or whatever.
The board then discusses the candidates after the interview and makes their call.
How this relates to Keller sitting on the story?
As I noted before, I’m sure Keller played his cards close to the vest. If Baquet was in on the McCain vs. Romney endorsement, of course he knew. Abramson was in on the loop, too. Pinch may have been. Collins, likely not.
So, this was something that could have been discussed in the endorsement process. If necessary, you could boot most the people out of the room and have discussed the McCain story and its relation to an endorsement just between Pinch, Keller, Baquet if there, Abramson and Collins, bringing her in the loop.
Was it discussed? Ahh, that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
Given that the endorsement didn’t mention McCain being ethically challenged on lobbyist issues, let alone personal issues, I’d say no. Pinch is neoconish enough, I think his mind would already have been made up for McCain. For different reasons, ditto on Keller. Baquet would have pushed to talk more about the story, I think, and not been in McCain’s endorsement corner, but I’m guessing Keller had him on an officially very short leash if he was there. Abramson? Guessing she had an open mind on the endorsement, and at this point at least, figured the story didn’t have enough new, or wasn’t moved enough by the story, for whatever reasons.
And, the dirty little secret?
It’s well-known inside the biz, and discussed, but editorial endorsements from major daily newspapers provide little “bump” in the polls to candidates. In fact, some newspapers, whether to save time or to save face, are moving away from doing them.
Update: The Times, in its morning explain-o-fest, claims it has a Chinese firewall between news and op-ed. Color me skeptical.
If nothing else, we know what the Mongols did to the original “Chinese firewall.”
One: Why did the New York Times endorse John McCain over Mitt Romney if it was working on “la Mésalliance McCain”?
I'm guessing that the NYT op-ed structure has Executive Editor Bill Keller on the editorial board for endorsement interviews, endorsements, etc. (I'm a newspaper editor, but never at a paper of nearly that size; so this is my semi-insider guesstimate.)
I would guess that Keller kept his cards close enough to the vest that nobody else on the editorial board knew what was up. Prolly nobody had read the WaPost story in December or seen any blog linkage to the Drudge piece at that time. And, as we see most often and most spectacularly at the WSJ, major dailies can sometimes have huge disconnects between newshole staff and op-ed writers.
Other points:
First, the importance of Schmuck Talk hiring Bob Bennett. You just don't do that unless some real shit is up. So, right-wingers who claim this is all smoke, if they know inside Washington, know there's plenty of fire. And, they know they’re lying about this being a tempest in a teapot.
Second, is the sex side unimportant, or a matter of “private lives”?
No. McCain is pandering to the Religious Right again, and has been from the start of this campaign, after years of mutual antagonism. Given that the RR often focuses on sexual issues, it’s perfectly legitimate to focus on this.
And, given McCain has a “track record” in this area, it’s even more legitimate.
Of course, that’s not to deny the importance of the impropriety of McCain’s attempted interference with the Federal Communications Commission.
In short, looking at McCain’s life, it looks like we have a mash-up of Keating Five redux and wife-cheating round two.
Third, just how castrated, or self-castrated, can Bill Keller be? Without some combination of the staff defections over the pace of the story, D.C. editor Dean Baquet pushing back to run the piece, the earlier Drudge leak, and TNR’s sniffing around the Times news staff this week, it’s quite likely this story would be continuing to molder in a bottom-drawer file, if not actually getting an official File 13.
Keller has, and not for the first time, damaged the Times’ news-gathering credibility.
Clinton radio ad -- "The ad properly points out that Obama did not express any criticism of the GOP ideas. That is the problem." Per Armando. The alleged "party of ideas" that has "challenge[d] conventional wisdom of the last 10 or 15 years" has really, um, sucked. I can think of a list longer than what's in Hillary's ad.
FISA telecom immunity disunity -- Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will force "Dodd and Feingold to launch a filibuster that ruins their colleagues' nice European vacation." Why doesn't Reid STFU and get out of the way?! For details and what to do, see Yellow Dog.
Up yours to the U.S. Senate -- Bush re-nominated Steven Bradbury to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. Bradbury wrote "a pair of secret legal opinions that endorsed rough techniques for suspects in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency." TP
American evangelicals -- What do they want? "The answer, it turns out, is a little more complicated than 'Not Giuliani.' " Response to a Beliefnet questionnaire on favorability ratings of presidential candidates: 55% Huck, 53% McCain, 49% Obama, 27% Hillary, and 25% Mitt. For evangelical "hot-buttons" and how they've changed, read Tim Grieve.
Iraq debate: "The leading Democratic presidential candidates and their allies on Capitol Hill have launched fierce attacks in recent days on a White House plan to forge a new, long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government, complaining that the administration is trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office." Thursday's WaPo
Iraq explosions -- In Mosul, at least 15 killed, 132 wounded. In Kirkuk, a car bomb killed 5, wounded 11.
Environmental index: "A new international ranking of environmental performance puts the United States at the bottom of the Group of 8 industrialized nations and 39th among the 149 countries on the list." NYT
About those robo calls -- In comments, Shaun Dakin, CEO and founder of Stop Political Calls wrote, "These calls are an epidemic and are invading the privacy of All American Voters.... ...Our members are taking a stand and saying enough is enough at the National Political Do Not Contact Registry..."
