Facts Come Before Spin -- Eventually

I was struck some weeks ago when Obama spoke about how Clinton's campaign was all tactical maneuvers (...wish I could find the quote now). It's become increasingly evident that he was right: for some time now the Clinton campaign has exerted energy doing tiny things: picking a fight with MSNBC, challenging Obama to debates, touting a fundraising boost after the $5 million loan was revealed, and telling us why the various contests that Obama was taking were somehow unimportant--all tactical maneuvers. Now it's nakedly apparent that the Clinton strategy, such as it is, is to decamp to March and let Obama win as much of February's contests as he can take. The month will be spent spinning and spinning and engaging in ever-smaller tactical scrimshaw.

Many blogs have made fun of the Clinton camp's continuing efforts to explain away every defeat as somehow unimportant for one reason or another -- "too many African-American voters," "it's a caucus," "it's a Red state," etc etc. Yglesias committed an early example. Kos contributes an exhaustive take. Kos Diarist Jeff Lieber shows how absurd the cumulative explanations have become.

For most of the past few days, these explanations have been carried by the mainstream press pretty much as they were made by the Clintonistas, allowing their tactics to hit the public as intended.

No more. Today, after the decisive victories in the Potomac primaries and an apparently nearly unassailable lead in pledged delegates, the dam seems to have burst with the press and they're basically calling bullshit on the spin.


Obama cuts into Clinton base Beth Fouhy of the AP writes:

By this logic, only certain states really matter, such as New Hampshire and New Jersey, states that Clinton has won. Or Texas and Ohio, states she must capture to stay in the race.

The list of excuses is long, but the justifications are wearing thin. One by one, all the contests Clinton has suggested don't count are proving in size and scope that they do.

Ok, so these states all do count, after all. What about that massive superdelegate lead? Ron Fournier (AP) spills on the people the Clintons may no longer be able to count on:

Clinton should find little comfort in the fact that she has secured 242 superdelegates to Obama's 160.

"I would make the assumption that the ... superdelegates she has now are the Clintons' loyal base. A superdelegate who is uncommitted today is clearly going to wait and see how this plays out. She's at her zenith now," Duffy said. "Whatever political capital or IOUs that exist, she's already collected."

Tactics are all they have, but they are well past rancid. It must be tiring to continually push these counterfactual themes (though I admit the Bushies have done that for years). In a way I feel sorry for the Clinton people and Hillary herself. But not too sorry--they haven't covered themselves in glory with their racist dogwhistle campaign and being downright petty, as James Fallows noted last night (doing what she's done after previous losses). So, screw 'em.

Clinton/Penn/Wolfson Strategery

In the NY Times, Woolfson reveals why they are cunningly planning on stringing together a whole month of loss after loss after abject loss* for Hillary:

“There is no evidence that voters are voting based on momentum — in fact the evidence is to the contrary,” said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director.

If they lose massively and powerfully enough, they will have anti-momentum of such devastating force that it will slingshot Clinton to the nomination.

Now that's strategic thinking!

*Best not to count the votes before they come in -- Obama could lose some states in Feb.

YouTube - Hillary and the Band

Hillary's Shred Video. I just saw this again and realized that it was "Paid for Hillary Clinton for President."



Earlier I thought it was a misguided misfire by one of Hillary's fans. It's hard to fathom that any professional outfit would put this together. I'd fire any communication pros who believe it would reach "young people," as it is obviously intended to.

Since she pays for this kind of pap, I no longer have to wonder how Hillary blew through all her campaign cash.

Whatever you think of the will.i.am "Yes We Can" video, it was posted 3 days after this Hillary thing and the numbers tell the story:

Hillary's "shred" video:
Added: January 30, 2008
Views: 186,857

Barack's "Yes we can" video:
Added: February 02, 2008
Views: 2,636,540



That's just from the posting on that one YouTube page. I have seen "Yes We Can" active on torrent download sites and on other video sites. I'm pretty sure this Hillary video isn't getting widespread dispersion. Except for ridicule.

And Obama didn't pay a penny for "Yes We Can."

The Bugle

The Bugle -- a great new (to me) podcast from John Oliver (lately of The Daily Show in the US, but formerly of many funny things in the UK, including a tiny part in the TV version of People Like Us) and his cohort Andy Zaltzman, who worked with Oliver in the hilarious "The Department" and miscellaneous other funny matter, as well as doing his own clever standup and writing. It's put out by The Times (of London) Online UK.

I've listened to the first few as well as the current one (about Rudy Giuliani, the Sultan of 9/11: "He was leading in virtually all the polls before the race properly began. But then he began opening his mouth and saying words, and that quickly became a problem."). They're uniformly funny and often hilarious.

John Oliver speaks from New York and Zaltsman from London, so Oliver gives the Times' listeners a skewed sort of Alistair Cooke-ish Brit Abroad interpretation of events. In most episodes "An American" (otherwise unidentified, but in truth Daily Show writer Rory Albanese) appears, a New Yorker who gives his own full-throated and low-browed Yankee perspective and answers questions from the public.

Sample a few of episodes of The Bugle. It's the funny stuff.

This is hard to for me to write off

I was thinking "Gee the Clintons haven't been too racist and awful recently, maybe I should rethink my stated revulsion at their tactics."

That didn't last too long. Ok, Bill was going to make an apology tour. But a few things make me think that, if Hillary had won in South Carolina, and it were just blacks who were pissed at his antics, I doubt he'd be making this four-stop tour of Los Angeles area black churches.

If it were really important to him, I'm sure he wouldn't have (from the same story) "... canceled a fourth appearance [scheduled at churches] to fly to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with Gov. Bill Richardson..."

Cause nothing says "I'm sorry" like dumping out of your tour and flying to New Mexico to eat nachos with the Guv, possibly to try and parry an endorsement (or whatever Bill was doing).

And apparently some of his supporters, who invited them into their houses of worship, thought he was going to write a letter of apology. I thought it rose to that level. But I guess that was all a misunderstanding.

I'm so tired of the Clintons.

If you live where it matters, I ask you to really consider a vote for Obama in the primaries or caucuses. Who needs more of this lame-ass drama?

But they have a lot of people everywhere who will turn out to vote for them, for whatever meager reasons they can conjure. Obama needs a lot of votes to overcome the built-in Clinton draw. And don't forget that in California, as well as in other states, many votes have already been cast via mail-in ballots and there are sundry other issues. Obama will need a deluge to overcome that, if it's even possible, no matter what the polls say.

Woody Allen's Typography

I've always appreciated how distinctive and familiar are the opening credits of Woody Allen's movies. Kit-blog reveals how Allen got the font (Windsor-EF Elongated), how it has changed over the years, and more. Very interesting to me, a longtime Allen buff.

35 Years of Change

Hillary says she's been 35 years of experience making change? Hah!

Think of another woman who was a professional before marrying a political man, and who served as First Lady of a state governorship, and First Lady of the United States. Consider 45 years of change from Laura Lane Welch Bush--ten years more than Hillary Clinton.

If you don't investigate Hillary's history past the public-relations-speak, then don't investigate Laura's past either--it's all just "experience."

In 1963 -- 45 years ago --Laura was involved in a car accident when she ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, killing a friend and classmate, Michael Dutton Douglas. This began her lifelong pursuit of road safety. There is no accounting for the lives Laura has saved in her endeavor to make roads safer.

Laura decided to educate the nations' youth, and worked for four long years to amass the credits needed to help them. In 1968 Laura earned a BS in Education from Southern Methodist University. While Hillary was thinking about Politics (graduating in 1969 with a degree in Political Science), Laura was thinking about helping young people learn.

Laura went out to the trenches, helping kids learn as a school teacher in an elementary school in 1969. She served in the trenches, teaching children with humility and grace until 1972.

