Here's What's Left

I know that the word "Orwellian" is getting overused these days, but what else do you call something like this?, or, republican revisionism reaches an all-time low

A lot of people are talking about Jean Schmidt, who's the republican running in the special election in the Ohio 2nd district on tuesday.  Crooks and Liars has a hi-fucking-larious interview from last night's Hardball.  And if you watch it carefully, you might find that, yes, ladies and gentlemen, that we have a new lie from the republicans!  I know we all thought that there couldn't possibly be any more untruths to tell, but Jean Schmidt found one (around 5:40, if you're watching the video):

SCHMIDT:  Ya know, the fact of the matter is there are no weapons of mass destruction.  And uh we were listening to a thug, uh, Saddam Hussein, who said there was.  And he wasn't allowing people to go in and inspect.  We called him on it. 

Clearly, the antecedent to the highlighted sentence is "weapons of mass destruction."  Schmidt is telling us, unambiguously, that Saddam Hussein was saying that there were ("was," as she has it, ungrammatically) weapons of mass destruction. 

Let me remind you, this is a person who is running for the United States House of Representatives.

I suppose it's possible she misspoke.  But given that the very next sentence is another boldfaced lie, it's hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. 

(For what it's worth, surely you all remember when Bush told a lie similar to the second one:

The larger point is and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.

Which is so obviously untrue as to be laughable.)

Seems like we've come full circle folks.  At first the republicans told us that Saddam was lying when he said he didn't have WMD, and was decieving the UN weapons inspectors whom he had admitted.  Now they're telling us that Saddam was lying when he claimed that he did have WMD, and wasn't allowing inspectors in the first place. 

What can you say to such things?

-- Michael

What a good little Senator! You get a treat!

I suppose I'm happy that Sen. Frist has come out in favor of stem cell research, but I'm not quite ready to jump on the Frist back-patting bandwagon yet, like the NYTimes is:

The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, deserves credit for moving gingerly toward a more expansive policy on stem cell research.

Because it's pretty obvious to me what's going on, and the Times only hints at it:

Mr. Frist is thus in some danger of alienating a powerful segment of the Republican political base. His stance will also put him at odds with President Bush, who is threatening to veto the measure, but it may enhance his appeal to moderates if he decides to run for president.

It's a look-at-me-here's-my-token-independence-issue move.  When critics say that Frist is in the pocket of the president, Frist can say that bucked his own party on the stem cell issue because it's good policy and dammit it's the right thing to do. 

But let's give him credit for some smart politics, I guess.  Stem cell research is an issue that the left is just going to win one of these days, because the American public is overwhelming for it, as polls have shown pretty consistently.  Even republicans are mostly for it.  And the people that were opposing stem cell research are going to look like idiots in retrospect. 

But this is contemporary American political discourse for you.  A guy takes a position that happens to be popular, obvious, and intellectually honest, and for some reason he's singled out for praise.  It kind of reminds me how you give your dog a special treat when he learns to take a shit outside instead of on the carpet.  Good boy, Bill; that's a good boy.

-- Michael

Occasionally some good news

Quite simply, I'd like to say that I'm thrilled that British police have apparently caught the four (five?) bombers from the failed terrorist attack last week.  I'm happy that some dangerous motherfuckers are in custody.  And I'm happy that British law enforcement (by all reports) was able to do its job well. 

Seriously, good job guys.

-- Michael

Stupid America-haters

Wow, when did Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers become such dirty liberals?  They must hate America.

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

Because they sound just like John Kerry, and everyone knows he's a weak-kneed, draft-dodging, Arab-loving liberal who hates America:

To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength. Strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values - each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

It's a good thing that we have some nice patriotic conservatives to remind us that there's really nothing else you need to think about except for ass-kicking.  Like David Limbaugh:

There you have it. Though Kerry has given us no legitimate reason to be confident in his promises to be tough on terror, we should find comfort in his romantic rhetoric about strong alliances and his offer of "hope," whatever that means.

This is liberal mushiness at its best. The stark reality is that we need to approach the war with deadly force, not campfire singalongs with double-minded "allies." Well-meaning nations don't need to be talked into joining this just war against the terrorists.

Like Ann Coulter:

He would do a better job, Kerry said, "most importantly – and I mean most importantly – of restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us."

Imagine President John Kerry at the Berlin Wall. "Mr. Gorbachev ... I challenge you to get to an emotional place where you can imagine a different kind of non-wall reality, that fully respects the 'wallness' of your current reality, yet takes us on a spiritual journey in which ..."