Former SC Democratic Party chair Dick Harpootlian, an Obama supporter, likened Bill Clinton's campaign remarks to Lee Atwater. WTF? When CNN's Jessica Yellin asked Bill about it, Clinton disputed the charge and calmly confronted her and media in general -- despite CNN's hype that he "lashed out" -- for acting like the sensationalizing twits that they are. Later, CNN 's Soledad O'Brien screeched about Bill's response to Yellin. Media lapdogs don't like being called on their B.S. You can go Cheney yourself, CNN. Via Taylor Marsh.
"The rot of the Jack Welch Network" -- "For the record, the Post is a corporate partner of MSNBC—and Clinton is MSNBC’s long-term target. Simple logic took over from there. So did Jack Welch’s vile methods.... ...But in this morning’s New York Times, a certain semi-sane op-ed columnist gets busy trashing Hillary Clinton—due to Obama’s bit of deception." By Bob Somerby. For a fun pic of that certain NYT columnist, see Blue Girl.
Michael Savage gets the boot: Four advertisers pulled their spots "after Brave New Films launched a campaign against [the] hate-radio host." Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh.
UPDATE: Al Gore endorsed gay marriage. Video at Raw Story.
Voting machines: Can you trust them? The issue heats up nationally as one state faces a lawsuit.
Once again, electronic voting problems have resurfaced as Topic A during the election season. MoveOn.org sent email alerts to sign an "urgent petition asking local, state, and federal officials to require paper ballots" and cited the Sunday NYTimes Magazine cover story, "Can You Count on Voting Machines?" The answer is no. Next week, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) plans to introduce an emergency bill to fund a "push for paper ballots and vote count audits" before November 2008. With so much at stake, we can't afford to allow our next president and legislators to be decided by unreliable e-voting machines.
In Georgia, the electronic voting fight will head to court after years of battling resistance to overhaul the state's Diebold touch-screen system with a verifiable audit trail. On July 13, 2006, VoterGA.org filed suit to challenge the state's e-voting -- a system that was nationally ranked last by the conservative D.C.-based Free Congress Foundation. Says a lot, doesn't it? When the lawsuit comes before a Superior Court judge next month, voters will hopefully learn what election remedies the state must undertake if VoterGA wins its motion for summary judgment.
The counts in the lawsuit -- which names the Georgia State Election Board, former Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox (D), and Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) as defendants -- are persuasive. Via email, I received an update from Garland Favorito of VoterGA (with emphasis):
...the lawyers are currently finishing a motion for Summary Judgment in which we are asking the judge to rule in our favor on each count because the state has admitted most of our contentions in deposition.
...the evidence was clear the electronic voting machines were acquired illegally in 2001 [count No. 8] and never properly certified before use in 2002 [count No. 9].
The lawsuit was amended to include this new evidence to bolster the case. As a result, VoterGA's attorney Walker Chandler agreed to an extension giving the defendants time to examine the acquisition and certification evidence until the newly-agreed February 2008 court date.
We now have completed what I think is an absolutely compelling case and have a good chance to win some of the counts without a trial. If we win any one of seven counts we will have essentially won the suit against the current voting machine implementation and the state will be forced to make a major change. Here is an overview of the counts of the lawsuit:
[Keep reading... more after the jump!]
1. The state law currently attempts to exempt voting machines from the Constitutional requirement to produce a ballot
2. The Georgia Constitution states that elections are conducted by the people but the people cannot even verify any of the three key aspects of voting,
Choosing candidates on their ballot;
Casting their ballot;
Counting the votes.
3. The law requires that every ballot be recorded correctly and accurately at the time the voting machines are used on Election Day and it is impossible to implement any procedure to confirm that the ballots cast on Election Day were recorded correctly and accurately.
4. A re-accumulation of electronic ballots has and will always produce the same results as the original count and therefore subverts the intent of the law that entitles candidates to a legitimate recount of votes when the margin of victory is within 1% of the total votes cast.
5. The electronic voting machine implementation does not provide Constitutionally required equal protection for electronic voters vs. optically scanned absentee ballot voters because:
Electronic ballots can only be re-accumulated and not recounted for recounts
Electronic ballots can only be re-accumulated and not recounted when it is necessary to investigate discrepancies
The voter cannot verify what is on an electronic ballot as they can on an optical scanned ballot
6. The law requires that every ballot be recorded correctly and accurately at the time the voting machines are used on Election Day and the new technology piloted in 2006 still renders it impractical to implement a procedure to confirm that the ballots cast on Election Day were recorded correctly and accurately.
7. The new technology piloted in 2006 produces a sequential roll of ballots in the exact order in which the voters voted and therefore cannot ensure secrecy of the ballot as required by the Georgia Constitution
8. The electronic voting machines were procured illegally in 2001 because the law required them to have an independent audit trail for each vote cast and the machines do not have any such capability that is independent of the machine or its vote casting mechanism
9. The voting machines that were implemented in 2002 were improperly certified because:
The state is unable to produce the state certification reports required by state law
The machines do not meet the 1990 and 2002 federal standards that require them to prevent fraudulent manipulation the vote and identify each person to whom access is granted,
The machines were not recertified after they were patched in the summer of 2002
10. The judge has the authority to rule on these matters (Mandamus)
Essentially, the state's Diebold electronic voting system remains unaccountable and "cannot be verified, audited, or recounted."
Garland Favorito, one of the plaintiffs, will provide more details in the future as the case progresses. All state electors, the plaintiffs on behalf of approximately nine million voters include eight members from a wide spectrum of political affiliations -- the Constitution Party, the Georgia Green Party, a Democratic campaign worker, the Libertarian Action Network, and the non-partisan group Defenders of Democracy.
Something as fundamentally democratic as voting can bring together a diverse mix of folks. On getting e-voting right, they are united.
