Dover Bitch

Friday, September 05, 2008

Zzzzzzzzz... did I miss something?

Oh. I guess that was McCain's acceptance speech.

I'm heading away for the weekend. Need to clean out my brain after all this washing. While I'm gone, I'll leave you with a few things...

Once again, if you have some coin to spare, consider keeping good satire flowing through the tubes.

Here's the dumbest paragraph I've seen today:

Culturally, there is little for the Heartland to dislike. By now, you've probably seen picture or two of Palin sporting a rifle. Apparently, she's left carcasses strewn across the Alaskan wilderness. In some places -- areas where the nation is growing -- owning a gun is not yet a sin. And unlike Obama, Palin seems to believe that the Second Amendment means the exact same thing in rural Alaska as it does in the streets of Chicago.


Aside from Harsanyi's deep understanding of the "Heartland" as seen from New York City (where I believe he still resides), he appears to be implying that Chicago's streets should be littered with carcasses. A sort of 12 Monkeys vision of the future under McCain/Palin.

I forgot to thank Digby, dday and tristero for having me over at Hullabaloo. It was a pleasure to spend time there, as always. Thanks also to Batocchio, who did a bang-up job posting there with me.

Finally, it's been a while since I posted a poem. Here's one I like:

The Revenant by Billy Collins

I am the dog you put to sleep,
as you like to call the needle of oblivion,
come back to tell you this simple thing:
I never liked you--not one bit.

When I licked your face,
I thought of biting off your nose.
When I watched you toweling yourself dry,
I wanted to leap and unman you with a snap.

I resented the way you moved,
your lack of animal grace,
the way you would sit in a chair to eat,
a napkin on your lap, knife in your hand.

I would have run away,
but I was too weak, a trick you taught me
while I was learning to sit and heel,
and--greatest of insults--shake hands without a hand.

I admit the sight of the leash
would excite me
but only because it meant I was about
to smell things you had never touched.

You do not want to believe this,
but I have no reason to lie.
I hated the car, the rubber toys,
disliked your friends and, worse, your relatives.

The jingling of my tags drove me mad.
You always scratched me in the wrong place.
All I ever wanted from you
was food and fresh water in my metal bowls.

While you slept, I watched you breathe
as the moon rose in the sky.
It took all of my strength
not to raise my head and howl.

Now I am free of the collar,
the yellow raincoat, monogrammed sweater,
the absurdity of your lawn,
and that is all you need to know about this place

except what you already supposed
and are glad it did not happen sooner--

that everyone here can read and write,
the dogs in poetry, the cats and the others in prose.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Try decaf

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

You can always tell an election is nearing. The ads start airing during your shows. The bumper stickers become more visible during your commute. And Joe Scarborough begins his gradual, but inevitable transition from thinly-veiled, independent "journalist" to complete water-carrying GOP hack. It's really the same script every election cycle and it usually blooms like a flower with an episode like today's Morning Joe:



The only time he shut up during the entire segment (other than during the beginning of Mika Brzezinski's newscast, which he interrupted and ended prematurely) was when David Shuster challenged him: to say "John McCain was wrong."

SHUSTER: One final point: It's very different to say, "Yes, we ought to take the Iraqis up on their word," and at the same time say, "You know what, when John McCain ridicules that very point, he is wrong." And if you want to say, right now -- we can end this argument -- "When John McCain ridicules the point that we ought to take up the Iraqis and get out of Iraq, and he ridicules that, he is wrong." You can say that right now and that's the end of this.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, actually, you're trying to pick a fight with somebody that wasn't fighting with you. As a guy...

SHUSTER: Well, you can end the fight by saying "John McCain is wrong." Go ahead say it. "John McCain is wrong when he ridicules people who call for a timetable."

[a few seconds of cafeteria din]

SCARBOROUGH: I.. wha... whuuu... miii... Where am I? Am I on Crossfire? I thought they cancelled that show... John McCain is John... OK... John McCain is wrong for blah, blah, blah, whatever you said. We're not on opposite sides here.


This smackdown followed seven minutes of schoolyard taunts by Scarborough, including, in the most sarcastic tone he could muster, "Ooooh, you're an independent! Why, I feel soooo comforted by the fact that you're an independent! I bet everybody at MSNBC has 'independent' on their voting cards! Ooooh, we're down the middle now!"

Truly embarrassing. You can tell the GOP is in trouble this year, because Joe usually waits until somebody mentions Mary Cheney before he percolates completely.

He's probably still smarting from last night, when Keith Olbermann muttered, "Jesus, Joe, why don't you get a shovel?" while Scarborough was praising McCain's Karl Rove 2.0, Steve Schmidt.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Fournier, another McCain servant?

The Associated Press' D.C. Bureau Chief, Ron Fournier, was offered and, apparently, seriously considered a top job working for the McCain campaign.

It's been well documented, by Media Matters for example, that his columns tend to favor McCain, to put it politely.

It's also been revealed that Fournier had words of encouragement for Karl Rove, when details were emerging about Pat Tillman's death.

When the AP issued it's first look at Barack Obama's choice for Vice President, here was the headline:

Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence

Guess who wrote it?

Doesn't John McCain have enough people maintaining his pampered lifestyle?

Labels: , ,

Friday, August 01, 2008

Southern Strategy 2008

Cross-posted at Daily Kos (just cuz I felt like it)

Mike Barnicle on MSNBC is dumbfounded today. He didn't see any of the racial subtext in the Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad. Why, he asks, would John McCain want to woo crazy racist voters who would vote for him anyway? He should look in the mirror for his answer.

Let's just get one thing out there that anybody should be able to understand: There is no way -- none -- that the McCain campaign did not know that some people in America would see the racial/sexual subtext in that ad.

It doesn't matter if the ad "really" is racist. If, like Mike Barnicle, you didn't see the racism that I did, no, that doesn't make you an idiot.

However, if you think the McCain campaign was surprised that some people did see racism in an ad in which a handsome black candidate was coupled with a pair of young blondes who are famous for not wearing underwear, then, yes, you are an idiot.

These people get paid millions of dollars for their expertise in putting these ads together. They run everything by a series of focus groups. They have been exploiting racial divisions for decades. It's no secret: Former Republican Chairman Ken Melhman even apologized to the NAACP for it three years ago.