Republicans are more simple-minded, but for some things you want to be a little less contemplative, a little less nuanced. In a war against rabid savages trying to nuke Manhattan, you want a policy more along the lines of: Kill 'em! Republicans will shoot burn and bury the terrorists. Kerry will give them a speech.

Like Jonah Goldberg:

With the constant promises from almost every speaker at the Democratic convention that a President Kerry would create "strong alliances" as his backdrop, John Kerry declared this week that he will pursue a "more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."[...]

This is all consistent with liberal rhetoric for the last three years. How many times have we been told that George W. Bush "squandered" the good will of the world "community" after 9/11? The assumption behind all of this seemed to be that anything which cost America the support of allies like France or Germany was, in effect, too costly. In other words, the means — "strong alliances" — are more important than the ends — winning the war on terror, toppling Saddam, and so forth. Listening to these folks, one gets the sense that America's greatest foreign-policy triumph was to get sucker-punched on 9/11 because it resulted in sympathetic newspaper headlines in Paris and Berlin.

I look forward to hearing them denounce known hippie-commie-pinkos like Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers for being soft on terror.

-- Michael

Not ready

I'm glad that Sen. Man-on-Dog is in the public eye after the release of his ridiculous book.  It's becoming increasingly clear to me that he's just not ready for the big time.  If he gets the nomination in '08, he'll lose.  That of course, is presuming that he retains his Senate seat next year, which I doubt.  Anyway, check out this bizarre stretch of a CNN interview, which I'm reprinting mostly because it's so incoherent:

BROWN: I want to talk about the thing you said about Boston for a second.

SANTORUM: OK.

BROWN: OK. I don't know if we have this. We can put it on the screen, but you said "when the culture is sick, every element becomes infected. While it is no excuse, the scandal" -- referring to the priest abuse scandal -- "it is no secret that Boston, the seat of academic, political, cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

First of all, wasn't that a little over the top?

SANTORUM: Well, what's over the top is taking a three-year-old article...

BROWN: What's the context?

SANTORUM: And the context was, I was writing about the priest scandal and condemning the priest scandal, condemning the church...

BROWN: Well, of course you were condemning it. No one supports it.

SANTORUM: ... and talking about concrete things we need to do to fix it. I was out there. No other United States senator...

BROWN: Why so -- why Boston?

SANTORUM: Because, again, context. What was going on in 2002 -- not 2005, but in 2002 -- that's where the scandal was. It wasn't anywhere else. We weren't talking about it. In 2002, it was the epicenter.

Is Santorum trying to claim that the culture of Boston in 2002 is different enough from the culture of Boston in 2005 such that one was encouraging pedophilic priests and the other wasn't?  I'm sure that's not what Santorum is saying, but I don't think Santorum himself has a clear idea of what he really means.  Kind of sad, really. 

By the way, did it occur to anyone that the sex abuse scandal was centered there because it has an unusually large Catholic population?  I'm no statistician, but that's my guess anyway.

We didn't have the report by the bishops conference. We didn't have...

BROWN: So now you wouldn't say that?

SANTORUM: I wouldn't -- well, no, there's a lot of other cities that were involved. But the point is that cultural liberalism and what I talked about is a contributing factor to how people view sexual activity. And I am not the one that says that. Robert Bennett, in the report that he issued on behalf of the bishops conference, called the Bennett report, said exactly my words, except the word Boston wasn't in it.

Actually, Bennett doesn't say anything about cultural liberalism as far as I know.  The report does say that "the apparent significant increase in acts of sexual abuse of minors by priests in the 1960s and 1970s cannot be viewed without acknowledging significant changes in sexual behavior in the culture at large during the same time period."  I don't know if this is true or not (you'd have to show me some evidence), but leave it to a republican to equate "cultural liberalism" with "changes in sexual behavior." 

For the record, it seems like Bennett actually blames the screening process: "Well, I think what we found was that many dysfunctional men, psychologically, sexually... immature men were admitted into the seminaries without any screening in those... in that time period. And it was as if nobody would question somebody's calling from God. And a lot of very dysfunctional people applied and were admitted."  But why tell the truth, Senator, when you can blame it on the Dems?

BROWN: OK. But you wouldn't say that about Boston now. Is that right? Based on what we know about the scandal.

SANTORUM: I said it then, it was the...