Since we started awarding the prize late in 2007, we added two deserving recipients who are standard bearers from the past week to our Top 10 countdown of exemplary honorees. Who is No. 1 in all of Wingnuttia? We think you will applaud but let's start with...
No. 10: I see nutheeng! -- One of two recipients from the Heritage Foundation, Nina Owcharenko can face the problem of uninsured children, and without batting an eyelash, obfuscate the situation. Nina trotted out the fallacy that the government program to cover uninsured children is expanding in order to -- gasp with us in horror -- drive children from private insurance! Oh, what an affront to the profits of the insurance industry! "The truth is various states have been pushing for an expansion of SCHIP precisely because, faced with spiraling increases in health insurance premiums, more and more employers are electing to drop dependent coverage and more and more middle class parents, confronted with the same price spiral, are unable to pay for private insurance." The parental nightmare: choose between paying for their children's health coverage or the mortgage. But, pish posh, neighs Nina. She canters on, her award teetering on her ideological rump, leaving a trail of road apples for the kiddies.
No. 9: The poor couldn't possibly be really poor -- That's what an elite fellow of the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, explained, wagging his finger at us little people. When "one in eight" Americans lack "enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need," caught in a daily "struggle with incredible poverty," Rector pulled out his scented hankie, dabbed his pursed lips before opining, Let them eat dirt. Rector's award for excellence in denying the truth about Americans living in poverty earns him a special booby prize in addition to the award -- a miniature guillotine designed to trim his lengthy aristocratic claws.
No. 8: I'm a useful idiot -- Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner knows how to lobe a softball to Bush during a WH press briefing so the pResident Evil can chortle, "Now, watch this drive." Sammon's question, ”Mr. President, what did you think of the MoveOn ad?” With that, aWol launched into a tirade against the "Democrat" Party. “I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military....[blah, blah, blah]." For Sammon's efforts, he gets a brass-plated Kool-Aid sippycup inscribed with "D.C. Stenographer" to accompany his award.
No. 7: Wiping the ass of the GOP -- Home to the rants of crotchety white man Lou Dobbs, stenographer Malveaux, and groveling Wolf, the Cowardly News Network proves once again that liberal media is an extinct creature of mythical lore. In homage to their GOP favoritism during the presidential debates, the award comes with a magic CNN eightball that when shaken, always answers, "Carry water for Republicans or God will getcha!" They take the admonition Seriously.
No. 6: Harangutan Glenn Beck -- When Southern California burned, ravaging the homes of Republican-leaning Orange County and San Diego, a place where active duty and retired military also live, the right-wing nutjob of CNN poisoned with venom for the blue state -- and absent of fact-checking to whom he would spew his obscenities -- delighted in the inferno by announcing that "people who hate America are losing their homes today." A perpetual fountain of animosity toward liberals, environmentalists, Anyone Not A Wingnut™, Beck's bigotry earned him an award wrapped in a brownshirt for outstanding achievement in smearing non-Christians.
[Read on... the countdown continues after the jump!]
No. 5: War on Christmas kerfuffle -- Faux News & Friends hosted a curious holiday segment with the Catholic League's Bill Donohue as guest to kvetch about Huckabee's holiday campaign ad that "displayed an image of a white cross floating in the background behind the Huckster's head." WTF? Didn't the Flared Nostril realize there was a war on Xmas? How could he quibble with a cross, for chrissakes?! His "hypocrisy, partisan bias, and bullying are legion.... Donohue's hyperbolic media whoring and Judas act to progressives, Catholic Democrats, gays, Muslims, Wiccans, and Jews" tickles him pinko. "He excoriates or discounts anyone who disturbs his unbridled wingnuttery" and "Big Media, having given him a bully pulpit, turn a blind eye to his hypocrisy." For his yuletide performance and to complement his award, we bestow a super-size kazoo to play along off-key with the noise machine.
No. 4: O'shilling is me middle name -- NBC's Tim Russert never encountered a fact he couldn't dismiss or distort on behalf of his BFF, the Greedy Old Phonies. Describing Huck's victory in Iowa, he said that "the Republicans [were] embracing someone whose message was populist, and in terms of foreign policy, anti-George W. Bush." Wait a minute. That's not what Huck said: "I love the president. I've been with him on the war. I've been with him on the surge when Mitt Romney wasn't. So it's absurd to say that I'm against the president." Typical of Russert, his Meet The Press dog-and-pony show demonstrates an exercise in disregarding his buddies' misleading statements, allowing propaganda to flourish, and dissing Democrats every chance he can insert an attack. In special recognition, he receives a GOP-monogrammed chamois to polish his award along with the turds he serves up as journalism. Maybe he can use it to buff his brown nose, too.
No. 3: He's a Muslim (wink, wink) but I'm a slut -- He'll criticize others for spreading innuendo but when Chris Matthews does the same thing, he's oblivious to his brazen double standard. As a bona fide Hillary-hater, Tweety makes millions trashing Big Major Dems and he doesn't mind stooping to sexism to do it. He's been dissembling a long, long time. Ah, but he can't seem to cure his complusion 'cause he's in love! Republican he-men, Mr. 9/11, the Codpiece-in-Chief, and "Big Handsome" Fred Thompson make him swoon. We've re-engineered the Wurlitzer prize to accommodate a hidden compartment where Tweety can keep a bottle of smelling salts to use when he's overcome with the vapors. Should we toss in a hand towel for his, um, sweaty palms?