Seeking to enhance her ability to help children, Laura earned a Masters Degree in 1973, in Library Science (now called Information Science -- prescient indeed), working as a librarian and information specialist until 1977.

After 1977 she married and had children, for which she gave up her career to nurture, though continuing her service to information science and libraries.

As First Lady of Texas, Laura Bush served five years, focusing on women's and children's causes, as well as literacy and libraries. She was an agent for reading, for literacy, for the glories of experience that the written word can provide.

Since 2001, Laura Bush has continued her work to improve the state of children and women, and to battle for more books, libraries, and information in the public at large.

45 years of spectacular work from Laura Bush. It's ten more years than Hillary has admitted to.

There you go. Laura Bush is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be President!

PS: I read somewhere today a vox pop commenter saying they were going to vote for Hillary because she was such a good Vice President. So don't think the Hillary people aren't going for this kind of thing with the low information voters.

One Down

I must join in the general left-blogosphere relief , enthusiasm , and respect that greets the disappearance of Rudy Giuliani from the race.

He would have been the most dangerous President to come out of the Republican field, probably even worse than Bush. Personally, he is a creep. Publicly, the atavistic aggression erupting from his rictus is hard to bear.

So we can all be very glad that the worst possible choice is eliminated.

As for McCain, I'm liberal and think the guy's stands on domestic issues (choice, likely judicial appointments, gay rights) really stink, but his "war is always the answer" foreign policy would be nearly the equal of Rudy's vague bellicose bullshit.

McCain is very old. He will look very old, especially on HD, and especially when compared to Obama.

His speaking style sucks, both in debates and in speeches. In debates, he tends to regurgitate vaguely related bits of his stump speech like a doddering idiot until he gets to set a firm jaw and bellow some truculent nonsense. In speeches, he reads as though he were not only new to a tele Prompter, but reading aloud for the first time.

The guy is pathetic. I bet even Hillary or Mike Bloomberg will beat him.

But this brings me to something this blog has to touch on: how Obama effects people. In watching C-Span coverage of rallies, the only Democrat I can recall where I've heard people spontaneously break out into chants of "USA! USA!" is Obama. It's happened when he's just talking about the greatness of the idea of America. It appears to be evoked by a real infusion of love of the concept of America, not by any specific image.

It's a real evocation of patriotism, of a good sort.

I watched C-Span when Romney was rallying the other day, and he did the typical trick to evoke patriotic feeling in his listeners: told a story about an old veteran and a flag. It was a patriotism that looked back. And the crowd cheered a little bit, but I heard the "we're supposed to cheer here about this old story" in the crowd's response.

McCain does more or less the same thing, as does Bush, and Huckabee. I've never heard Hillary try to evoke patriotism in any dedicated way, so I don't know about her. But the Republican rhetorical trick seems to be, implicitly "Remember when you previously had a patriotic feeling? Well, recall that previous feeling now." While Obama's incitement to patriotism is implicitly "Remember how great this country is? How strong and enduring are the concepts that underly the United States?" And hearts swell and eyes well up and people cheer out of feeling a new patriotism now.

12,000 (est.)

This post, from "someone who votes predominantly Republican," is part of the reason Obama is shaking things up a bit. Apart from the estimate that there were 12,000 people lined up for a rally in DC, he writes:

We're both right of center, but there's something about the guy that even if he spent our money in all the wrong ways, we could at least respect him for the choices he'd make.

And it goes a long way that we'd be looking for that sort of thing instead of voting with people who share opinions on major issues.

The whole thing captures something about Obama's appeal, and helps explain why there were so many thousands waiting in the cold for a political rally.

One Important Word

From Obama's South Carolina victory speech: "It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation — a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."

The word that jumped out at me was "drama." It really rang a bell. Anything that Bill Clinton is involved in isn't just All About Bill, it's also a drama--or, even more aptly a melodrama. It's even become that in the few weeks he's been sleazing up the campaign trail on Hillary's behalf. Hillary sniffling and crying before her impending (and ultimately avoided) loss in New Hampshire was melodrama. Her campaign relies on this melodrama and it's pretty pathetic.

I'm tired of Clintonian melodrama on the national stage. I don't want manufactured psychodramas. I don't want drama therapy in the Oval Office.

Please, Clintons, go have your dramas in private. Stop inflicting your twisted psyches on the United States of America.

Clinton Fatigue

I share some of the feeling of Sir Charles when he writes of My own Clinton Derangment Syndrome?:

I've been mulling this over for the last day or two, and I think it comes down to this -- the sense that with the Clintons, it's always about them, and with Bill, in particular, it's always about him. No cause, no loyalty, no party or position supersedes their personal political needs.

That's one thing that has revulsed me about them in the past few weeks. Shortly after Obama was projected the South Carolina winner last night, Bill Clinton began speaking and, to kick off his talk, spent what seemed like five minutes talking about not Hillary but himself: his Presidency, his governorship, his great deeds. All this was a prologue to saying that even if he wasn't married to Hillary he'd still support her.

For one thing, I don't believe him. For another, all his purported good deeds are irrelevant to him supporting his wife. But, even his wife's loss was a chance for him to talk himself up. It was revolting, especially when added to the stream of dog-whistle sleaze he'd been pumping into the mediastream for the past few weeks, throwing the African-Americans who used to support him off the back of the bus.

A similar conclusion, but from a different angle, from one of Andrew Sullivan's readers:

But something essential shifted inside of me and in my 43 years, I have never experienced anything like it. After 15 years of unflinching, Blumenthal-level Clintonista tendencies, I woke up one day and realized I hated them.

Hate may be too strong a word, but I do feel revulsion toward both Clintons. They think that all will come together in Kumbaya if Hillary wins the nomination, and for many it may.

But not for me. I can't vote for someone who, when I see or hear them, my gorge rises. A month ago, Hillary was just a benign presence on the airwaves--not inciting great passions pro or con. I felt mildly but distinctly positive about her. That positive but dispassionate view of her is gone, and it will not return.

As I've said before, if Hillary wins, I will sign the Draft Bloomberg petition, hope he drafts a Democratic VP partner, and proceeds to dump a billion dollars--literally a Billion US Dollars-- of The Stink of Truth on Hillary Clinton's head.

I voted for Bill twice, and I've been a registered Democrat my whole life. But if I can't even see the Clintons without registering a physical repugnance, I am not going to vote for them. The best they can hope is that I stay home.

I can only imagine how African-Americans feel about how these pathetic jerks have treated them recently.

Welcome to the 21st Century, Just Like The 1990s

Old nightmares and fresh new ones to come.

More Clinton Scummery

Rules were agreed to.

Now Hillary wants to break her agreement I guess she takes her promises and contracts as seriously as Bill takes his marriage vows.

Bill wants his third term.

If the Clintons can't control themselves (and they apparently can't), then I say "Run Bloomberg Run" and dump a billion dollars against the Clintons so everyone can see them for the moral abcesses they are. And I've been a Democrat my whole life and voted for him twice.

I'm sick of these repellent people and all their hangers-on.

Bill Clinton Screws Again!

Only this time he's screwing his party on behalf of his wife, who, tough independent woman that she is, is having her husband carry on her battles for her. Some women aren't too happy about it.

But he must have his third term and a chance for fun in the Oval Office.

Never voted for a Republican before, but if Bloomberg runs and Hillary is the Democrat, Bloomberg gets my vote.

And Obama can say "I ask my supporters to vote for someone trustworthy and honorable." What's wrong with that formulation?

Lanny The Jerk

Lanny Davis: Asks Obama What Exactly in the Clinton-Era Nineties Did You Not Like?