BROWN: Not then, now?

SANTORUM: ... yeah, it was the epicenter, and there are many other cities that that would apply.

This is great.  I don't have a clue what he's saying.  That makes me optimistic for 2008.  Because surely the country wouldn't elect such an inarticulate republican with such poorly thought out views to the presidency. 

-- Michael

Do you hate Congress, Judge Roberts?

Seems like a sound strategy to me:

Facing an uphill battle over the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court, Democrats plan to challenge President Bush's nominee on economic, social and regulatory issues, hoping to use the confirmation process to highlight their differences with the Republicans and exploit them for future electoral gains.

Though it seems to me that these differences shouldn't be exploited solely for electoral gain.  It seems to me that Dems should take this opportunity to familiarize the country with a left-leaning interpretation of the Constitution and to make plain the right-wing judicial agenda.  I wouldn't mind questions like this:

Q. One of President Bush's nominees to an appeals courty recently said that FDR's New Deal was equivalent to a "socialist revolution."  Do you agree with that?  If not, can you explain why some of your colleagues believe that the man who created social security was a communist? 

Q. Many of your judicial colleagues appointed by President Bush are subscribers to the "Constitution in Exile" theory.  Many "Constitution in Exile" adherents believe some fairly extreme things -- that the minimum wage is unconstitutional, for example, and that protections for workers infringe upon an empolyer's right of contract.  Some even believe that Congress doesn't have the power to protect our air and our water.  Do you agree with them?  If you don't, can explain how your Constitutional vision differs from theirs?

Q. Are you aware that the Supreme Court under Rehnquist has often engaged in conservative activism?  Did you know that since 1995, the Rehnquist court has struck down more laws, on average, than any Supreme Court in history?  The conservative wing of the Rehnquist court has often shown disdain for acts of Congress that have been passed by majorities.  Do you consider yourself a conservative activist, or would you uphold acts of Congress involving protections for workers, minorities, and the environment even if you disagree with them? 

Essentially such questions would make the Roberts nomination not about Roberts at all.  Instead, it would be a perfect opportunity to set the agenda, to get it away from the emotional culture war issues -- and be a month-long informercial for why our values and our issues are better than theirs.  If he avoids questions, fine.  No bullying, no high drama, just questions about issues that most Americans don't think about.  If Dems are smart and unified about it, that would give the news media nothing else to talk about.  It would change the national conversation and force republicans to be on the defensive. 

-- Michael

That's loyalty

No surprises here.  WaPo:

The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.

It's remarkable only because the three things that the legislation would apparently block are all illegal anyway.  As for the 1) "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment:

Another McCain amendment prohibits the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in the custody of the U.S. government. This provision, modeled after wording in the U.N. Convention Against Torture -- which the United States has already ratified -- is meant to overturn an administration position that the convention does not apply to foreigners outside the United States.

The administration's position was false in the first place because the UN Convention states nothing about whether people are outside the US or not.  It says that

Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

And if US Naval bases aren't under our jurisdiction, I don't know what is. 

As for 2), that the US can't hide detainees from the Red Cross, hiding detainees from the Red Cross may be illegal for many reasons.  One that immediately springs to mind is that the Supreme Court has ruled that detainees can have access to US courts; and if "ghost detainees" are hidden from the public and from the Red Cross, they can't have a court hearing by definition.  (Pentagon officials also said so explicitly.)

As for 3), the stuff about not using methods in the army field manual, well, you can figure that one out yourself.

So here you have legislation, supported by a few maverick republicans, that in essence does nothing more than support existing law.  And the administration fights members of its own party with its most mindless talking points,

that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority and -- in the words of a White House official -- interfere with his ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."

Impressive.  Seriously.  It's hard not to respect such virulent loyalty to a cause.  Too bad, I suppose that the cause is so inhuman.

-- Michael

Scalia with cute kids

E. J. Dionne:

The Bush administration will be desperate to frame the fight in terms of Roberts's ample qualifications, his bipartisan group of friends, his fine education and his lovely family.

Roberts's opponents need to lift the argument to the level of principle. It doesn't matter how nice or smart Roberts may be. What matters is that on a court where so many cases have been decided by 5-to-4 votes, Roberts's convictions and philosophy matter far more than his biography.

If you doubt this, consider that no one disputes Justice Antonin Scalia's intelligence or sense of humor. Many of us would welcome the chance to have Scalia as a professor. But outside the ranks of the right wing, few Americans want their country defined consistently by Scalia's choices. In shifting the balance on the court, Roberts could give Scalia the power to impose his worldview.