No. 2: Who can top Rudy!? Only Rudy Giuliani, a constant source of wingnuttery, can soar beyond himself like Icarus lifting on the thermal of 9/11 (video). He was for "socialized medicine" before he was against it, but Rudy's never liked facts much. He can out-howl the dogs of war louder than any banshee and he can scare little children and big people alike with terror, terror, terror. Oh, Rudy! "The serial exaggerator can't help himself." But when will he drop out of the race for the WH? His Wurlitzer prize comes rigged with a oscillating white flag. Maybe he will get the hint.
No. 1: Who's the wrongest wingnut of all? -- Taking the top slot, William "The Bloody" Kristol reigns as the King of Crap. For being spectacularly wrong as a pundit, the Gray Lady added him to her "stable of neocon stooges." I kid you not! With Bloody Bill "on board, the Nyuk Nyuk Times can whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop it up with the phoniest stooge of all. The infotainment value that a weekly dose of Bloody Bill can bring to Serious Punditry will surely elevate the laughing stock of the paper in the marketplace of Opinion as it bolts in the opposite direction of the nation's move toward progressive ideas. Who's next to [dis]grace its editorial pages? Ann Coultergeist? N'yaaah-ah-ah!" For such an colossal misstep, the sound of mailbox flaps banging shut on cancelled subscription letters lends a raspberry-induced a cappella to both the Times and Kristol's Wurlitzer Prize for Wingnuttery™.
Stay tuned for next Saturday's award to kick off the first honoree of 2008.
This week comes the news that the Gray Lady will add Bill Kristol to its stable of neocon stooges... like David Brooks, who slung a pipe to our skulls with his comparison of Bin Laden to liberal bloggers (video).
Ah, the Nyuk Nyuk Times -- former home to Little Miss Run Amok, who scampered through its halls unabated, stacks of notepads a-flyin', to shamelessly flack erroneous WMD stories. And who can forget fabricator extraordinaire, Jayson Blair? Or the stiletto-wielding tart MoDo: Take that Al Gore! And you, too, John Edwards!
With William The Bloody Kristol on board, the Nyuk Nyuk Times can whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop it up with the phoniest stooge of all. The infotainment value that a weekly dose of Bloody Bill can bring to Serious Punditry will surely elevate the laughing stock of the paper in the marketplace of Opinion as it bolts in the opposite direction of the nation's move toward progressive ideas. Who's next to grace its editorial pages? Ann Coultergeist? N'yaaah-ah-ah!
Hiring Bloody Bill, David Sirota explained, is "an absolute abomination from the standpoint of basic accountability. A pundit being factually wrong on almost everything he hung his hat on is rewarded by the largest newspaper in the world for his track record. If ever there was an example of the world of journalism literally thumbing its nose at basic accountability, this example of Bill Kristol falling up is it."
Perhaps the Pravda on the Hudson wishes to jettison what remaining liberal scent a bloodhound couldn't possibly detect from its newsprint by employing the man who admitted the term, liberal media, "was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Once so suave, so soothing in tone, a fake thug but well-groomed, the Weekly "Double" Standard editor-in-chief, Beltway gadfly, and Faux News commentator has descended into Bush's inferno with a "bitter, sycophantic belligerence."
Who can blame the snarl repressed beneath his smile? Bloody Bill's been so wrong about so much.
[Read on... more wingnuttery and video after the jump!]
Earlier this year, media expert Eric Alterman ticked off a litany of Kristol errors buried in his wingnut kockeputzi (with emphasis):
...if one looks for a consistent pattern to Kristol's perpetual wrongness, it's not hard to discern. For Kristol is less interested in being correct than in advancing his side's interests. He's not a journalist; he's an apparatchik working undercover as a man of the press.
In 1993, Bloody Bill "made a name for himself by writing a strategy memo in which he altered the course of American politics by convincing Republicans not to compromise with the Clinton Administration healthcare plan but to destroy it." And indeed they did.
Universal health care for America's uninsured took a pie in the face as did Bill and Hill. Oh, a two-fer! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. That's all that matters to Bloody Bill. Forget that he's "not merely wrong but spectacularly so." To Kristol, facts... pffft! Pffft! How inconvenient they are when the game afoot demands win-win-win regardless of whose lives may and will be lost. To note a few Alterman points:
* In the opening moments of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Kristol insisted, "We are now in the final days." He intoned, "If the President lied to the American People...he's finished."
* When the Starr report was issued, causing almost universal revulsion among Americans, Kristol wrote a cover editorial for his magazine that headlined the report Starr's Home Run, portraying its author as Mark McGwire and calling for Clinton's immediate impeachment.
* At the outset of the Iraq War, Kristol called predictors of Shiite-Sunni strife purveyors of "pop sociology," insisting, "Iraq's always been very secular" and that a US invasion would spread "the principles of liberty and justice in the Islamic world."
Bloody Bill on liberal "disloyalty":
"These liberals--better, leftists--hate George W. Bush so much they can barely bring themselves to hope America wins the war to which, in their view, the president has illegitimately committed the nation.... They hate Don Rumsfeld so much they can't bear to see his military strategy vindicated." After the massacre at Haditha, he said, "The anti-American left can barely be bothered to conceal its glee."...
In a stunning flip-flop and without apologies to Democratic critics, "Kristol himself now admits that Rumsfeld's strategy was a disaster."
Kristol's far-flung chazzerai appears decidedly in his defense of convicted felon, Scooter Libby, one of the WH leakers who outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Fox News Sunday debate on commuting Libby's sentence via CSPANJUNKIEdotORG.
