| the talking dog |
| MAY 2003 POSTINGS |
|
The Unseen Editor is kind enough to share this article from the Times of London, which ostensibly tells us that we are deluding ourselves into a perpetual state of paranoia when we don't need to. Such delusions -- fueled by the likes of, well, many, including moi -- play right into the hands of the Bush Administration, and ergo, are to be avoided. At all costs. This includes paranoid rhetoric that somehow "cuts in homeland security spending" will put the country at greater risk of some calamitous act. Well, guess what, boys and girls. September 11th was a one-off. A one-shot. A singleton. A one of a kind. Yes, simultaneous acts of terror have become a signature staple of a peculiar group of people whose life's purpose is to be sufficiently intolerant that others must not only be killed, but killed by the proselytizer! But shit has always happened in the Middle East and nearby in the Islamic world. The Tamil Tigers are the world's leading suicide bombers, by far. But Sri Lanka is just not worthy of the same level of coverage as Israel (or Saudi Arabia or Morocco). It’s just the way things are. As to here stateside, let me just say that, when you get right down to it, as I predicted on this blog shortly after September 11th, life has returned to more or less normal. Or has it? What fundamentally is different than it was on September 10th, 2001 (local conditions in New York notwithstanding, which I'll get to shortly)? Honestly, what? Yup, our ATTITUDE. We are far more paranoid, far more intolerant. Our standing in the world, as a result of the paranoia and crassness, is different. Our Constitution is being stretched, maybe to the breaking point, as in camera incarcerations of citizens without charge, trial or even counsel has now been established as "a-OK ‘in time of war’". Immigrants are arbitrarily picked up to have their "paperwork lost" and find themselves deported, notwithstanding years or decades of productive presence here, families, and the like. But are we any safer because of it? Of course not, but because we were NEVER REALLY IN DANGER IN THE FIRST PLACE! I offer a simple proposition that the President's interest and the interest of Osama bin Laden are identical in one regard (two if you count their unnaturally interrelated business dealings). Simply, both the President and OBL benefit from gross, irrational reaction out of "fear of terrorism". OBL is, of course, a terrorist, and fear is his stock in trade. But George W. Bush (or at least his handlers) have seized an opportunity for political cover via the irrational. Hence, the President had cover to attack another nation with a massive force, despite the pretext for that attack being based entirely on lies. The President's standing as "presidential" continues to be based on the "perception as strong leader", which requires something to stand against in contrast. The rhetoric has been shrill and bellicose, and it requires a public willing to live in irrational fear. But interestingly, not a public in the likeliest target, in which your talking dog and his spouse happen to live, work and send their child to school in. You see, I think New York residents have been pretty cool about the whole post-9-11 thing. We have, for the most part, just gone about our lives, as best we can. I managed to lose my own job (my office was one city block north of the World Trade Center). I had a view of the festivities on 9-11, which I more or less no longer try not to think about, lest I have to ponder human beings jumping to their deaths in front of me; or having elected to stay in my office for nearly a half hour while a second plane careened into the South Tower which, had it been structurally different, would either have fallen onto the building in which I was then sitting, or allowed the plane to slice through to it; or watching the second tower implode while escaping on the Manhattan Bridge, knowing that hundreds of rescuers, as well as thousands of my neighbors, perished that instant… But, in my own case, I got another job (albeit 40 miles north of my house, in White Plains, New York). And another one after that, which in a week or two I will have been at for a year. And I know lots of other New Yorkers who just did their jobs, or fought through, as I did. Ironically, I managed to lose what was really a dead end job, and have improved my income, albeit just a bit, in the process. Through it all, as you all know, I have a visceral hatred of all things Bush. Well, guess what? The President leaves a great deal to be desired, but so did the guy before him, and ESPECIALLY the guy before him. Life went on under both of them. And it will go on under this idiot. The problem as I see it now is both his detractors and his supporters have become shrill and irrational in both prosecution and defense; little light is shed anymore. We have a political discourse that looks like Ypres and Verdun (i.e., trench warfare, both sides dug in, hurling poison gas at each other). And now, you know what? ENOUGH!!! I haven't had a vacation since 9-11 (not counting the 2 or 3 weeks right after, which were no vacation). I'm not taking one now, I will soon, though, I hope. I have other things to do, some of which are deferred, while I spend blogging, others of which, I suppose I'll never do. But either way I think it may finally be time for a "blogging vacation." Maybe one of those Ted Barlow-like hiatuses. I'd rather not hang it up like William Burton or Katie of Goblin Queen (although Katie did change continents). But I don't know. Maybe I'll be back tomorrow. Maybe Wednesday. Maybe after Memorial Day. I don't know. Right now, I don't feel I have anything to add to a rather shrill public debate, other than this: See above. Calm the fuck down, people. If we don't, both the terrorists, and those who share an unfortunate symbiotic relationship with them will have won. Godspeed, and God bless you all.