Ok, Lanny, I'll play: How about the fact that it spawned dolts like Lanny Davis?

Digby said of Lanny, after Lanny wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal (!) in support of war-monger Joe Lieberman (!):

As for Lanny, well, nobody takes him seriously. He was the single most inept Clinton defender ever. When he would show up on Fox or MSNBC back in the Lewinsky days I would cringe knowing that whatever blond former prosecutor harpy they had on would rip him to shreds. (I swear, he must have uttered the words "deplorable" and "reprehensible" at least 15,000 times.) I knew they hired him for just that purpose and I have heard that there is no love lost between him and the Clintonistas, which doesn't surprise me. He's still at it. In the course of his usual ineffectual non-defense he's managed to make both his friends Joe and Dick look like hanky wringing losers which is fine by me.

And, make no mistake, Lanny Davis is a Bush fan, just like Joe. He's a frat brother who, just days after the recount was settled, wrote an opportunistic brown nosing op-ed in the NY Times attesting to Bush's good character. (Talk about rubbing salt in the wound. I'll never forgive him for that.)

Here's Lanny lobbying for the poisonous partisan Ted Olson as a good Attorney General nominee (!).

Here's Wolcott on the idiocy of Lanny Davis saying that Democrats shouldn't "politicize" the conviction of the Republican grand-thief Jack Abramoff.

It's just too bad that the New York Times has behind a firewall the column Davis wrote right after the 2000 election praising George W. Bush. That would show his prescience and ability to assess leaders.

So, Lanny, you're one thing about the Clinton years that is a continuing embarrassment to Democrats and the country at large.

One great boon from an Obama win would be to brush away the same old crowd of people that populated the Clinton circus. Not all of them, to be sure, but simpering idiots like Lanny Davis.

The Reality-Based Community: Bill Clinton defends the indefensible

I've been wondering why Bill Clinton has been so exasperated, angry, and fulminating (often falsely, at least recently). Mark Kleiman may have it figured out:

Sometimes, a man who gets caught cheating on his wife tries to make up for it by giving her jewelry. I think this is the first time a two-timing husband tried to give his wife the most powerful position in the world instead."

Probably more true than I would have thought.

Publius over Digby

Publius at Obsidian Wings is certainly right here:

Perhaps I’m being naïve, but I sense a lot of discontent among “thinking conservatives” these days – more so than usual. My hope is that they’re tired of watching these juvenile shows. This discontent, in turn, is what gives someone like Obama a window that few Democrats have had lately. There’s a realistic chance of seeing “Obama Republicans” in a general. “Hillary Republicans,” more doubtful.

So it makes it odd to me that Digby is so wrong here:

Look, I know this is weedy stuff and probably doesn't matter to the average voter under the age of 45. But to long time liberals who lived through this period as an adult, it's like waving a red flag in our faces. Reagan ran explicitly against the left(and in the process normalized the kind of indecent talk that made Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter millionaires.) Because he won big in 1984, leaders in both parties accepted this omnipotent Reagan myth and have run against liberalism ever since --- and have ended up, through both commission and omission, advancing the destructive conservative policies that brought us to a place where we are debating things like torture. It would be helpful if ending the era of Democrats running against the liberal base could be part of this new progressive "trajectory."

I have some sympathy there. But the thing is, there's no progressive "Trajectory." Democrat's strength is largely due to the utter malevolence and incompetence of the Bush administration.

Obama is trying to make Obama Republicans, without that trajectory. Cut him a break.

It's almost as if Digby is willfully misreading Obama (where he does not indicate support for Reagan's policies so much as the transformative nature of his presidency), when usually she is so savvy about reading the tea leaves.

Better Obama -- who is perceived as more moderate than he is, than Hillary Clinton, who is a DLC democrat but is perceived as a flaming liberal.

Obama could be a game-changer. It's almost impossible that Hillary will be that. Either one of them could screw things up, but Obama's foreign policy impulses are much more sane.

I guess you can tell who I support in the primary. Despite Digby's denials, such an uncharitable misreading indicates we can tell who she supports too.

Andrew Cuomo, Racist Dumbass

I'd like to say to Andrew Cuomo: Andrew, you went to Albany Law School and may not know it, but one doesn't "shuck and jive" their way to President of Harvard Law Review.

Racists since time immemorial, however, have been using the phrase "shuck and jive" to denigrate black people. You're willing to act like a racist for political benefit -- I'd say that's pretty racist in itself.

I guess we won't see Stages 3-5 for a while, if ever. But I can see why I was getting that feeling: I heard on MSNBC that the last internal polls in Obama's camp showed him up 14 and Hillary's last polls showed her down 11 percent. The must have been in such dire straits.

I really wonder what happened that last day. I don't think a 15 point (or so) swing is explainable by any one thing, but I hope some level headed person can plow through the data and figure it out.

If a large contributor to that was Hillary misting up about her plight, all I can say is: Oy!

Stages

I'm not saying it's over yet, not by a long shot.

But the Clinton Campaign is stepping through Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief.

1. Denial: The initial stage: Most of her campaign in 2007, and "It can't be happening."
2. Anger: "It is wrong...." or Let's squash the bastard!
3. Bargaining: examples to come?
4. Depression: examples to come?
5. Acceptance: examples to come?

If Clinton undertakes the 527 strategy that Thomas Edsall writes about, I figure the number of Democrats who will outright revile the Clintons will be close to the number of Republicans who do. I haven't even read about the Republicans pulling that stunt in their primary yet, and they're the scorched earth party. I figure some rich republicans may be putting something together to take Huckabee out if it looks like he's getting to close to winning.

But here would be an important difference: Republican plutocrats have a real reason to not want Huckabee in the race. After all, he seems to sincerely believe it's a good thing for government to help the poor, and the plutocrats hate that.

Democrats have no real policy reason to hate Obama--other than he's standing in the way of Clinton's ascension to the throne. If they do that, it'll be further evidence that Hillary's motive for running could be summed up in the phrase "It's my turn, dammit!"

And who knows, someone may whip up a 527 against Hillary in response. It would be a bad thing, but so would Clinton's anti-Obama 527, if it happens.

That Reminds Me

America has the best health care system in much the same way it has the best Yacht Delivery System.

If you can afford a yacht, it's the best!

also this.

Video/Audio: O'Reilly and Obama, Nashua, Sat.

You may have read about O'Reilly striking or shoving an Obama staffer today in Nashua, New Hampshire. Here are reports by John Dickerson at Slate, and Lynn Sweet at the Sun-Times.

As both reports note, Obama spoke with O'Reilly after the incident, apparently unaware of O'Reilly having shoved the staffer.

C-Span carried the rally and, as they often do, kept the camera and microphones rolling after the speech. I recorded the event and noticed that part of the Obama-O'Reilly exchange was caught by C-SPAN. Here is the video:



What follows below is a rough transcript. With distant miking, crowd noise, and crosstalk,it's hard to tell exactly what was said, but I'm pretty sure this is an accurate account of what I could hear--what I couldn't hear, of course, I couldn't transcribe.

Obama Nashua Rally. Sat, January 5, 2007
C-Span onscreen time at the beginning of this clip is 11:44 a.m. ET, and the exchange ends just before the minute rolls over to 11:45.

TRANSCRIPT;
Obama working the  crowd
(Audio is the C-Span voiceover, not transcribed.)

About 33 seconds into this clip the audio
switches to the audio in the room.  O'Reilly
and Obama have apparently just begun
speaking (though I can't tell exactly when).

Obama points to the audience spillover room and
says to O'Reilly: "I've got --
there's a whole bunch of people over
there and I need to talk to them ...."

O'Reilly: [Unintelligible]

Obama:  Sometime. 

[Crosstalk]

Obama: How about after the primary? Alright?