Let me cut to the most egregious of Bloody Bill's remarks in the above video; there are so many to refute. Kristol prefers a Libby pardon. To delve into his wanton partisanship and warped sense of justice, witness Kristol in 1998:
On the November 22, 1998, edition of This Week, discussing Clinton's impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, Weekly Standard editor-in-chief William Kristol said that he believed the committee would approve articles of impeachment against Clinton, adding, "I think it's significant and I think they should." Kristol then asserted that the "most striking thing" about the first day of hearings "was the failure of a single Democratic member of that committee to say perjury is a serious matter, lying under oath is a serious matter, and then to, if they want to then argue it shouldn't be impeachable, let them make the argument." He continued:
KRISTOL: Not a single person said, tried to explain to the American people why lying under oath by the president of the United States is not an impeachable offense. I thought it was, I mean, and I say this not as a Republican, but in all honesty, the Democratic Party has had many great moments in its history. I did think November 19th, 1998, was really a day of disgrace for the Democratic Party. They simply refused to condemn perjury and refused to explain why they weren't simply telling the American people perjury's no big deal.
Kristol in 2007:
On the July 3 edition of NBC's Today, however, Kristol defended Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence and asserted that Fitzgerald should never have pursued the charges in the first place:
KRISTOL: Scooter Libby does not deserve to go to jail. I would remind Joe Wilson that Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name. Richard Armitage told [syndicated columnist] Robert Novak, we now know, about Valerie Plame's name, so this was an investigation that should never have happened. There was no underlying crime."
As Media Matters for Americanoted, although Libby did not reveal Plame's CIA identity to Novak -- who publicly disclosed it in a July 14, 2003, column -- Fitzgerald alleged that Libby did discuss Plame's CIA employment with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on three occasions prior to the publication of Novak's column.
With one hand Bloody Bill eye-pokes President Clinton for perjury and obstruction in a civil case over a blow job. With the other, he waves off a criminal conviction -- four felony counts that included perjury, obstruction, and false statements -- against Scooter Libby for his involvement in the destruction of national security assets. To compare the two as Kristol did during the Faux News clip is not only dishonest, but wingnuttery at its worst. Yet, you can almost hear Kristol whine, "But Libby is a victim of soicumstance!"
ThinkProgress compiled a list of Kristol's rhetoric that must have soi-tanly pleased the GOP's shill team:
- “It is insane for this country to be obsessing … about a small prisoner abuse scandal,” referring to Abu Ghraib. [5/16/2004]
- “Cheney’s statement” that Ned Lamont’s primary victory helps al Qaeda “is indisputably correct.” [6/13/2006]
- “The voters in Florida, I guess, who elected him” are responsible for former Rep. Mark Foley’s illicit sexual behavior. “Maybe they should have known better.” [10/3/06]
- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is “sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858″ in appeasing slave owners. [2/10/07]
- Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) saying the war is lost “is much more disgraceful than anything Trent Lott said” about the country being better off if it had maintained racist segregation policies. [4/22/07]
In July, Bloody Bill declared, Why Bush Will Be A Winner! The column provoked David Corn to retort, "Who knew Bill Kristol had such a flair for satire?" Corn enumerated the stooge's blunders:
On Sept. 18, 2002, he declared that a war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." A day later, he said Saddam Hussein was "past the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons. On Feb. 20, 2003, he said of Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction.... Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world." On March 1, 2003 -- 18 days before the invasion of Iraq -- Kristol dismissed the possibility of sectarian conflict afterward. He also said, "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president." He maintained that the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. (The running tab is now about half a trillion dollars.) On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "We'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction."
With nearly 70% of Americans opposing the Iraq War and wanting U.S. troops to get out, what audience does the Nyuk Nyuk Times possibly think would read Mr. Kristol's disingenuous tripe?
Is this simply a ploy to attract the eyes of media watchers, fodder for the left blogosphere? Someone's gotta view the ads!
Or is it to tickle the heart of darkness beating in the Wingnutosphere? Yaadadeeee, yaadeda. The Gray Lady must be lonely to sweep the last crumbs of journalistic integrity out the door by inviting Bloody Bill to its table.
What of more current Kristolizations?
In the Dec. 31 edition of the Weekly "Double" Standard, Kristol's stoogerific column announces, "We are now winning the war." Then he continues on to berate his former employer for picking Putin as Time's Person of the Year instead of Gen. David Petraeus. His fallacy: "Our liberal elites are so invested in a narrative of defeat and disaster in Iraq that to acknowledge the prospect of victory would be too head-wrenching and heart-rending. It would mean giving credit to George W. Bush, for one. And it would mean acknowledging American success in a war Time, and the Democratic party, and the liberal elites, had proclaimed lost."
Can we expect more of the same Kristol stoogery from the Nyuk Nyuk Times? Soi-tanly!
For this, the Gray Lady can share this week's award with the PNAC neocon founder, William "The Bloody" Kristol.
Ah, impudent Pinocchio. Rudy can't help if he's so full of himself that he's bursting with false bravado. He's a self-aggrandizing Republican. And that's what wingnuts do -- mislead to glorify themselves, to make themselves bigger than life.
In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views.
Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was “the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994.” In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York “had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years.” When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that “under me, spending went down by 7 percent.”
All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record.
For instance, another major American city claims to have reduced crime every year since 1994: Chicago. New York averaged 1,514 murders a year during the three decades before Mr. Giuliani took office; it did not record more than 1,800 homicides until 1980. And Mr. Giuliani’s own memoir states that spending grew an average of 3.7 percent for most of his tenure; an aide said Mr. Giuliani had meant to say that he had proposed a 7 percent reduction in per capita spending during his time as mayor.