There is absolutely no way the McCain campaign put these ads on the air without expecting some people -- maybe not Mike Barnicle -- to gasp and point out the racial subtext. No way on earth they didn't know this would be the reaction from a good slice of the left. They knew it and they wanted it.

But why, Mike Barnicle asks? They already have the racist vote locked up! True, Mike, but there are millions of independent voters who, like you, didn't get the subliminal message. Millions of voters who might have liked Obama because he's not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. John McCain wants these voters, independent white voters who don't hate black people, but hate when black people "play the race card."

John McCain, the honorable John McCain, couldn't possibly have known people would think these ads were racist. right? As concerned as the McCain campaign is that they'll be branded as racists, they had no idea that anybody would get the wrong idea from those images. Nobody could have predicted...

Of course they knew. They wanted the reaction and they got it, along with the media's obtuse confusion. Now, to a host of independent voters, Obama is just another Jackson or Sharpton.

UPDATE Josh Marshall flags this must-read article in New York Magazine, which makes my point precisely.

Labels: , , , , ,

Boxing analogies

So David Gregory just mentioned that MSNBC has a boxing analogy for the McCain campaign:

To use a boxing analogy, McCain is putting Obama into a bear hug -- making it nearly impossible for the Illinois senator to move (in the polls?) or land a punch. But as a big boxing aficionado, McCain also must realize that the fans often don’t take too kindly to boxers who constantly bear hug their opponent. And at some point, the refs break up the bear hugging and the boxing match is forced. But for now, the McCain campaign appears to have a way to knock Obama off message. The only problem for McCain, he's still not on any message of his own, other than "not-Obama." The campaign believes their energy message did break through. Time will tell.


I also have a boxing analogy for David Gregory this week.

GREGORY: It should also be pointed out that embedded in what some may condemn as baseless, negative advertising are some serious questions for debate in this campaign about Obama's judgment and his plans.


RINGSIDE GREGORY: It should also be pointed out that embedded in what some may condemn as unethical fighting tactics are some serious questions for debate in this sport about Evander Holyfield's judgment and whether somebody with ears as edible as his should be in the ring at all.


That was the basic media narrative this week. Sure, the claims in the commercial are demonstrably false, but what do they tell us about Obama?

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 30, 2008

ABC and Rick Klein can't handle the truth

So Rick Klein puts up this imbecilic post about how Wes Clark "went where no Democrat really truly wants to go on Sunday -- calling into question, in surprisingly sharp language, Sen. John McCain’s military record."

Feeling a little punchy on a Monday morning, I posted a comment:

What the hell is wrong with you, Klein?

Did Wes Clark say John McCain didn't really get a wound that required more than a bandaid? Did Clark say that McCain shot himself to get a purple heart? Did Clark say McCain turned his boat around and ran away instead of helping his troops? Did Clark say McCain only joined the military so he could run for president one day? Did Clark say McCain shot an unarmed child in the back? Did Clark say McCain called every soldier a war criminal?

Those are unfair attacks that the media played over and over again in 2004. Clark said nothing of the sort today.

You guys need to join the rest of us on Planet Earth.


Not my best comment ever, but not the worst thing I've ever written. Checking back later I discovered that ABC deleted my comment. I thought that was pretty strange so I asked why they deleted my comment. Was it because I asked Klein to join the rest of us on Earth?

This comment, too, was deleted. Then I noticed in an update they linked over to TPM's response to the post. So I made one last attempt at a comment:

I asked what's wrong with Rick Klein's comprehension and my comments get deleted.

Josh Marshall says this post is "Sub-Zero Stupid" and you link to him!

Maybe I should have insulted him more pointedly.

This blog gets more absurd by the minute.


This comment was deleted also. What a joke that blog is. They put up an insipid bunch of nonsense and then delete comments that criticize them. Intellectually soft losers.

By the way, here's some comments that they apparently endorse through non-deletion:

America WAKE UP! Obama has soooo many questionable ties to unsavory people...that we know of!...REZKO, AYERS, WRIGHT, his overzealous anti-American Muslim half brother...who or what else lurks in BO's closet? he's supporters are yelling for "Slavery Reparations"...there is a clear pattern emerging here...Disdain for America!


Rush Limbaugh has the perfect nickname for Wesley Clark...Ashley Wilkes (Gone with the Wind character). A weenie, whiney, wussy.


sure as hell beats being a community orgainizer in the most corrupt political city in the country.
I'll take my chances with a war hero over an empty suit.

Although...being married to Michelle might qualify Barry as a war hero...


Wesley Clark is a political opportunist hero wannabe. He bad mouths a veteran while backing a non veteran. What a JACKASS!. He needs to find a B movie to star in so his ego will be soothed. He is a whiner. The Army never has been able to do anything right.


I wonder if Martin Luther King Jr. would agree with Mr. Obama? I think not... because MLK was a Republican.


McCain ought to talk about how obama isn't really african american.. he has NO african american relatives.

He's a white wealthy prep school kid


Sorry my comments didn't meet your high standards, ABC.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Really close



DB was watching Hardball yesterday and heard this from CNBC's Erin Burnett:

You know, when you talk about inflation, that's another interesting point because a lot of people like to say, scaremonger about China, right? A lot of politicians, and I know you talk about that issue all the time... I think people should be careful what they wish for on China. You know, if China were to revalue its currency or China is to start making, say, toys that don't have lead in them or food that isn't poisonous, their cost of production is going to go up and that means prices at Walmart here in the United States are going to go up, too. So, I would say China is our greatest friend right now. They're keeping prices low and they're keeping prices for mortgages low, too.


I'll tell you, when I picked my jaw up off the floor, I decided to wait for the rebroadcast to make sure I heard it correctly. But a few minutes later, I was forced to change my mind and go easy on Burnett because Chris Matthews' behaviour became so lecherous and demeaning towards her, I thought she didn't deserve any additional grief. (Video here)

Here's how the segment ended:

BURNETT: You know, Chris, just to throw it out there and be provocative, but also ask a fair question, you know, maybe not everybody is able to own a home. We like to think of owning a home as a right in this country.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

BURNETT: It might not be.

MATTHEWS: Can you get a little closer to the camera?