O'Reilly: Alright.  Thank you very much. You're
a good guy. We've liked you...

Obama: Thank you. After the primary we'll ...

O'Reilly: After New Hampshire?

Obama: After the primary [Transcribers NOTE: Perhaps that's
"after the primaries," plural?].  Alright? [Crosstalk]

O'Reilly:  Alright

Exchange ends about 54 seconds into this clip.

I may tweak the transcript if I (or my commenters) hear something that I missed in this initial transcript.

Sad Fact

I mentioned this over at Oliver Willis' place, but it is, sadly, worth repeating.

Who was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win over half (over 50 %) of the popular vote?

Jimmy Carter in 1976.

It's been over 30 years since a Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the popular vote.

Since then, Republicans have won 4 elections with more than 50 percent of the popular vote (Reagan twice, Bush Sr. in 1988, and Bush Jr. in 2004). Clinton's "landslide" in 1996 was the result of 49.2 % of the vote -- again, not a majority! In 1992, Clinton won with only 43 %, thanks to Perot. I'm glad Clinton won both elections, but he never won a majority of the votes cast.

I happen to think that, in a 2 party system, not getting a majority of the vote for over 30 years is a problem for Democrats. Others may not find it a problem, but I do.

How we address it is a matter upon which opinions can differ, but stating that it's an important issue is not bashing Democrats. It's a fact.

This was in response to the hyperventilation about Obama mentioning vote percentages. It's pretty hard to read what he said as an "attack" on any past candidate--though it is a good thing to point out in regards to Hillary Clinton. She has a large chunk of the electorate who now say they won't vote for her. I certainly agree with Oliver Willis that the reaction was more about what the writers thought about Obama than about what Obama said.

Regardless of how you feel about Obama, it's a sobering trivia fact that can really stuns many of my fellow Democrats when I riddle them: The last Dem to win over half the vote was Carter over thirty years ago. Republicans have done it 4 time since then.

Yeesh.

Gimme a Reason

There's a reason to even mention Jonass Goldberg's so-called book Liberal Fascism here.

More here and here

Please join in! It's way cheaper than buying the book and it makes a serious argument with even more care than Goldberg does, especially in his so-called book Liberal Fascism .*

* For those needing a variant spelling, the second word of the title is often misspelled, like this: Liberal Facism

The Lesson

Here's the lesson, Republican candidates:

You can say your favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ, provided it's a lie and you really revere Ayn Rand or the part of Hayek that urges you to lie to what Peggy Noonan calls the "idiotic voters" whose religious votes you seek.

Instead, support the thrice-married, unrepetantly adulterous, gay-approving, abortion-supporting man who really represents your sole ideals: authoritarianism and supply-side bullshit. The money-men demand that.

How the Queen charmed the pants off me: Confessions of an old Leftie

Billy Bragg Meets the Queen.

Good on him.

The truly shocking thing is that he wrote it for The Daily Mail.

Rosenberg On Feith

How did people like Feith manage to sell this country on a disastrously foolish war that had no real positives for the United States? I have a feeling M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe may be onto something here. It's pretty blistering:

I'm a Washingtonian and have known about Feith for some 25 years. Until this administration and this war came along, I had no idea that he had any interests in life other than promoting West Bank settlements. He was (and is) the most outspoken Likudnik in the Washington Jewish community, basically a very fringy character (viciously anti-Rabin, anti-Oslo, anti-peace). I would not have guessed that he could find the United States on a map, so utterly and completely involved is he with the Israeli far right.

All Neocons aren't Jewish. But almost all of them, Christian, Jewish and otherwise, seem to be dedicated to Likudnik view of the Middle East. I don't think such a hardline view is in the best interests of the U.S. I think the folly of the Iraq adventure supports that view.

Mickey Kaus: Separated at Birth?

One of the above is Mickey Kaus. One of the above is Mickey Kaus as Secretary of Education played by an actor in Idiocracy. *

See the scene that captures Kaus' intellect and intellectual integrity!

* That's Mike Judge's movie, Idiocracy.

Monumental News

Just learned that Count Arthur Strong will be presenting a third series of Count Arthur Strong's Radio Show! on BBC4 commencing in late December. Regular readers will know how important Count Arthur Strong is to any decent person's ethos.

Quoting from the invaluable promotional email:

On BBC Radio 4

First things first! In case you missed the first two episodes, the highly acclaimed second series of Count Arthur Strong's Radio Show! is being repeated on BBC Radio 4. You can hear Count Arthur Strong every Tuesday at 6.30pm. Tune in this evening!

This is the perfect opportunity to reacquaint yourself with the Count in preparation for the Third Series of Count Arthur Strong's Radio Show! This will air on BBC Radio 4 at 11.30am every Friday from December 28th.

So, over the festive period you'll have the chance to hear the grand finale of Series 2 at 6.30pmon Christmas Day, followed by the much anticipated first episode of Series 3 at 11.30amon December 28th. And that's not all! Count Arthur Strong will be making a special guest appearance on BBC Radio 4's You and Yours on Christmas Eve at 12pm.

This is the news the world has been waiting for. There are few things better than Count Arthur Strong.

Other news from the Count's email bulletin:

• the Series 2 box set of Count Arthur Strong's Radio Show! will be available to pre-order through the Count's website
  
• The 2007 tour of Count Arthur Strong - The Musical?has been extended into 2008
  
• The Komedia Brighton performance of Count Arthur Strong - The Musical?on January 27th is to be filmed for later DVD release. Tickets are now sold out, but keep an eye on the website for news of the DVD release!

Here's Count Arthur Strong's Infanet Web Site

No Shit, Sherlock

Isaac Chotiner quotes Bumiller's article on Condi Rice:

“I said, ‘What happened in the Palestinian elections?’” Ms. Rice recalled. “And they said, ‘Oh, Hamas won.’ And I thought, ‘Oh my goodness, Hamas won?’”

Our head foreign policy "thinker" found it surprising that Hamas won that election?

Vital Info

Surfacing briefly to report that there are three of the funniest things in history are on BBC radio nowadays.

• Count Athur Strong's Radio Show is playing at that link (currently the first episode of six that will appear there, one each week). Raconteur, author, logician, Egyptologist, and time-honored entertainer, the Count is back with a repeat of Series 2 of his inspired BBC Radio 4 series.
• Ed Reardon's Week has just begun its fourth series, and it's as funny as ever. Previous series are being repeated on BBC 7. An endlessly inspired depiction of a hapless misanthropic not-so-great writer and his cat, Elgar.
  
• Vic Reeves' House Arrest. New radio series from Vic, joined sometimes by his partner Bob Mortimer. Puns, surreal humor (the funny kind of surreal), and general idiocy that makes me laugh.
  

Two more very funny things: Flight of the Conchords in their seminal UK radio incarnation, and That Was Then, This Is Now, Richard Herring's history-focused show featuring the mawkish harridan TV's Emma Kennedy. Previous incarnations of TWTTIN were inspired idiocy, and I expect the same from this new series.

Hard to believe that the BBC can put out such incredibly funny radio--though admittedly this is a jam-packed time, with great repeats and hilarious new series. If you don't like those things, there iss still more comedy at their Comedy/quizzes "Listen Again" page.

If something from the above doesn't make you laugh, you are tired of life.

People Like Us

I started listening to the radio version of the BBC comedy People Like Us again recently and have to say that, for me, this is probably the funniest series that's been on radio in the past decade or so.

It's written extraordinarily well (thanks, John Morton!) so that the hapless documentarian Roy Mallard (played perfectly by Chris Langham) leaps to life as someone we all recognize. The humor doesn't come from standard tropes (for instance, there is little reliance on "set-up/ punch line" jokes and few if any traditional puns). Many of the laughs come from a nervous and scatterbrained narrator who constantly creates logical and syntactical quicksand for himself.