Facts and figures are often the striking centerpieces of Mr. Giuliani’s arguments. He has always had a penchant for statistics — his anticrime strategy as mayor was built around a system known as Compstat that closely tracked crimes to focus law enforcement efforts. On the campaign trail he often wields data, without notes, with prosecutorial zeal to hammer home his points.
[Keep reading...]
Reality and facts aren't Rudy's forte but he sure likes to paint himself as a hero even if he must -- and he must -- bend the truth:
An examination of many of his statements by The New York Times, other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or his arguments in a better light. “He’s given us a lot of work up until now,” said Brooks Jackson, the director of Annenberg Political Fact Check, which is part of Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania that has corrected statements by candidates in both parties.
But, of course, Rudy can't be blamed for polishing his mayoral performance into a shining presidential facsimile if you believe his cheerleading squad. After all, that's what an ambitious Pinocchio does. Oh, Rudy so wants to grow up to be a real president! He's so desperate to come to life in the Oval Office that he'll say anything even if it's untrue.
On cue, Rudy's Geppettos defended his hyperbolic tendency:
Aides to Mr. Giuliani dismiss questions about his use of statistics as nitpicking, arguing that no one can dispute the big points he makes by using the statistics: that crime dropped significantly during his tenure, say, or that he worked to restrain spending in New York.
Au contraire! First, crime was already dropping significantly long before Rudy took office as Greg Sargent illustrated in a handy chart covering 1994--2004. Harper's quoting criminologist Franklin Zimring found:
...Giuliani’s claims to be self-serving. First, [Zimring] said, during Giuliani’s time as mayor criminal activity was declining nationwide. Homicide, rape, burglary and automobile theft all dropped between 37 and 41 percent in the 1990s, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports—all the result of social and policy changes that were taking place in New York and in the nation at large. Thus, according to Zimring, at least half—and as much as three-quarters—of that drop in New York crime “would have happened if Rudy Giuliani had never been born.”
And why, if Rudy was so fiscally responsible, did Mayor Bloomberg inherit a $4 billion deficit?
I doubt it. John W. Dean wrote in Conservatives Without Conscience (p. 26):
A close study of conservatives reveals an interesting trait: These people do not see themselves as they actually are, but rather as something very different. In short, they seem to have little facility for self-analysis.
Rudy has too much invested in his towering image and friends in high places who pull strings to fashion him into a leading GOP presidential contender.
Furthermore, the Beltway press loves to perpetuate myths during their cocktail weenie parties where they can sample hot hors d'oeuvres: "WMDs anyone?" They love dramatic story lines regardless whether they're true or not. Just like Rudy.
RawStory is reporting that the New York Times has published a powerful Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. Here are some excerpts purloined by RawStory.
You see, the Iraq war, although Bush insists that it is part of a Global War on Terror(TRADEMARK), a fight to the death between good and evil, is not like America's other great wars -- wars in which the wealthy shared the financial burden through higher taxes and many members of the elite fought for their country.
This time around, Bush celebrated Mission Accomplished by cutting tax rates on dividends and capital gains, while handing out huge no-bid contracts to politically connected corporations. And in the four years since, as the insurgency he initially taunted with the cry of "Bring them on" has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and left thousands more grievously wounded, the children of the elite -- especially the Republican elite -- have been conspicuously absent from the battlefield.
The Bushies, it seems, like starting fights, but they do not believe in paying any of the cost of those fights or bearing any of the risks. Above all, they do not believe that they or their friends should face any personal or professional penalties for trivial sins like distorting intelligence to get America into an unnecessary war, or totally botching that war's execution.
I would love to read the entire Op-Ed. Damn the New York Times firewall. So many wonderful voices locked in a gilded cage, unable to share their songs with the rest of us.
You know it is a slow news day when Greg Sargent of TPM Election Central is dissecting a fundraising email from the John Edwards campaign. I got the same email. Here it is slightly shortened to remove the direct fundraising appeals
Dear Friend,
What happens when the candidate who will shake up Washington the most also has the best chance of getting elected?
Everyone who likes things just the way they are gets scared and goes on the attack. If they can't attack the substance, they'll create "scandals" any way they can.
We are fighting back hard . . . .
The whole Washington establishment wants our campaign to go away, because they know that John Edwards means the end to business as usual. The Washington lobbyists and PACs don't want us to win because John is the only candidate who has never taken money from them. The political mercenaries and the chattering class don't want us to win because they can't imagine a president who doesn't play by their rules. And you can bet that the big corporate interests—from the insurance companies to the drug companies to the oil companies—don't want us to win because John has been taking on special interests his entire life. So they attack him—personally.
It's classic—they don't want the American people to hear the message, so they attack the messenger. They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people during some of their toughest times, and—heaven forbid!—he has the nerve to remember where he came from and still care passionately about guaranteeing every family the opportunities he had to get ahead.
Enough is enough. Together, we can put substance above cynicism and beat back these desperate attacks.
Like many of you, I've been with John since 2004. The same folks who are attacking him now went after him then. You know why? Because the Bush inner circle sensed what the polls tell us today—that John Edwards is the best general election candidate we've got. Last time they attacked his hair; this time it's his haircut. But it's the same sad game. And this time, we can beat it.
For all the reasons we got into this—to bring our troops back from Iraq, to solve global warming, to guarantee universal health care and to eliminate poverty—and because we believe the politics of substance and purpose must trump cynicism and personal destruction—this is a fight we must win. And together, we can.