Yes.  And I think that last bit is particularly well said.  Who except the most lunatic right-wing fringe wants to be ruled by Scalia's choices? 

Now what are the chances that the Dem leadership will make this kind of argument?  Not good, given that they can't even get the "moderates" to keep their mouths shut.  But I sure hope Harry Reid is reading Dionne's columns.

-- Michael

Bad strategery on Roberts

WaPo:

Key US Lawmakers See No Reason Yet to Block Roberts

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of U.S. senators who could play a pivotal role in any battle over the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court said on Thursday they saw no reason at this point to block him.

Democrats and Republicans stressed, however, that no final decision would be made until after Roberts is scrutinized at pending Senate confirmation hearings.

"So far, so good," Sen. Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat, said in expressing the sentiment of many of the lawmakers in the group.[...]

"I think the president made a wise choice," said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who is also a member of the "Gang of 14."

Another member, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, said, "This is a credible nominee -- and not one, as far as we know now, who has a record that in any sense can be described as 'extremist."'

I don't get it. 

Perhaps this sort of thing is designed to make Dems look reasonable.  So that if anything does turn out to be terribly wrong with Roberts (other than the obvious), they can say, "hey we were ready to confirm him.  We tried to be reasonable, give the president the benefit of the doubt.  But he turned out to be a nutcase."

If that's the strategy, it's not a sound one.  If Dems do decide, in the end, to oppose Roberts seriously, there will be a whole bunch of republican talking points based on the fact that Dems have said before that Roberts is fine ("even Democrats Mark Pryor and Joe Lieberman said earlier that...").  And that the Dems are flip-floppers, or prisoners of liberal interest groups, or are unprincipled, or whichever of the boring, tired republican canards is up that day. 

This kind of strategy also has the disadvantage of prejudicing the public early in the nomination.  No one knows a fucking thing about Roberts, except the bit about the brief he wrote on Roe for the first Bush, and the thing about the little girl and the French fry.  The only stuff we're getting in the the mainstream mediaright now is about how great his credentials are, how everyone thinks he's a nice guy, how he has cute kids that pout on national TV, how barring any surprises he'll get confirmed. 

The last thing we need is Democrats making snap judgments before a confirmation hearing -- before his views are really known, and before the decision on whether to oppose him can be made with any seriousness.

But really more than anything else, it's a total abdication of these Democrats' responsibilities as Senators.  I mean, we know that republicans abdicated their responsibility a long time ago, and that they'd confirm Caligula's horse if that's what they were told to do.  But for Nelson, Lieberman, and Pryor to be saying they'll confirm him (presumably, in the case of Nelson and Pryor, to score political points in their home states) before knowing what they're talking about it about as cynical as it comes.  I'm a big supporter of red state Dems and the necessity of compromise to stay in office, but there's a line somewhere, and they crossed it.

-- Michael

Why Democrats lose fights

Because neither they nor the mainstream media can keep their damn mouths shut.

Democrats unlikely to block Bush court nominee-analysts (Reuters)[...] 

"He'll face tough questions but it's hard to imagine he can be filibustered. I have to think at least five or six Democrats would be inclined to vote for him," said Mike McCurry, who served as press secretary to former President Bill Clinton and now runs a political consultancy.[...]

Democratic political consultant Douglas Hattaway, who worked on then vice president Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, agreed. "The Senate has a strong tradition of letting the President have his pick. The odds are against a successful filibuster unless there's some extreme, egregious things that come out that we don't know about yet." he said.

Thanks Mike.  Thanks Doug.  Thanks also to Reuters for telling us that Democrats aren't likely to block a nominee even before anyone knows what they'd be blocking. 

Newsweek:

There were some early signs that Democrats may not unite in opposing Roberts—a scenario that would make it all but impossible for them to stop his nomination with a filibuster. Republicans pointed out that moderate Sen. Joe Lieberman has been quoted calling Roberts “in the ballpark.”

Thanks Joe.  Real helpful that.

CNN:

BROWN: Because I'm asking everyone, does he get confirmed?

GREENFIELD: If you can tell...

BROWN: Barring the big surprise?

GREENFIELD: Barring the big surprise, yes.

Excellent.  As long as we have political operatives and cable news networks to advise and consent, who needs the US Senate?

-- Michael