The series relies in part on our familiarity with the BBC (and for US listeners, NPR/PBS) "serious" documentary feature stories. The presenter's interactions with the "real people" ring true and truly funny. These characters, while generally just an inch from total realism, are hilarious as are their situations.

While, as faux documentaries, there is necessarily similarity between episodes, Morton manages to set up an array of social situations and psychological landscapes that take us along different paths in each episode.

And of course, the running jokes (everyone is surprised that Mallard is married; he never gets coffee, tea or snacks) pay off wonderfully, too.

It's one of the few series that works nearly as well for me in TV as the radio version, though I think the audio holds up better.

I don't know if John Morton is a genius generally, but he exhibited genius when he wrote this at least. That is far better than most writers pull off.

Chris Langham has had serious criminal problems recently. Too bad, because he's one of the funniest performers in UK comedy.

Candidate of the First Person Pronoun

Watching the Fox Republican debate, it's utterly amazing how many times Giuliani uses the first person pronouns: "I changed New York." I did this, it was me... Mine...

Another Republican with Sexual Issues

Roll Call's server is getting hammered (wonder why?), so I'll put this up here. The original story is at this link
----

Craig Arrested, Pleads Guilty Following Incident in Airport Restroom

By John McArdle
Roll Call Staff

Monday, Aug. 27, 2007; 4:48 pm

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.

Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.

A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding,” and said the office would release a fuller statement later Monday afternoon.

After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?” the report states.

Craig was detained for approximately 45 minutes, interviewed, photographed, fingerprinted and released, and police prepared a formal complaint for interference with privacy and disorderly conduct.

According to the incident report, Sgt. Dave Karsnia was working as a plainclothes officer on June 11 investigating civilian complaints regarding sexual activity in the men’s public restroom in which Craig was arrested.

Airport police previously had made numerous arrests in the men’s restroom of the Northstar Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal in connection with sexual activity.

Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see “an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall.”

The man, who lingered in front of the stall for two minutes, was later identified as Craig.

“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states.

Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia’s and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” Karsnia stated in his report. “From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.”

Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

In a recorded interview after his arrest, Craig “either disagreed with me or ‘didn’t recall’ the events as they happened,” the report states.

Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine,” the report states. Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor.

“It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper,” the arresting officer said in the report.

On Aug. 8, the day he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in the Minnesota court, Craig appeared via satellite at a ceremony that took place in Idaho in which former Idaho federal Judge Randy Smith was invested into his new position as a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In October 2006, Craig’s office publicly denied allegations that he was a homosexual made on a gay activist Web site — blogactive.com. Craig’s office told the Spokane Spokesman-Review that the charge was “completely ridiculous,” saying that the allegations had “no basis in fact.”

Very Cogent Point

1. Adam C Says:
   August 25th, 2007 at 7:14 pm

   Did the same guy who designed the banana also do the fucking pomegranate?

Hubridity

Hubridity: A combination of hubris and stupidity. Stupidly wrong while arrogantly certain about being right.

I coined this term a while back in conversation and wanted it here because I feel it's a useful term, especially in describing Bush.

He's convinced he's right, but he can't even think through, much less communicate, his thinking on a particular subject.

I've often wondered if Bush could explain anything --anything from to world affairs to internal combustion -- in a way that someone who didn't already understand it would know what he is talking about. He just asserts and asserts, with absolute conviction but no way of connecting his assertions.

Of course, he's certain he's right. Because he's filled with hubridity.

I should note that I don't think Bush is of especially low intelligence -- he's probably well within average or normal. He's just so lazy in his thinking (and in a hurry to get on his bike) that he hasn't really thought about anything non-political in many years.

Symbolism

More wonderful symbolism:

New embassy in Iraq : "the size of Vatican City"

Perhaps it's shaped like a crucifix, too?

Let's make it official and call it "The New-and-improved Crusades."

Chris Matthews, Auteur

Chris Matthews talks about women in politics:

MATTHEWS: But isn't that a challenge, because when it comes down to that final decision to vote for president, a woman president, a woman commander in chief, will be an historic decision for people. Not just men, but women as well. Elisabeth, you're always thinking about these things.

BUMILLER: It's Golda Meir, it's Margaret Thatcher. I mean, we all remember these women. I, you know, I think we can get there.

MATTHEWS: But we've got Patton and John Wayne on our side.

In opposition to two real historical female leaders, Matthews puts up two movie characters (I have no doubt movie-fanboy Matthews was picturing George C. Scott in the movie Patton, not the real Gen. Patton). Then he says "our side" is that of the male movie figures and not the real-world elected leaders.

This is how Matthews covers political campaigns: He invents a movie (always with tough, great-smelling, and authentic Republicans and weak, inauthentic Democrats), then describes the movie in his head instead of policy or the actual campaign.

It's even worse than horse-race coverage. It's Matthews, every day, pitching his lame-ass movie to viewers. And in Matthews dream-movie, Republicans are "our side" and women are draining our precious bodily fluids.

Chris Matthews: Producer, director and writer of his own movie-delusion, maker of dreams. Or in some cases, nightmares.

The guy is sick.

Ed Reardon's Week

Now, a side-trip for Ed Reardon's Week, a comedic tour de force from BBC 4, written by Chris Douglas and Andrew Nickolds and starring Chris Douglas as Ed Reardon.

Ed, a once barely successful writer, now pathetically past his prime, is prone to fevered rants. While the one below isn't his most spectacular, it is one of my favorites due to the multifaceted arrogance and the undertones of Ed's weaknesses (penury, pedantry, and bitterness). I've transcribed it from the beginning of "The Libel Action," the last episode (aired 19 January 2007)of the third and most recent season of the program. We begin with Ed telephoning his local council, interrupted by a brief voicover where he relates what he's typing in his journal, and then we return for the denoument of the call.

Ed speaking on the phone
Hello? Can I speak to someone connected with the Council's "Towards a Brighter Berkhamsted campaign?" [Pause] Well, yes it could be either of those departments because it could be an environmental issue but it's also as you may have deduced from the tone of my voice a complaint.

Ed's voiceover interrupts while he types his diary entry:
"Monday. What was it exactly that made local councils the length and breadth of the country decide that all street furniture should sanctify the Victorian era? It seems no town centre is complete without gold and black painted bollards, cast iron signs pointing gothically to the disabled toilets in the short stay car park, and perpetually dripping hanging baskets, making a trip to a news agents' for the innocent pipe smoker an unwarranted hazard. And whereas 150 years ago small boys used to be sent up chimneys or down the mines, now the 12-year olds are given six figure salaries to come up with slogans such as "It's time to big up Berko!" -- the inspirational text which shouts at me from my morning mail.

Ed, continuing the phone call to his local council:
Yes, I'm looking at the letter concerning the renovations to the parade of shops above which I live. Yes, it seems I'm being asked to contribute 900 pounds towards the carving of the words "Parade Emporiums" on the pediment above my flat.

[Pause]

Well I'll tell you exactly what the problem is. It could hardly be a less appropriate heading for a nail bar, a chip shop, and a hairdresser's stroke tattoo parlor, even if the correct usage "emporia" were to be applied, which I don't suppose is at all likely.

[Pause]

Well, look, I have no desire to be accused of child abuse this early in the day, but if you think for a moment that I'm prepared to fork out for a piece of [ Yelling angrily ] BOGUS VICTORIANA WHICH I NEITHER WANT NOR RECOGNIZE AS A CORRECT PLURAL FORM THEN.... hello? Hello? No. Gone.

All three seasons are hilarious. Recommended.