Sincerely,
--Jonathan Prince Deputy Campaign Manager John Edwards for President Monday, June 25, 2007
P.S. Last week The New York Times ran a story suggesting that it was wrong for John to have spent the last three years raising awareness of poverty and advocating for solutions. As if there's any way to draw attention to poverty without publicity! And to make matters worse, the reporter just refused to even talk with any of the people who benefited—like any of the 200 young people who got scholarships through the College for Everyone program, or the 700 students who went to New Orleans with John to help rebuild. So we really need your help to get our message out; please, give what you can today.
Why do I have a feeling that Prince might be right? Has the Washington media elite decided to "cheap shot" the Edwards campaign? First he is attacked for being pretty. Then his hair cuts are too expensive. Somebody writes that he had the largest house in the country (er county.) Who can forget Katie Couric implying that he is wrong to continue campaigning in the face of his wife's cancer. His poverty fighting efforts are challenged in the New York Times. It is as though somebody has decided that the best way to defeat John Edwards is to label him a hypocrite and the big time media is sparing little expense in pushing that narrative. I would suggest we all remember the hatchet job Al Gore received at the hands of the very same mainstream media back in 2000. Do you think they did America any service then?
Question, do the big time media types have teleconferences to talk about how they are going to whack somebody or are they just an easily lead herd of hacks?
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing today examining the Free Flow of Information Act Of 2007. You can view the video webcast and copies of the witnesses prepared testimony here.
The bill is intended to create a Federal shield allowing journalists to protect their sources. The proposed legislation includes several exceptions applying equally to all journalists. To invoke any of the exceptions the government would be required to petition a Federal court.
While the Justice Department has never favored a shield law, the administration's most strongly held objections to this bill are aimed at its definition of "journalism." As proposed
The term "journalism" means the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.
Obviously, the proposed definition is broad enough to include the work of bloggers. If the bill is enacted it will treat the reporting of Judith Miller and Blue Girl just alike. Josh Marshall and the New York Times will benefit equally. The posts or editorials Kevin Drum and William Safire will be entitled to exactly the same protections.
According to c\net the mere idea that bloggers might be entitled to protection as journalists has reduced the administration to a quivering state of apoplexy.
Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, testified that "The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web."
The administration's argument didn't fall on deaf ears. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said, "I'd say anyone who didn't want to face legal action would immediately try to put up a blog and try to get journalistic protection."
The best defense of both the bill and bloggers came from William Safire. The long time New York Times columnist likes the definition's focus on the activity of journalism rather than the journalist's employer or paycheck. He testified that
Whether you're a blogger or whether you're The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you're a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not.
The bill's sponsors have indicated that they want to pass the bill this session. We will follow it's progress, and especially whether the administration is able to deny bloggers engaged in journalism the bill's protection. Anybody know Brad Sherman. If so send him an email and tell him to join the 21st Century.
The New York Times and Washington Post have the details on today's appeals court ruling that rejects the Bushies' claims that they can do anything they darn well please with anyone, that is, as long as they claim said individual is an enemy combatant. The Post reports:
The opinion is a major blow to the Bush administration's assertion that as the president seeks to combat terrorism, he has exceptionally broad powers to detain without charges both foreign citizens abroad and those living legally in the United States. The government is expected to appeal the 2-1 decision handed down by a three-judge panel of the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is in Richmond, Va.
Although this decision is from a divided court, it also comes from a conservative panel. Very interesting.
The New York Times quotes one judge who does not sound at all pleased with the Bushies.
“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”
“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”
I can already hear the screams, though, claiming that this is a horrible decision because Bush and company say the defendant is an Al Qaeda member. Well, perhaps he is and perhaps he isn't. What counts, though, is that in the United States you can't just point to someone and scream "bad guy," and then lock that person away forever.
If there are no rules, if there is no need for evidence, then anyone can be called an enemy combatant and locked away. That "anyone" could be folks like you or me who post unpopular political opinions on blogs. That could be my 80-year-old mother who might go to a peace march. Heck, I suppose they could prosecute my late, lamented cat Ernestine for, just well, being wrong.
I do not want a terrorist out on our streets anymore than anyone else does. However, this ruling gives the Bushies ample ways to keep this guy locked up if there is reason to do so.
It is. Way. Past. Time. To end this imperial presidency.
Here is a reason to read the New York Times in the morning. Raw Story just put up a post indicating that veteran Iraq correspondent John Burns is about to reveal that the U.S. is now arming Iraqi insurgents to fight al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The same insurgents who have been killing our troops for years. Raw Story say the story is developing. It better be.
Looks like it is going to be an interesting Monday.
An editorial in this morning's New York Times neatly sums up Bradley Schlozman's testimony concerning the ACORN indictments and his role in the politicization of the Department of Justice.
Mr. Schlozman said it did not occur to him that the indictments could affect the campaign. That is hard to believe since the Justice Department’s guidelines tell prosecutors not to bring vote fraud investigations right before an election, so as not to affect the outcome. He also claimed, laughably, that he did not know that Acorn was a liberal-leaning group.
Mr. Schlozman fits neatly into the larger picture. Prosecutors who refused to use their offices to help Republicans win elections, like John McKay in Washington State, and David Iglesias in New Mexico, were fired. Prosecutors who used their offices to help Republicans did well.
All roads in this scandal lead to the White House. The White House refuses to make Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Scott Jennings, Sara Taylor and William Kelley available for testimony under oath and have generally stonewalled regarding critical emails. At long last the Times editorial board has concluded
This noncooperation has gone on long enough. Mr. Leahy should deliver the subpoenas for the five White House officials and make clear that if the administration resists, Congress will use all available means to get the information it needs.