BURNETT: My... What is it... is it...

MATTHEWS: Come on in closer.

BURNETT: ...zooming in strangely?

MATTHEWS: Come in further, come in closer... Really close.

BURNETT: What... What are you... What are you...

MATTHEWS: Ha! Ha! Just kidding. You look great! Anyway it's, thanks. Erin, it's great to have... Look at that look...

BURNETT: I don't even know... I'm going to have to go look at the tape here...

MATTHEWS: No, you're beautiful...

BURNETT: ... I'm in a strange location...

MATTHEWS: I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding, you're a knockout. Anyway, thank you, Erin Burnett.

BURNETT: Alright, Chris.

MATTHEWS: It's alright getting bad news from you, even. Thanks for coming on Hardball


Uh, ewwwwwww. Makes me want to eat lead.

UPDATE: Burnett's comments about China remind me of this Woody Allen joke:

Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions."

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Born on third

The other day, after I posted at Hullabaloo, in the comments DB was called out for cheating. Well, for relying on quotes from Jonah Goldberg, which are so easily mocked it's almost unfair to use them. It's a good point.

The same could probably be said for Tucker Carlson quotes, but I just can't resist. Here's what he had to say right before the AFL-CIO sponsored Democratic debate Tuesday:

BILL PRESS: The rights that I enjoy as a union member...

TUCKER CARLSON: Oh God.

PRESS: ... Whatever rights I have in terms of pension, in terms of vacation time, in terms of health care comes from the union. I wouldn't have zip without the union and neither would any other union member in this country...

CARLSON: You know, that's a total crock. I have a union card in my wallet right now, and I will pull it out and show you, and it gives me zero rights. Zero rights. Any right I have, I negotiated because I paid my lawyer to do so, OK? This is a total joke and I'm forced to pay into this because of stupid laws surrounding it pushed by people like John Edwards.

PRESS: I want to see, Tucker, you get in a run in with MSNBC and see how fast they come to help you.

CARLSON: Yeah, right.

PRESS: The union will be there...

CARLSON: The union? Are you kidding?

PRESS: Absolutely, just like they get behind any working man or woman in the country.

CARLSON: Aaaaaaaagh.

PRESS: And where do you...

CARLSON: Alright.

PRESS: Where do you think you get your, the vacation that you get? Where do you think you get your health care?

CARLSON: Because I paid my lawyer to negotiate it.


It's hard enough to understand what keeps this guy on the air at all, but it's impossible to figure out why they'd air somebody with no sense of history or appreciation for his surroundings right before a debate where real Americans were discussing real problems with the candidates. It didn't sound to me like any of the people asking about health care, worker safety and job protection had personal lawyers to negotiate their vacation schedules.

I didn't go to Yearly Kos, but anybody criticizing the bloggers who went, claiming they sold out or something, need to remember what it looks like when somebody with zero connection to the real world is given a microphone day after day and paid handsomely to drool on it.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The Most Trusted Name in Propaganda

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

Via Atrios, I see that CNN has given Laura Ingraham a week to get America clapping louder.

I guess we can expect the kind of hard-hitting war coverage we've already heard from Ingraham on her radio show:

INGRAHAM: Secretary Rumsfeld, I've got to tell you, when I read some of the very small stories about the Afghan elections I thought to myself, here we have about a 50 percent turnout rate in a country where we were promised unending violence, unending chaos, and yet women and young people brave the threats and they made it to the polls and you don't get any coverage of it.

[...]

INGRAHAM: One of the things that I think of course is responsible for this, the reason for this refusal to pay attention to the story, is because they'd rather focus on whatever they think is perceived problems in Katrina response, or they'll focus on the difficulty we're facing in Iraq, and on that note, I have to ask you, given everything that you know about the region, what's happening in Iraq, what do you do at the Pentagon to affect public opinion? Because these polls, one after the other, are showing ebbing support for the war. I support the war, I'm think it's worth it, and I'm frustrated that more Americans don't think it's worth it at this juncture.

[...]

INGRAHAM: Do we think, Mr. Secretary, that having a military spokesperson on the ground day in and day out, ticking off three positive pieces of news out of Iraq every day, someone that every American knows, comes to know whether it's General Casey or someone else, do you think that's something that would affect the public opinion at this point? Because I'm concerned if these numbers keep going the way they are, it's going to do damage to the President's war on terror overall and obviously his standing on other issues at home.

[...]

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: ... Obviously you're quite right, all of that effort has not overcome the negative press that is --

INGRAHAM: Something's got to change.

[...]

INGRAHAM: North Korea, I've got to say everyone thinking it was such a positive development, North Korea's commitment in the six-party talks to refrain from further pursuit of nuclear materials and nuclear processing and now they say well, we want a white water reactor, otherwise we're not going to move forward on our commitment.

What are the American people supposed to think about this?

[...]

INGRAHAM: The mistake made in 1994 not to look back, but to use it as a way of learning, a mistake of hoping for the best from North Korea just ended up kicking the can down the road, to use the line from one of your former colleagues.

[...]

INGRAHAM: Back on Iraq for a second, Mr. Secretary, the major problem outside of Iraq that would affect the future, our future success in Iraq, would it be Iran for you? I know that you talk about the people streaming across the border still, and the foreign fighters we found in Telafar a few weeks ago. But would it be Iran, and what Iran's role in all this is and would be?

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: In what sense? Would it be what?

INGRAHAM: A further danger to the situation in Iraq as it is today. What outside forces other than what we're seeing developing on the ground inside of Iraq would you point to as a problem?

[...]

INGRAHAM: And your commanders in the field now in Iraq, there are reports back to you about the progress being made. Of course Americans are greeted by headlines every day, 1900 dead, thousands more wounded, roadside bombs. But the commanders were working with the security forces. I've had a chance to talk to some of them. I hear a very different account of what is happening, very positive stories, again, and yet I don't see the stuff reported. It's frustrating to me. I can't imagine how frustrating to you it must be.

[...]

INGRAHAM: Two more questions, Mr. Secretary, I know you're on a tight schedule. Are you confident that a year from now or six months from now public opinion will move toward embracing progress in Iraq and the fact that Iraq was worth it?

[...]