Robert Cox: Playing Possum

Robert Cox of the slimy Olbermannwatch blog, has supposedly closed the site and moved on. However, look at the image he uses to shutter his site:



That, ladies and gentlemen, is an oppossum, or possum -- as in the phrase "playing possum."

Playing Possum

Playing possum is a phrase that, taken literally, means to pretend to be dead.
[ ..... ]

"Playing possum" can also mean simply pretending to be injured, unconscious, or otherwise vulnerable, often to lure an opponent into a vulnerable position himself.

Robert Cox isn't gone. He's just playing possum. Maybe he's just going to do more idiocy like this.
.
[As is obvious from this post, all props to the blog Watching OlbermannWatch.]]

Republico

Republico

Republico

Republico !

Many more to come, I'm sure.

Ironist

Brendan Bernhard New York Sun: "....ironist — someone who says things she doesn't mean and (through moreor-less subtle contextual winks) expects us to intuit an unstated, smarter message underneath"

I'll think about that a bit.

Sacrificial Lame

Bush's :

The BBC has been told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.

Its central theme will be sacrifice.

Yeah, sacrifice your intelligence to the genius of George W. Bush.

Sounds like a winner.

"Reinvade Iraq!" is the Rallying Cry

Kargro X rightly calls it escalation, but I generally refer to plans such as this one by Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan as the "Reinvade Iraq" plan.

I'm Not an Advisor to Bush 41, but...

...I concur with this one at least

"We have a classic case of circling the wagons," says a former adviser to Bush the elder. "If President Bush changes his policy in Iraq in a fundamental way, it undermines the whole premise of his presidency. I just don't believe he will ever do that."

We're screwed.

Marc Maron Radio Lives! Kinda...

Fans of Marc Maron's hilarious radio work can rejoice. As Maron put it in an email announcement:

My buddy Patrick has created a stream of all of the Morning Sedition and The Marc Maron Show radio comedy bits. These are bits written and performed over the last two years by some of the most talented comedy writers and performers ever brought together as you know. Enjoy them at:

http://pjs.sytes.net:8888/

Just click listen!

Lawton Smalls! Cardinal Milfington! Sammy the Stem Cell! And many more!

Thank you Marc, thank you Patrick, and thank you The Internets.

Now if only some smart radio station or network would pick up Maron so the funny can rise again.

Curious?

What's this about? Click here or check Digby here.

• AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
  
  
• AZ-01: Rick Renzi
  
  
• AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
  
  
• CA-04: John Doolittle
  
  
• CA-11: Richard Pombo
  
  
• CA-50: Brian Bilbray
  
  
  
• CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
  
  
• CO-05: Doug Lamborn
  
  
• CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
  
  
• CT-04: Christopher Shays
  
  
• FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
  
  
• FL-16: Joe Negron
  
  
  
• FL-22: Clay Shaw
  
  
• ID-01: Bill Sali
  
  
• IL-06: Peter Roskam
  
  
• IL-10: Mark Kirk
  
  
• IL-14: Dennis Hastert
  
  
• IN-02: Chris Chocola
  
  
  
• IN-08: John Hostettler
  
  
• IA-01: Mike Whalen
  
  
• KS-02: Jim Ryun
  
  
• KY-03: Anne Northup
  
  
• KY-04: Geoff Davis
  
  
• MD-Sen: Michael Steele
  
  
  
• MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
  
  
• MN-06: Michele Bachmann
  
  
• MO-Sen: Jim Talent
  
  
• MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
  
  
• NV-03: Jon Porter
  
  
• NH-02: Charlie Bass
  
  
  
• NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
  
  
• NM-01: Heather Wilson
  
  
• NY-03: Peter King
  
  
• NY-20: John Sweeney
  
  
• NY-26: Tom Reynolds
  
  
• NY-29: Randy Kuhl
  
  
  
• NC-08: Robin Hayes
  
  
• NC-11: Charles Taylor
  
  
• OH-01: Steve Chabot
  
  
• OH-02: Jean Schmidt
  
  
• OH-15: Deborah Pryce
  
  
• OH-18: Joy Padgett
  
  
  
• PA-04: Melissa Hart
  
  
• PA-07: Curt Weldon
  
  
• PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
  
  
• PA-10: Don Sherwood
  
  
• RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
  
  
• TN-Sen: Bob Corker
  
  
  
• VA-Sen: George Allen
  
  
• VA-10: Frank Wolf
  
  
• WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
  
  
• WA-08: Dave Reichert
  

Really Made Me Laugh

Tristero at Digby's Hullabaloo presents a delicious irony with a creamy sulfuric acid center:

"Poor Chris Hitchens. There isn't enough bourbon in the world to erase the horror and humiliation he must be enduring now that he knows that Henry Kissinger - Henry Kissinger - was a major Bush adviser for the Iraq fiasco. Oh, the humanity!"

What a sucker!

Cheney Wants His War With Iran

NPR : Pentagon Iran Office Mimics Former Iraq Office

The Pentagon has created a new desk to work on Iran policy. That worries some at the CIA, who point out that many of the new Iran-desk staffers are the same people who staffed the now-notorious Office of Special Plans in the run-up to the Iraq war.

They were among the cheerleaders for the disastrous war with Iraq, now they are going to apply their genius to get us into war with Iran.

Remember, war with Iran could lead to really unpleasant consequences for the American economy--Bush and Cheney like wars they don't have to fight, but merely want to fight. And if war ever proves absolutely necessary, you don't want George W. Bush running it.

But Iran is the war they want.

Iran: The War They Desire

It's fairly obvious by now that, once again, the Republicans don't want accurate intelligence about a problematic country: they want to twist intelligence in order to bring about the next war on their checklist.

And the principal writer of their most recent war prelude is Frederick Fleitz. He's a handmaiden of Dick Cheney, who never met a war he didn't like, except he didn't like to fight the one he was of age to be a soldier in.

They want a war with Iran. I hope they don't get it.

As Martin Walker (via Steve Clemons) points out, the US is playing poker and Iran is playing chess. Iran is so much stronger than it was when Bush came to office, and the US is so much weaker in nearly every important way.

It's a pathetic situation for a great nation to be in. But I'm thinking that a country that could install GW Bush as president twice may not be as great as it once was -- the guy is obviously way over his head. It's sad to be governed by such a dolt when we're facing incredible challenges that towel-snapping and bluster will not deliver us from.

We may eventually actually have to go to war with Iran. But if we do, we should know what that means.

It would not be like Iraq, where we'd just be inconveniced by "bad pictures" on our TV sets.

Iran really will retaliate--on our troops in Iraq and against the US and the West anywhere else they want.

In all likelihood, they'll hit petroleum chokepoints in various canny ways that will increase the price of oil to something we'd have thought of as science fiction just a few years ago. Oil in three digits a barrel. And when one thing gets sorted out, another chokepoint would blow.

Remember: Israel thought their recent war would eliminate Hezbollah. It didn't. Israel is in worse shape than before. War with Iran would be like the Lebanon skirmish writ globally.

I'd figure a war (even a "limited bombing campaign") against Iran would have a great chance of setting off a global depression.

It's very possible that gas would be going to the military, at very expensive prices and increasing our debt (the Chinese would buy more of our debt). Putting gas in your car would be staggeringly expensive. Getting goods to stores would be, too -- consumer prices would skyrocket.

For those who still have relatives who lived through the Great Depression, ask them how much fun that was. The Bushes, the Cheney's and their friends could probably weather it. The rest of us would be screwed in unimaginable ways.

Instead of talking to Iran, as repugnant as that regime is, it seems that Cheney and Bush and the Republican crazies are committed to a path that will leave Iran hurting but the US is in dire straits.

Scares the shit out of me, these freaks. They learned nothing from their failures in Iraq.