The Nattering Nabob says, "My God, even the New York Times gets it." The Nattering Nabob is right.
A few weeks ago Rachel Paulose and John Kelly (from main justice) secured a promise from the three senior attorneys and the senior administrator who revolted against her infant terrible routine that they wouldn't talk to the press. That promise wasn't seen by Paulose and Kelly as stopping them from unleashing "unnamed sources" against the Minneapolis four. I guess in loyal Bushie land loyalty only goes one way. Of course, the career guys have now formally complained. You can read their letter here.
Damn, the damage that can be done when newspapers print stories from unnamed sources. Both the New York Times and the Star Tribune should be ashamed.
On World Press Freedom Day a new Public Editor was named by the New York Times, and I am beside myself with joy at their choice.
The Times new Public Editor is Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Clark Hoyt – you remember Hoyt – he was the Editor in Chief of the Washington bureau for Knight-Ridder, assuming that mantle after serving as the Washington Bureau Chief – and if that still isn’t ringing any bells, maybe this will:He is the guy who got Iraq right.
In the prelude to the Iraq war and the early days of the war, Knight-Ridder stood apart from most of the mainstream news media in raising doubts at times about the Bush administration’s claims, later discredited, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said that record contributed to his selection of Mr. Hoyt.
“There was a lot of work Knight-Ridder did that was prescient, that wasn’t easy to do,” Mr. Keller said. “It’s always hard to go against conventional wisdom. I think it probably brings him a measure of credibility that helps in getting started on a job like that — that he’s been associated with a brave and aggressive reporting exercise like that.”
Mr. Hoyt said that in 2002 and 2003 he had fielded a great deal of criticism “from angry readers who believed that we weren’t being patriotic, from government officials who said that what we were doing was wrong.”
To this long-time subscriber of the Times this is welcome news indeed.Nothing will ever atone for the complicity of the Times in aiding and abetting BushCrimCo in their quest to spy on Americans by sitting on the story for a full year; and don’t even get me started on Judith "Iscariot" Miller.Bush’s Illegal War could not have been launched without her words.That unchangeable fact will be a mark of shame to be worn like a large, scarlet A by the Times forevermore.To the extent that redemption for Miller’s fecklessness and warmongering is possible, hiring her antithesis is the logical – the only – place to start.
Does anyone else wish the New York Times would just say no to the 10th-grade-snark of Maureen Dowd and hire Robert Wright full time?She isn’t a political analyst; she’s a god-damned gossip columnist.Take her of the editorial page, at least.Jesus Christ!That’s where Frank Rich, Nick Kristoff and Paul Krugmancommit serious acts of journalism!!! And MoDo…gossips.Cut the malignant narcissist out of the body editorial.Move her to the Style section at the very least.
In her stead, Robert Wright would be a worthy addition to the body of journalists that makes up the stable of Times columnists.Hell even David Brooks isn’t wrong 100% of the time.Dowd on the other hand never really takes any stand to be right about.She just pedantically picks at minutiae.Such a charming trait……
Someone should tell the editorial board that the year is 2007, and we are big girls now.We aren’t going to get in a snit if you fire the token female.She isn’t up to the job, and gender has nothing to do with it.She just sucks.She has long-since passed her sell-by date, the snark grew tiresome long, long ago, and bitchiness only passes for clever for so long.
Robert Wright is a hell of a lot smarter, a hell of a lot more savvy about what is going on in the real world, and a damn fine wordsmith.
But don’t take my word for it…Read a bit for yourself
Neoconservatives have been airing an explanation for the failure of the Iraq war that’s so obvious you’ll wonder why you didn’t think of it yourself: the war wasn’t neoconservative enough.
Last week Richard Perle, on “The Charlie Rose Show,” echoed what his fellow neocon John Bolton told the BBC last month: We should have turned Iraq over to the Iraqis much sooner. Then, presumably, the power of democracy to blossom pronto in even nutrient-depleted soil — the neocon élan vital — would have kicked in.
Nice try, but they’re just digging themselves in deeper. They’re highlighting a paradox within the neocon game plan that would have doomed this war even if it had been run competently (enough troops, a dollop of postwar planning, etc.).
On the one hand, we were going to bring democracy to Iraq. On the other hand, we were going to use Iraq as a platform for exercising military power. (Days after Baghdad fell, the neocon Weekly Standard festively titled an article “There’s No Place Like Iraq ... for U.S. Military Bases.”)
But wait. What if the Iraqi people, once empowered by democracy, decided they didn’t want their country to be a U.S. aircraft carrier? And isn’t that pretty likely? After all, America is bound to use bases on behalf of itself and key allies, and one key ally is Israel. What were the chances this would sit well with an Arab Muslim nation — not with the small ruling class of an authoritarian state like Saudi Arabia (our previous aircraft carrier) but with a whole electorate?(Keep Reading)
Give me the clear-eyed analysis of Robert Wright over the sophistry of a shrew any day.
Accountability. We have to be accountable, and we think our politicians should be too. We do not want a replay of the craven perfidy of the last 12 years that nearly sunk the ship of state. The administrators of this blog have decided, as a group, that working to elect real Democrats to office at all levels of government is the best way to achieve the restoration of oversight and accountability.
But please! Don’t make the mistake of thinking of us as battered wives who keep coming back for more, because that would be totally wrong. Parole Officers would be much more fitting. (Full Mission Statement here.)