In yet another indication of why playing Texas Hold ‘Em against the Bush Administration is a really bad idea, without explanation, the Administration re-designated several Iraqi officials in its now famous deck of cards, leaving the top 7 intact, but elevating a number of previously minor figures, who happen to be in custody now. All subtle, of course, as minor al-Qaeda figures, when captured, often become designated king-pins, so why not Iraqis? The question remains, of course: why, with the possibility of knowing where Saddam and Sons were, rather than dispatch men with guns to capture or kill Familia Tikriti, bunker busters were employed, thereby assuring that we would probably NEVER have definitive evidence if we HAD successfully killed Saddam Hussein. This is the same strategy employed in Afghanistan's Tora Bora caves, of course, making it impossible to "know" whether we got Osama. This is all well-trodden ground, of course. But it IS thematically related to Ari Fleischer's announcement that as of July he will be resigning his post as White House spokesman. While not nearly as hilarious as Iraqi information minister Saeed al-Sahaf a/k/a Baghdad Bob, Fleischer's credibility level was, at times, in the same order of magnitude. In fairness, Fleischer was but a foot soldier in service to the cause, and but the front man. I'll say this for the Bush Administration: it has learned the lessons of the Clinton Administration magnificently. Since Bill and Hill established that, in Washington public life, there seems to be no downside to just lying, why not do it as a routine matter?
Interestingly, just as I was pondering why no discussion of simply removing the cancerous tumor from Palestinian society that organized suicide bombings and other violence (ESPECIALLY when anything approaching a new peace initiative or even its possibility commenced) the Israeli cabinet is indeed, debating, as one of the possible responses to the double suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem that has killed at least 6 in one and I don't even know how many in the other, expelling the cancer...er, Yasir Arafat. Israeli PM Sharon canceled his trip to Washington in light of the spate of attacks (against Israel, and against Jewish targets in Morocco). Query whether this means that removing Arafat is NOT possible, as permission for such a bold, decisive move could ONLY originate in Washington. Personally, I think we have signals of "business as usual", which is too bad. It has been pointed out numerous times (including by myself) that eliminating Yasir Arafat from the equation (by exiling him and stripping him of his PA mandate) will not instantaneously end Palestinian violence. It WILL however, end a prime organizer, and crime kingpin with a billion dollar plus incentive for a never-ending intifada. Oddly enough, Hizbollah, which is trying to establish itself as a legitimate political party in Lebanon, and Hamas, insane Islamist murderers, but honest as the day is long compared to Arafat, may ultimately be easier to deal with than the compulsive liar and crime boss. I think so. I hope the Israeli cabinet decides to finally ask Washington for the OK to remove Arafat, and that finally, the USA government realizes that in the "new Middle East" (the one without Saddam), reducing terrorist violence (or the appearance of it) is in the United States' interest, and that means Mr. Arafat gets a one-way ticket to Tunis. Obviously, Yasir didn't get the Saddam-related memo.