INGRAHAM: You've got a press corps against you and you've got an international media who's oftentimes against you so it's very difficult.

Before I let you go, the AmericaSupportsYou.Mil charity. We continue to link it and promote it on our web site, Mr. Secretary, at a time when everyone's opening their wallets to Katrina I need to remember and remind everyone to support that web site which helps our troops, their families, and continues to just be a huge outpouring to the benefit of our men and women in uniform.


That's the entirety of her exclusive interview with the Secretary of Defense in the middle of two wars. Other than a dig at Clinton's North Korea policy, the only question was essentially "How bad is Iran?"

Everything else out of her mouth was an attack on the media for ignoring how fantastic the war is. CNN has reacted to her by giving her a prime slot... A woman who asked Rumsfeld "What are the American people supposed to think about this?"

Well done, CNN. In case her willingness to catapult the propaganda isn't obvious enough, here's how the interview ended:

INGRAHAM: Fantastic. If you need someone to be that military spokesperson over in Iraq, I'm happy to give up my microphone any time, Mr. Secretary. Any time you call I'll be happy to jump over there.


SECRETARY RUMSFELD: You're terrific, Laura. Thanks so much.


Yes, terrific is the word I'd choose, too:

Main Entry: ter·rif·ic
Pronunciation: t&-'ri-fik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin terrificus, from terrEre to frighten
1 a : very bad : FRIGHTFUL


You're terrific, too, CNN.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, July 22, 2007

The Ivory Tower

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

Washingtonian punditry has given us much to revile, but there are few examples more illustrative of what vexes me than this, from David Brooks:

As Mark says, there's been this year-long momentum, but it has stopped or at least stalled for the time being. And I personally think the Senate will do nothing to change Iraq policy at least for another three or four months.

And that's for a couple of reasons. One, a lot of Republicans who detest where the White House is are furious at Harry Reid. And a colleague of mine wrote a good piece today saying that partisan feeling, rancor in the Senate was already phenomenally high, but now it's extra-phenomenally high. And over this issue, a lot of Republicans would like to peel off from the president, but they feel that Harry Reid is making it impossible. He's taking this as an issue, forcing them to vote with the president for political reasons. So that's stalled it on partisan grounds.


As Digby noted, the piece to which Brooks refers is likely that of Fred Hiatt.

The savants at the Washington Post have really had a banner month. David Ignatius wrote in 2006 that the media's failures in the run up to the Iraq War were excusable, as "the media were victims of their own professionalism," if you can believe that. He explained that "journalistic rules" prevented them from challenging the administration's claims. They were simply powerless to "create a debate on [their] own." The blame, therefore, should be pinned on the Democrats for not being critical enough.

Two weeks ago, however, Ignatius decided that the country would be better off if the Democrats and Republicans stopped disagreeing. "Political disharmony," he wrote, is bad for America. So, even if Bush and Cheney are completely and dangerously wrong about something (imagine that), journalistic rules tell Ignatius not to question the president unless the Democrats do -- and they shouldn't, either.

That would leave it up to us, but David Broder followed Ignatius with a column explaining that any criticism the public might have should simply be ignored, again, for the good of the country. In other words, the view from the ivory tower at the Washington Post is that nobody should question the president. This president.

And now this nonsense from Hiatt, that Harry Reid has done a great injustice by forcing GOP senators to choose between they think is good for their party and what they believe is best for America.

Were an observant outsider to step into the ivory tower, in which all things are viewed solely in a political context, our visitor might ask a few questions. Wouldn't doing what they believe is best for America also be good for their party? Did Bill Frist or Dennis Hastert ever once schedule votes for the benefit of the Democrats? Isn't it strange that my colleagues in the ivory tower find it irresponsible for Reid to make the GOP vote on legislation that would actually accomplish something the American public wants, while they expressed little outrage when the GOP forced votes on resolutions that did nothing but say "hooray for our side" in an obvious effort to embarrass Democrats?

But with midterm elections less than five months away, House leaders -- driven in part by dissenting voices in their party -- decided that their members needed to confront the Iraq issue directly.

"I think all members are going to have to express themselves on this issue as the year goes on. There is no way of avoiding it," Boehner said.

But Republicans wanted to air it out under the most favorable circumstances, debating over 10 hours a leadership-tailored resolution that would not be subject to amendment and would not face competing policy statements. By drafting a resolution that supported U.S. troops, emphasized triumphing over terrorism and called for victory in Iraq, GOP leaders had constructed a measure that was "hard not to support," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.).

After the vote, Republicans crowed that they had held ranks while highlighting Democratic division. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said, "We are pleased that 42 Democrats defied their leadership and stood with House Republicans to support both our troops and their mission to win the global war on terror."


Those would all be obvious questions for an objective person, not full on cocktail weenies, to ask. But they would still represent the view from the ivory tower, where everything is a game and there are absolutely no consequences. In the real world, one might instead ask these questions of David Brooks and his colleagues:

How would delaying a vote in order to placate the Republicans be any different than "stalling it on partisan grounds?" How long should we stick with a failed policy just to allow the GOP senators time to feel comfortable about doing what's right for America? How many soldiers should America tolerate sacrificing while GOP senate aides channel their inner-Frank Luntz and write a series of Friday press releases? 100? 200? 1,000?

How many limbs is it OK for our troops to lose while Mitch McConnell figures out how to save face? How many more terrorists should we be OK with breeding in Iraq? How many more billions of dollars should we be willing to spend?

How much deeper should we dig the hole we're in before the Washington Post decides it's no longer "irresponsible" for Harry Reid to make life awkward for Bush's minions? The Republicans like to portray the Democrats as defeatists who believe the troops are dying for nothing. Now the GOP is actually asking soldiers to die so they don't have to look bad on C-SPAN.

Here's a tip for the pundits at the Washington Post: Nobody gives a crap if any senators are furious at Harry Reid. In the real world, people die when politicians play stupid games. They're not pawns on a board. They're people. These are what we call "consequences."

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, June 29, 2007

Is our Cheney learning?

In my quiet, but urban neighborhood, after the sun goes down, you don't hear a lot. Pretty much any sound you hear is the result of a human. The loudest noise invariably comes courtesy of the LA Times, who, I'm convinced, deliberately remove the mufflers from their delivery vehicles.