England was once a global empire, too. Perhaps Niall Ferguson can tell us how the British Empire weathered decades 1-4 of the 20th Century, since he is urging the US to become more of an empire in this century.

It's like the grinding occupation of Iraq: they wanted a nice little limited war: instead, the war they got is not quite the war they wanted.

But this time it wouldn't just be bad pictures on the television. It could well be a total transformation of the US way of life via a global depression brought on by the war they want.

These Republicans have learned nothing. I hope the country has but, hell, it elected an idiot prince as President twice.

Taking Colbert's Oysters for Walkies

HaloScan Comments of Genius

From the comments at Harry Hutton's excellent place,

David C crystallizes the issue: "Why can't these terror chaps target the budget airlines? That way they'd get to make their dubious points without injuring anyone of consequence."

Hating on the DLC

Matt Taibi:

The DLC are the lowest kind of scum; we're talking about people who are paid by the likes of Eli Lilly and Union Carbide to go on television and call suburban moms and college kids who happen to be against the war commies and jihadists. On the ignominious-sellout scale, that's lower than doing PR for a utility that turns your grandmother's heat off at Christmas.

Hah!

Today's Words of Wisdom

Any guesses why I've thought of Lebanon Bologna recently?

Heed this comment on that page:

"Sweet mother of God, if you're going to preserve meats, make sure you get the recipe right so you don't kill anyone. "

Also: Prague Powder #2? Corn syrup solids? Powdered Dextrose?

Fermento? FERMENTO!?

I realize one is not supposed to see how sausage or laws are made, but this takes it into entirely different territory than I'd previously considered.

Onward Christian Soldiers

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki addresses Congress today.

Send us more of your soldiers to die and be maimed for Iraq!
Send us more of your taxpayer dollars to Iraq!

My power flows from the end of your guns. Thanks, suckers!

Still True

I've been reminded of this old story quite a bit recently.

True 'dat.

Important enough to smash the silence

If you're like me, you've been looking for the email that crazy Dr. Nicholas Bartha wrote before he (allegedly) blew up his Manhattan townhouse. Thanks to Gawker, I found a copy of it. Unfortunately, it's a PDF file but it's worth a read anyway.

The guy's definitely a hardcore Republican. And he's definitely crazy-- in more than just your standard wingnut way. Or maybe it's just hypertrophied into this nutsiness.

Also, here's a New York State appeals court decision concerning his divorce. His wife filed for divorce on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, and was granted the divorce.

Here's Dr Bartha in action:

We affirm the determination awarding a divorce to plaintiff on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. Plaintiff's proof, when viewed cumulatively, established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant had engaged in a course of conduct which was harmful to the plaintiff's physical and mental health, thus rendering cohabitation unsafe or improper (Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]).

This was not a case of ordinary marital dissatisfaction or even "riotous quarrels" as defendant suggests. Defendant intentionally traumatized plaintiff, a woman of Jewish origin born in Nazi-occupied Holland, with swastika-adorned articles and notes affixed around their home, and became enraged when she removed them. He ignored her need for support and assistance while she was undergoing surgery and treatment for breast cancer (see Siczewicz v Siczewicz, 92 AD2d 915, 916 [1983], appeal dismissed 59 NY2d 968 [1983]). He systematically cut off her access to marital funds and credit as a means of psychological abuse.

What a sweetheart.

2006 Commencement Address

Stephen Colbert gave the commencement address at Knox College yesterday. It's up in full on the College's website, and it's good:

Colbert's 2006 Commencement Address

One bit:

And when you enter the workforce, you will find competition from those crossing our all-too-poorest borders. Now I know you’re all going to say, “Stephen, Stephen, immigrants built America.” Yes, and here’s the thing—it’s built now. I think it was finished in the 70s sometime. From this point it’s only a touch-up and repair job. Essentially if Congress enacts it, soon English will be the official language of America. Because if we surrender the national anthem, the next thing you know, they’ll be translating the Bible. God wrote it in English for a reason! So it could be taught in our public schools.

Reynolds Ridiculous

Glenn Reynolds, Disgusting.

I'd like to add that if Iraq-war critics were to follow Reynold's logic, then he and his cohorts calling them UnAmerican, moral lepers, etc, etc, ad nauseum -- essentially painting everyone who doesn't slavishly follow Bush a "moral monster" -- then there would be "no point in behaving morally."

And Reynolds would hate them even more, but not see how his own logic justifies it.

I'd certainly never do that, or even find it "uncontrovertibly obvious" as Reynolds does -- because I'm not unAmerican and even George W. Bush with all his many failures can't make me one.

What a moral leper Reynolds is.

Bush's Base

I heard David Brooks on PBS Newshour tonight say (in paraphrase) it was commendable that Bush stuck with his principles on immigration, rather than throwing his conservative base red meat by being tougher on enforcement.

That's one way to look at it. But I think what's actually going on is much more obvious: Bush stuck with the his primary constituency: big business and the very rich. They want cheap labor howeve they can get it, and illegal immigrants certainly work cheap.

Any other element of the Republican coalition regularly gets the shaft, but not the wealthy.

• I'm dubious if there are any real Libertarians who are Bush fans: he's consolidated power in the executive and greatly increased the police power of the government over citizens, not to mention ballooning government's size. They'd have to be masocho-libertarians (or more likely, faux libertarian Republicans like Glenn Reynolds) to stick with him.
  
  
• The hardcore fundie Republicans regularly get bones tossed their way, but he has no fear of sending them packing when the chips are down. Typical of Republican presidents, he won't go to the large DC anti-choice rally, but will make a statement over the phone.
  
  
• The paleocons get dissed regularly too (Foreign entanglements, government size, deficit among his abuse of the Reagan conservative).
  

I can't really think of a time when he's really stuck it to the very wealthy and business, especially big business, however. And, of course they are his true people:

Bush gazed around the diamond-studded $800-a-plate crowd and commented on the wealth on display.

"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

I suppose you could call his stance on immigration standing by his principles. I call it dancing with the one who brung him.

Funny UK Politics

Beginning tonight, BBC America is airing The Thick of It, a political satire -- and a satire about the workings of politics -- that hits the mark.

Narrative political satire hardly exists on American television nowadays. There is a good satirical fake news program (The Daily Show) and a fine fake talk show (The Colbert Report), and some abysmally toothless skits performed on the likes of Saturday Night Live. None of those are really narrative programs about the workings of politics. In 2001 Comedy Central turned Stone and Parker (of South Park) loose to create That's My Bush which featured a dimwitted Texan as President. That show wasn't really about politics -- it was a satire based on the tropes of sitcoms, and nearly incidentally set in the White House. It was fairly dumb and very rarely funny about politics, though occasionally it was worth a laugh for other reasons. You'd have to reach back farther in time to come up with an American TV political satire that is about politics itself and not primarily focused on the media, as was Franken's LateLine.

As for politician satire in movies -- we Americans don't seem to do it very well anymore, either. Bulworth? I couldn't sit through it. Dave? A very bland romantic comedy with some soporific "politics" grafted on. There are many good movies with political themes (here's but one: Citizen Ruth), but few in recent times that poke fun at the general run of politics in D.C.

The Thick of It really is about politics and the people who do politics. It doesn't get laughs with jokey one-liners about how fat this minister is or how stupid that aide is (though plenty of stupidity is displayed). Shot mockumentary style, it follows the workings of a fictional government department in constant hot water with the Prime Minister, his vicious Scottish enforcer, the press, and even members of the public. .

It's the creation of Armando Iannucci, who has had a hand in quite a few funny things (Alan Partridge in various incarnations, On The Hour, and The Day Today, for instance). The cast is a treat, led by the wonderfully befuddled Chris Langham recently of the peculiarly funny series Help! and the magnficient creation that is People Like Us, in both its television and (marginally superior, to me) radio incarnations.