Unless the earth does something to remind you that you are on it, it's easy to forget that's the case. Despite the most obscenely expensive 3-D computer-animated weather reports on the local news, you could go months without hearing a forecast here and it would have absolutely no impact on your life. The only time I've seen more than 12 stars in the sky here was after the 1994 Northridge earthquake knocked out all the power.

Last night, I was lured outside by an eerie conversation. Under the light of a nearly-full moon, I discovered that the nonsensical blathering was actually a pair of insane cats. I had no idea they could make noises like that.

What a relief. For a moment, I was convinced that Tucker Carlson and Jonah Goldberg (another example of the LA Times amplifying a dull roar) were continuing their bromidic paean to Dick Cheney right outside my door.

Asked by host Tucker Carlson why some critics have such a strong distaste for Cheney, Goldberg offered this penetrating analysis:

I have no idea. I truly have no idea. I like Dick Cheney — love to have a beer with the guy. I think he is a smart, serious man in American life. I think one of the things that bothers them is he doesn’t care. … He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he’s [giving a speech]. That’s just the sort of matter-of-fact, eating lunch over the sink, oh yeah and by the way, here’s my view of the world. I love that!


As it turns out, the cats might not have just been howling at the moon. They might have been inspired to join our lunar companion in the Carlson-Goldberg celebration:

It's hard to know what these events really are, but if they're the result of gas seeping from the interior, we might learn some interesting things about the Moon by studying them. Like most people, I normally think of the Moon as a dead, unchanging place, but if it's outgassing from time to time, that view may not be so accurate.


Glenn Greenwald, typically, wrote a brilliant post about the segment:

But I want to focus on one specific exchange between Tucker and Jonah as they explored the Greatness of Dick Cheney:

[...]

GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, is that the person who holds the secrets has power. And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he's trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.


That, of course, is the defining mentality of the Authoritarian Mind, captured in its purest essence by Jonah. Our Leaders are Good and want to protect us. Therefore, we must accept -- and even be grateful -- when they prevent us from knowing what they are doing. The less we know, the more powerful our Leaders are. And that is something we accept and celebrate, for our Leaders are Good and we trust that the more powerful they are, the better we all shall be.


The part that jumps out at me in that jewel of wisdom from Goldberg is the word "learned." I guess we're finally discovering what, exactly, Cheney "learned" at the "refresher courses on ethics and handling classified materials" everybody in the administration was ordered to attend back in 2005.

Cheney "learned" that adhering "to the spirit as well as the letter of all rules governing ethical conduct" is the same thing as accumulating even more power for himself.

As was the case with "[t]he British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the Cheney administration has disabused me of the notion that something had to actually happen for you to "learn" that it did.

After all, I also "learned" that our government was created with three branches.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Impeach Cheney

That's the title of Bruce Fein's article in Slate.

There's nothing I can add to it. Just read it. Fein has been an unrelenting defender of the Constitution during these dark Cheney years.

While Chris Matthews and the other talking heads spend day after day babbling about that loser who calls Democrats playground names, this nation is missing out on the debate it should be having: Whether or not we still believe in the Constitution. Fein should be on every program.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Presidential Power

Thinking about how radical the Bush administration has been led me to pick up my dusty copy of Richard E. Neustadt's Presidential Power, one of the best books ever written about the executive branch. I just wanted to see how (my outdated copy of) the book holds up in light of the absurd nature of politics and the media in the early 21st Century. In some respects quite well, in others, not so much.

Interestingly, I found two opposite pages (164-165) that stuck out in my mind for different reasons, and both are bouncing around in my head today.

The first is this:

In 1898, two years before Wilson's apologia, a scholarly observer who may well have influenced him wrote a deeper book than Congressional Government. This was Henry Jones Ford, his book The Rise and Growth of American Politics. Correctly, in my view, he even then put the Presidency at the system's center:

The agency of the presidential office has been such a master force in shaping public policy that to give a detailed account of it would be equivalent to writing the political history of the United States.

The evidence... history affords seems conclusive of the tact that the only power which... define[s] issues in such a way that public opinion can pass upon them is that which emanates from presidential authority. ...

The rise of presidential authority cannot be accounted for by the intention of presidents; it is the product of political conditions which dominate all the departments of government, so that Congress itself shows an unconscious disposition to aggrandize the presidential office. ...


Eighty years later the trend seems the same.


Today, the talking heads are having a field day with the news that Congress has abysmal approval ratings. Lou Dobbs is reporting that fact as I type this.

In the comments to my posts this week at Hullabaloo, it was plenty clear to me that people have lost faith in Congress' ability to rein in this president. The failed Iraq Supplemental opportunity to end the war and the fact that Nancy Pelosi said impeachment is off the table seem to have crushed a great deal of whatever optimism voters had after last November's elections.

No doubt, it is true that the power this president has was ceded to him by the GOP-controlled Congress of the recent past, and has yet to be reclaimed by the thin majority the Democrats "enjoy" presently. Personally, I don't think they have the votes to change that much. The only real weapon they have is to continue investigating this reprehensible administration and hope that something comes out that is so egregious, even John Boehner and Mitch McConnell won't be able to save Bush.

What is incredibly gut-wrenching to so many of us is the previously unimaginable extent to which the GOP Congressional leadership and noise machine has been willing to defend the indefensible. Which brings me to the opposite page (165) of my copy of Presidential Power:

In the aftermath of Watergate, however, we have seen occasions where distinctions between reputation and prestige seemed to dissolve, where Washingtonians seemed quite like members of the general public, reacting to a President in almost the same terms, conducting themselves accordingly.' One such occasion was the "Saturday night massacre" of 1973 when Nixon fired the Watergate Prosecutor, forcing resignations from the Attorney General and his Deputy, all of whom responded on TV. This dramatic sequence-televised and thus "firsthand" in all parts of the country seemed so to contradict the President's contentions as to drain them of credibility, enlarging what we now label a credibility "gap," indeed extending it so wide as to cast doubt on his legitimacy and with it his authority as President. Nixon seemed to be engaging in a cover-up of criminal activity. He seemingly was fighting law enforcement. But he had sworn an oath of office encompassing the "take-care" clause. Hence the cloud on his legitimacy. The "massacre" tripped off impeachment proceedings. It is easy to see why.

What was striking then is that inside the government or near it, in the watchful circle of the Washington community, reactions against Nixon seemed to have so much in common with the popular impressions outside government. Citizens at large were swept into a "firestorm" of protest and suspicion. But so were commentators, congressmen, and civil servants. Apparently the President's behavior planted the same question in all minds. Some Washingtonians, waiting upon evidence, were slower than others to draw ultimate conclusions, and slower by far than some citizens, but he was treated henceforth with reserve throughout the Washington community. Diplomacy aside-there was a crisis in the Middle East-he turned away from governing and focused on the prospect of impeachment. Had Nixon tried to be assertive in domestic spheres, I take it that he would have been ignored or resisted. All over town officials shook themselves free of the White House, released by suspicion from deference, distancing their programs from his person. This occurred within one year of his triumphant re-election, three years before expiration of his term. For Washingtonians it was a most uncharacteristic reaction, especially so early in the term. Calculations about possible impeachment played a part, no doubt. But so did outraged feelings about Nixon's performance. There was precious little rallying around him. Instead, so far as I can judge, there was a widespread sense, even in some quarters of the White House, that he had compromised his right to be there and should go, impeached or not.


It is hard to imagine Washingtonians having less "in common with the popular impressions outside government" today (or during the Clinton impeachment proceedings.) As Digby correctly noted in her magnificent speech, the mainstream media -- the High Broderism and Meal Ticket Journalists -- have failed us completely.

Glenn Greenwald wrote today:

Only in the true fringe -- what Digby calls "the modern conservative movement of Newt and Grover and Karl and Rush," as well as their establishment media enablers -- does opposition to the Iraq War, or Guantanamo and torture, or the abolition of habeas corpus, or the grotesque deceit of the Limbaugh Right make one a "leftist" or fringe liberal, as those terms are used in their pejorative sense. The reality is that the views Digby identifies as the crux of the "progressive blogosphere" are entirely mainstream American views. "Extremism" is marked by those who reject those beliefs, not by those who embrace them.

Radicals and extremists are those who believe that we ought to invade and occupy foreign countries which have not attacked and cannot attack us, or that we ought to lock people away indefinitely with no process and/or torture them, or that the president has the power to ignore our duly enacted laws. As is true for any collection of large numbers of people, there surely are liberal bloggers who hold views that are shared only by a small minority. But objectively speaking, the defining views, the ones that its members hold almost unanimously in common, are anything but radical or "fringe."

It is not only our national character that has changed fundamentally over the last six years. So, too, has our political spectrum. As I've argued many times before, the term "liberal" or "the Left," as used most commonly, now denotes "opposition to Bush radicalism." Anyone who meaningfully deviates from the worldview of the Bush movement, who devotes themselves to opposing it, finds themselves -- for that reason alone -- described as "on the Left." Even the CIA, and Bush appointees such as Richard Armitage and James Comey, are so described that way. That is how profoundly these terms have been transformed.

Ideas that were always previously so radical as to be unthinkable are now routinely identified as "mainstream conservatism." Conversely, political principles that have been such an integral part of America's political identity as to be unquestionable are now the hallmarks of "fringe liberalism" (a "fringe" which, as our last election demonstrated, now includes an ever-growing majority of the population). Those whose views of "bloggers" are based upon the caricatures of Time Magazine and The Washington Post would undoubtedly be shocked to learn of just how unremarkable is the Platform of Beliefs of the "Progressive Blogosphere" as articulated by one of its leading and most admired commentators.


The litany of abuses of the public trust, to the point at which one of the highest ranking officials in the administration was convicted by a jury of obstructing the only significant criminal investigation of wrongdoing in the White House, has been so well-documented there's no reason to go through it here. When John Ashcroft was willing to resign to stop Bush and Cheney from hatching one of their schemes, we wondered what could have been so bad to make him say no.

What it will take to make the rest of today's Washingtonians to say no? What it will take -- beyond a veto-proof majority -- to hold Bush accountable for his misdeeds and get this country back? The simple answer to my simple question is probably "nothing."

Still, this member of the "fringe" will not relent.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Throw the book at 'em

DB just heard the mail arrive and ran out to see if anything good was delivered along with the usual assortment of exciting offers from Capitol One.

Ah, my copy of Al Gore's Assault On Reason is here. As I opened my door, admiring the cover of the book, I looked at the television and there was Chris Matthews with the Hardball logo and the following question printed on the screen:

WHO LOOKS LIKE A PRESIDENT?

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 04, 2007

Where the Hacks have no Brains

Last night, after the debate, DB was flipping around during a commercial break to see what people were saying about it. One channel down from CNN is Headline News. Glenn Beck was chatting with Mary Matalin.

This is what I saw before I was forced to change back by the stupidity:

MATALIN: We have a wonderful competitive field that`s growing larger by the minute, which will make it even better. This is a centrist country, and we know how we become prosperous. The Dow is at an all-time high. Today, S&P at an all-time high.

BECK: But you know what? Here`s what kills me, is people -- people say it`s compassion to -- to redistribute wealth, to move it around. They say all these -- all these big -- for instance, you say who`s -- who`s a big artist that is really compassionate. It would be U2. U2 actually has all of their music licensing done in Amsterdam. All of the rights are held in Amsterdam, because they have a corporate tax rate of 1.5.

MATALIN: Thank you. That`s another thing that`s in her speech. Let`s tax corporations more. We are the second highest corporate taxed country in the world. This is why business move overseas. They`re about to resurrect two other Democrats...


Those damn Democrats, look what they've done. They made U2 move overseas.

Last June, with the Irish tax break about to shrink, U2 heeded the advice of its longtime business manager, Paul McGuinness, and moved its most lucrative asset — a song-publishing catalogue with hits such as Where the Streets Have No Name and It's A Beautiful Day — from McGuinness' firm in Dublin to Promogroup, in Amsterdam.


Vote for one of Matalin's "wonderful" candidates before we lose the National Symphony Orchestra of Ireland, too.