As might be expected, a lot of people compare The Thick of It with the 1980's classic Yes, Minister, another stellar UK political satire. They both are top-notch examples of the sitcom styles of the time applied to politics. They both have more going on than just being laugh-machines. And they develop themes in ways that US sitcoms (even the best ones) don't even attempt to. (Iannucci himself has described Thick as a cross between Yes, Minister and The Larry Sanders Show--which is not a bad description.)

So, Americans with access to BBC America, tune in tonight for the following five Friday nights at 9 pm ET, 10 pm PT for a little something you can't get at home.

I'm praying that BBC America doesn't do it's usual schedule-juggling, which can make watching a series a true headache. But, in this case, it'll be worth it. On the positive side, however, BBC America has a page with links to a slang guide and a glossary. Though each is paltry, they should help us Yanks understand the lingo a little bit better.

For Thee, Not for Me

President Bush: "'Deadlines are important,' he said. 'Deadlines help people understand there's finality, and people need to get after it, you know?'"

Deadlines: for the little people.

Not for Bush when serving up troops for slaughter in Iraq.

Weighing In

Atrios came up with a list of policies that most Democratic bloggers could support. Uggabugga
does some analysis on it from the (likely) point of view of various breeds of Republicans. Worth a look.

For my part, I find nothing objectionable in Atrios' list. I'd say "yes" to everything, and "Hell yes" to nearly everything. That's from a purely policy perspective. From a political perspective I'm sure I'd have varying opinions about what Democrats should emphasize and de-emphasize, depending on which week you ask.

Finally, Uggabugga closes with a comment I'd like to emphasize:

Setting foreign policy aside, it seems clear from the matrix above that Atrios' List is not radical. That the epithets "far left" and "fanatics" are totally inappropriate for those inclined towards progressive policy positions. That 40% of the nation would support or accept such policies. And that to be even having this discussion shows how much the "center" has moved to the right by commentators, pundits, and hacks

Precisely. That's why bloggers who aren't Republicans get so sick of the conventional wisdom that pundits puke up with such regularity.

No wonder we're pissed off.

There's one thing the Goss resignation confirms

For one of the most important jobs in what he calls the "War on Terror," Bush made a bad apointment. The guy couldn't even last out two years.

There are many other reasons I thought and thing Goss was a bad choice. But a hurried resigation in under two years is one that'd be hard for anyone to argue with.

Goss-titutes, Presstitutes: Same Diff?

Josh Marshall complains about CNN not mentioning important information regarding Porter Goss' resignation.

MSNBC, after interviewing several folks such as Wayne Allard, Dana Priest, and John Harwood (a better lineup than the vacuous TV-newsreader types CNN had ping-ponging vacuities), finally had Norah O'Donnell on.

She first noted that it was hightly unusual for no reason to be given-- not even "to spend time with family" or "health issues." It may come, but usually it's right out front in these announcments. Also, there's no replacement named, which is odd, especially such an important slot in the "War on Terror." Finally, she mentions that it's typical for bad news to be mentioned on Friday afternoon .

Then she gave a discourse on Dusty Foggo and his relationship with Goss.

Way to go Norah. I don't always think she does a great job, but in this case she mentioned the elephant in room. It's sad that this is commendable, but compared to the other dolts bloviating about nothing, it's something.

UPDATE: Now Timmy Russert is on, saying he spoke with a high-level White House source, telling their line. Here's the White House story, according to Russert: Goss has put in important changes, now they think it'd be better to have another person in charge who can "heal" things. Discussions between Goss and Negroponte have been taking place for weeks and the new DCI will be suggested by Negroponte.

Cover story, or the "inside story?" This is precisely the kind of story I wouldn't trust Timmy with. But, he could possibly be right. Hookers could be the explanation, too.

Line-Crossing

USNews.com tells us that

"Colbert crossed the line," said one top Bush aide, who rushed out of the hotel as soon as Colbert finished. Another said that the president was visibly angered by the sharp lines that kept coming.

"I've been there before, and I can see that he is [angry]," said a former top aide. "He's got that look that he's ready to blow."

I'd be interested in hearing what exactly was over the line in Colbert's routine.

I'd bet the real answer is that, for Bush and his gang, any substantive criticism of the President in his presence is over the line.

Making fun of Bush's lamentable vefbal skills is fine--Bush does that himself. Making fun of his policies that actually, you know, kill people and bankrupt the US--horrors!

The bubble wasn't quite intact for 20 minutes or so. Thankfully, Bush went right back to his castle, where his sycophants can tell him how great he is.

One again: bravo, Colbert.

More Colbert

A few more miscellaneous things about the Colbert act.

1) Someone put the C-Span video on MyTube.com, in three parts. It's gone viral, and part one is currently the most viewed video on MyTube.com, with 342,591 views in the day it's been up. [Update: I just checked back after around three hours and now it's been viewed 400,989 times. So that's about sixty thousand views in three hours or less.]

2) In ilne with the above, as James Wolcott notes, it's likely his routine played better on television than in the room. I have a few ideas why that may be the case:

• The DC politico-tainment nexus is really parochial. For instance, take this bit from Lloyd Grove's column today:
  

  As for the after-dinner entertainment, the conventional wisdom was that Bush killed with his self-mocking routine — "The President was fantastic," gushed staunch Dem Patricia Duff — while the hired talent, Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert, bombed badly. "It was an insider crowd, as insider a crowd as you'll ever have, and he didn't do the insider jokes," said BET founder Bob Johnson.

  
  Colbert should have made jokes about how Laura smokes cigarettes, maybe? That's "inside."
  
  No, they wanted tame jokes about, say, someone's renowned eating habits. They wanted the lame kinds of pabulum jokes that Leno pumps out, or that Bush makes about himself. Faux "insider" stuff that makes them feel part of the club, but which isn't really funny even you are inside-- you laugh at getting the reference that the hoi polloi won't grasp.
  
  Which is a good example of the cocktail weenie thinking of these dolts, and why we're in such a state today. There are somethings that the public shouldn't really care to know. Unless Patrick Fitzgerald calls them to testify, we'll never know the backchannel bullshit that goes on which keeps reporters plugged in to their sources.
  
  So Colbert, by not playing to that fake insider bullshit, talked to the folks at home more than the tuxedoed masses in the room. And the ones who haven't drunk the Bush Koolaid by and large find Colbert funny.
  
  
• At the end of Hardball today, Mike Allen of Time magazine said that the rule for comedy at these things is they're meant to "singe, not burn." And Matthews said (on the first airing -- it was excised on the 7 p.m. repeat) that the president is more than a politician -- he's the head of state, indicating that Bush deserved more respect.
  
  But Colbert didn't make fun of Bush's pecadillos (Bush does that, after all). He lacerated his governing style, his failures and the assistance given to these failures by the attendant media. Of course they're not going to like that.
  

3) The reaction to Colbert points to the overall tameness of what passes for political comedy these days. The line that Leno, Letterman and Conan take on Bush is that he's not o bright and he can't speak. 90 percent of the jokes are about that, and that's not political humor. It's the equivalent of making fat jokes about Pavarotti: a punch line is supposed to be funny merely because it makes the point that Pavarotti is fat, or Bush isn't bright. That vein of comedy was thoroughly mined even before Bush's first year in office.

Get it? Bush doesn't speak fluently! Bwahahahahahahahah! Hilarious.

But that's the kind of toothless "humor" that passes for political satire nowadays. Anything that actually gets into politics, rather than personal traits, is somehow out of bounds to these people.

It's so toothless that Bush uses it about himself. And the crowd laps it up.