Labels: , ,

Friday, June 01, 2007

You go, Alison

Atrios beat me to the punch and put up this part of a transcript from yesterday's Countdown on MSNBC:

ALISON STEWART: And then there‘s Senator John McCain and Bill O‘Reilly. Let‘s just say you know you‘re watching Fox News when Mr. O‘Reilly said immigrants would, quote, “break down the white Christian male power structure.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR,” FOX NEWS CHANNEL)

BILL O‘REILLY, HOST: That would sink the Republican party, I believe, so we‘d have a one-party system, and change, pardon the pun, the whole complexion of America. Am I wrong?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, you‘re right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEWART: Personally, I don‘t really pardon the pun.


I don't either.

Atrios notes how ridiculous it is that Howard Fineman "is practically in tears about how awful John McCain must feel about all the lies he has to tell."

I was waiting for Fineman to remind Stewart that she should find it "reassuring" to know that people are so valiantly defending the "white Christian male power structure."

Also, later in the show, Stewart got another shot in for women of color:

STEWART: Behind every candidate, there‘s usually a political spouse who tries hard to balance campaign fundraising with family, and sometimes even gives up a professional career. Michelle Obama is doing just that. And, you know, oddly, the mainstream media seems fascinated with the concept of a strong, well-educated black professional woman who speaks her mind.

In my family, we call that normal.


Amen.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Shame on you, Lou Dobbs

Even though DB has never felt as badly scooped as I do right now with the blog-o-sphere abuzz with talk about Lou Dobbs' and Laura Flanders, here is the post I began and then set aside last week. (The only thing worse for this blogger than feeling like a particular post has zero effect on the topic is realizing that it may be too late to even have any effect on the conversation in general).

The thing that bothers DB about Lou Dobbs, more than anything, is the way he uses language to dehumanize the millions of hard-working people and families who are in this country without documentation. But beyond that, it is also the way he simultaneously shifts the entire burden of culpability onto the people with the least amount of power in the nation.

I wrote last year about the hypocrisy of the deport-them-all position. In a nation which has all but ignored its own laws, with a representative government and large segment of employers who have synergistically conspired to offer a tacit invitation to workers to enter the country illegally, the idea that the blame lies with people who have accepted those invitations and have done little or nothing other than fulfill their end of the bargain by working hard and raising families in pursuit of the American Dream is ridiculous.

Dobbs insists on calling them "illegal aliens," rather than "undocumented workers." He doesn't refer to our nation's employers as "illegal employers." He doesn't refer to our executive, who has deliberately decided not to enforce the laws against those employers as an "illegal president." He doesn't refer to representatives who have deliberately decided not to seriously fund an effort to stop people from crossing the border as an "illegal congress."

It has been decades now that the American government, ultimately accountable to the American people, in tandem with wealthy American employers, have waved their hands in invitation to hard-working people from South of the border. And yet, despite the fact that he knows this and reports on this, though Dobbs' use of language, the blame is shifted entirely to the workers, who hold the least power in the entire equation and who are the most susceptible to victimization and hate crimes (in fact, not just theory) by an intolerant audience whose emotions are manipulated by this language, despite Dobbs' attempts to distance himself from those elements.

In short, if the American employers and the American government (and by extension, the American people) don't care enough about our immigration laws to have enforced them to any sort of standard that indicates we take them seriously, why should people who come here to simply work and raise a family be charged with the high crime of being disrespectful of the rule of law?

In addition to his use of language, Dobbs also uses dubious sources for his statistics and "facts." Dave Neiwert has done a remarkable job of documenting Dobbs' recent transgressions. The silver lining in being completely scooped by a superior blogger is that I don't need to waste time rehashing how horrible his encounters with Mark Potok and Laura Flanders were. But I have a little bit more to add, anyway.

As incredible as the exchange with Flanders was, what took it to a level of absurdity for DB was the fact that it shortly followed this report from Casey Wian:

WIAN: Surveys of practicing Catholics also reveal discord. A recent Pew Research Center poll asked Catholics if they would quote, "support allowing undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States for several years to gain legal working status and the possibility of citizenship in the future." Sixty six percent favored the idea, 32 percent were opposed.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN (on camera): But a year ago, the Pew Center asked a different question of non-Hispanic Catholics, using the word "illegal immigrants" instead of "undocumented immigrants." Only about a quarter of the group favored allowing illegal immigrants already in the United States to stay permanently, Lou.

DOBBS: And I believe that same poll and also and certainly the Zogby poll revealed that just about two thirds of all Catholics believed in strict border security and a very tough immigration law that should, should congress actually begin contemplating it.

WIAN: Absolutely.


Anybody with a brain would understand that language matters and that using the term "illegal aliens" would have a negative impact on the results of the poll, so it's no stretch to imagine that Dobbs would get that, too. But he even reported it and he did so only moments before berating Flanders for suggesting that he stop using language like that. His argument with her was a remarkable example of bullying (particularly in light of the fact that he apparently followed her off the set to say "How dare you!"). That it followed Wian's report made it a masterpiece of cognitive dissonance.

I'd also point out that the impetus for this conversation was the reported abuses by the Los Angeles police at the May 1 immigration rally. Dobbs devoted the absolute minimum of attention he possibly could to that story for a week. Despite having a reporter based in Los Angeles (Wian), Dobbs had no report on the incident. Perhaps it was too late to get into that day's broadcast, but look at the rest of the week: May 2, just five sentences in passing; May 3, seven sentences in passing; May 4, six sentences in passing. Finally, a report from Wian about it on Monday, May 7, which was incorporated into Dobbs' larger, ongoing reporting about the Catholic Church's involvement in the immigration movement, easily done because Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa joined Cardinal Roger Mahony at a "Catholic mass of reconciliation" that Sunday.

There was no relenting in Dobbs' coverage of his perceived damage to America by "illegal aliens," but practically no effort to describe the abuses to these demonstrators that were making headlines everywhere else.

And it is also important to note, as many have, that this was hardly the first time that Dobbs has been challenged on his use of language in describing undocumented workers. The way he treated Flanders, however, was extraordinary.

Consider also this exchange seven months ago in his hour-long special "Broken Borders:"

After repeating the word "illegal" 13 times in the program's introduction alone, he eventually reached this moment in the town hall-formatted special:

DOBBS: We're also here with Sheriff Rick Flores from Webb County, Texas. Sheriff, we've heard discussions about ordinances, local law enforcement, local communities taking up what the federal government won't do. Give us, if you will, your perspective as an important law enforcement officer in this state on the border.

RICK FLORES, SHERIFF, WEBB COUNTY: I can tell you, Lou, that Mexican people have been crossing the border since we've had a border with Mexico.

We've never had problems with Mexicans. Mexicans are not terrorists. It's the other than the Mexicans. The other people that are using Mexico as a jumping board to come into the United States who we are worried about and our Mexican border is very porous.

Now, in terms of -- and I do agree with Rosa that these are undocumented people. I don't like the word Mexican or illegal aliens.

DOBBS: You don't like the word Mexican?

FLORES: I don't like illegal aliens. Mexican is OK. Undocumented Mexicans, but see, there's a lot of people coming in through the Mexican border that are OTMs and those are the people that we're concerned about. And that's the reason why Congressman McCaul decided to investigate the Texas border sheriffs and the work that we were doing because of the violence that was escalating along the border and the potential for terrorist cells to make their way through Mexico to come into the United States. This deal about immigration, it just came post-9/11. Nobody had ever complained about illegal immigrants here.

DOBBS: I think you're exactly right.

FLORES: It was post-9/11.

DOBBS: I think you're right.


Dobbs thinks Flores is exactly right? Could anybody believe that? Perhaps it was because there was an audience, perhaps, as I'm inclined to believe, it's because he was not only hearing it from a man, but a sheriff, but in any event, there was no finger-pointing and Dobbs didn't try to talk over him and call him "obfuscatory."

Whatever his motivation for not just taking the comment in stride, but for actually completely agreeing with it, there was no indication in Dobbs' subsequent behavior that he took any of those comments to heart. That special aired over a weekend. The following week, on Lou Dobbs Tonight, the words "illegal aliens," "illegal immigration" or in the country "illegally" were spoken 96 times.

The word "undocumented" appeared just three times: Twice in viewer mail, mocking the term, and once by a member of a Catholic charity Lou brought on to lambaste for being in favor of impoverished "anchor babies" qualifying to receive food stamps as citizens of the United States.

Here we are, seven months later, and Dobbs still feeds a racist audience false statistics and provides cover for those who would dehumanize millions of hardworking people and advocate the destruction of their families by either deportation or the base tactic of simply starving them out of the country by eliminating their sources of income.

It is simply shameful. Shame on you, Lou Dobbs.

Labels: , ,

Friday, May 04, 2007

Matthews on 'pro-choice'

During the post-debate banter, Chris Matthews said:

Should a person have a right to end a pregnancy? And what would be the conditions that would require them to be allowed to do it or not.

These are tough questions of philosophy, of metaphysics, of deep religion and belief about human life. They are not open to a clever one-liner that gets you out of trouble. Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice. I don't like the phrase "pro-choice." It sounds too frivolous.


Is that right? Or is it only frivolous when it's applied to Republicans?

DEAN: This administration continually wants to insert themselves into the family's business, the Terri Shiavio case, that's the family's business, not the government's business... all these abortion cases, that's the family's personal business. That's not the government's business and we'd like to keep the government out of the people's private and personal lives.

MATTHEWS: So the Democrats are the pro-choice party, period.

DEAN: Well, the government...

MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is the pro-choice party.

DEAN: No, my party respects everybody's views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of the people's personal lives.

MATTHEWS: But, you're the pro-choice party, are you not? You sound like you're against them for being pro-life. Are you pro-choice?

DEAN: I'm not against people for being pro-life. I actually was the first chairman who met for a long time with pro-life Democrats.

MATTHEWS: This is a complicated thing for people. The people believe the Republican party, because of its record, supports the pro-life position. Does your party support the pro-choice position?

DEAN: The position we support is, a woman and a family has the right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.

MATTHEWS: That's pro-choice.

DEAN: A woman and a family have the right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That's our position.

MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate at the phrase "pro-choice?"

DEAN: Because I think it's often misused. If you're "pro-choice" it implies that you're not also pro-life. That's not true. There are plenty of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?

DEAN: I believe the government should stay out of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That's what I believe.

MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is the pro-choice position.

DEAN: The party believes that government does not belong in personal decisions.

MATTHEWS: OK. I'm learning things here about the hesitancy I didn't know about before. We'll be right back with Howard Dean.

DEAN: You know what you're learning...

MATTHEWS: Now, you're getting hesitant on the war and hesitant on abortion rights. It's very hard to get clarity from your party.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

A vacant lot, indeed

Just how pathetic is the media coverage of the presidential election? Exhibit A: Chris Matthews today with Giuliani campaign manager Mike DuHaime:

MATTHEWS: Who would win a street fight? Rudy Giuliani... Just think of a street fight, now, up in Queens somewhere. It's a dark night. It's about two in the morning. Two guys are out behind the building, right? On a vacant lot. Rudy Giuliani or President Ahmadinejad? Who would win that fight?

DUHAIME: I'm putting my money on Rudy on that one. I think Rudy will take that fight.

MATTHEWS: If he wins that notion, he's the next president. That's one to look for. Who's tougher than Ahmedinejad? Because he's our biggest worry right now.


That's how DB is going to vote. Can Candidate X beat up a five-foot, two-inch, 51-year-old in a dark alley? Good thing we didn't have a wheelchair-bound leader when we had to liberate Europe while fighting a separate war in the Pacific.

Also, that's my biggest worry right now. Not how we might avoid war with Iran, but who could lead us into a fight without rules in the dark of night. That's our next president.

Labels: , ,

Ben Ginsberg knows the law

Chris Matthews just told Ben Ginsberg, advisor to Mitt Romney:

You are a Washington expert. You know about campaign financing. You know the law. You know how to keep 'em honest. You know all the good stuff.


Yes, this Ben Ginsberg:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A legal adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign resigned Wednesday after revealing that he had also advised the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 527 group that has launched a campaign to discredit Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's military record.

A campaign official told CNN that Benjamin Ginsberg advised the group a few months ago at the same time he was working with the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Campaign adviser Terry Holt told CNN that the Bush-Cheney campaign learned Tuesday of Ginsberg's double duty.

Labels: ,