Well, what can we say? It seems to be bombs away everywhere, Riyadh earlier in the week, and now Casablanca (killing 41 and injuring over 100 in several simultaneous suicide bombing attacks), and not to be forgotten amidst tzuris elsewhere in the Mid-East, the West Bank, killing an Israeli couple in perennial flashpoint Hebron. Al-Qaeda (I suppose) has not been destroyed by a long-shot. Its members, not surprisingly, have greater ability to operate in Arab countries than in Europe or America, where they are more visible (and presumably, instantly under suspicion in the post 9-11 world). So, Western interests and other "soft targets" in the Islamic world it is (shades of similar attacks in Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan and other locales). The West Bank killings are simply Yasir's message that we have no reason to expect anything more to come out of current peace talks than any prior peace talks. And, we don't. The Israelis and Palestinians seem to thrive on baiting each other, and here we go again. Even when someone on the Palestinian side, like Abu Mazen, MIGHT finally be getting somewhere, he quickly finds the rug pulled out from under him by Yasir and the gang, ensuring business as usual. I put the odds of Middle East "peace" (i.e. a political resolution), while Yasir Arafat is in charge of the Palestinian side, at naught. Simple as that. But I digress; Yasir has little or more likely nothing to do with the Riyadh and Casablanca attacks (the latter included, among other targets, a Jewish community center on a Friday night). That is almost certainly our friend Osama and the gang -- remember him -- the evildoer, wanted dead or alive, whose actual whereabouts were deemed no longer important when Karl's polls showed Iraq as carrying more resonance? Yes, THAT Osama. Well, I think the short answer is we may very well HAVE created a "new Middle East" -- one absolutely out of control with terrorist violence. The mullahs in Iran presumably owe us a not to be spoken debt of gratitude for having removed not one but TWO irritating regimes on either side of them. Osama and the gang couldn't be happier, and seem to have a freer hand than ever. Apparently, Osama's deal with the Saudis not to target the Saudi regime itself is either over, or has been modified as long as ONLY Westerners are targeted (even if the occasional Saudi gets blown up too). Either way, hold on to your seats... I've said in other contexts that if one has so much as a bad hair day, blame it on Bush. That may be a bit extreme, even by my standards. But the current round of insanity in the Middle East (including continued problems in Iraq itself) gets to be squarely laid at the feet of the Commander in Chief. Don't be expecting an apology, an explanation, or even an acknowledgment. The Iraq invasion was a HUGE GAMBLE. Apparently, though it looked like we won the early bets, other markers are still being called in as we speak. We won't know for a while what the "new Middle East " looks like, but it might not be pretty.
After a quick shout out to Mike Finley, who is now changing his blog to the "All-American", we'll look at other "all-American" things. Since it seems to be Karl Rove week here at the talking dog, let's take a little quiz. Which one of these events appears to bear the "Mark of Rove", i.e., a subtle or not so subtle dirty trick that Karl can credibly deny having anything to do with: 1. Accusations by France that the Bush Administration is engaging in a smear campaign against its government for, among other things, complicity with the Iraqi government; 2. The strange goings-on in Texas, where the entire Democratic caucus of the lower house of the state legislature simply fled the state in order to prevent a quorum to block a Tom DeLay (as in Prince of Darkness, with apologies to Bob Novak and Richard Perle) backed redistricting measure that would have screwed Democrats out of around five Texas Congressional seats (the legislators are returning, now that the deadline for that particular measure has expired; amazingly, DeLay had the balls to try to get federal authorities to return the legislators -- who committed no crime of any kind, let alone a federal crime -- to round up elected representatives); 3. The United States Senate passing, by the slimmest of margins, the dividend tax cut (a 3-year ELIMINATION of taxes on dividends, BTW) with, of course, the support of Zell Miller (Traitor-GA) and Ben Nelson (DINO-NE), even though there was Republican opposition from Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the sainted John McCain, and Lincoln Chafee (RINO-RI). Correct: they ALL have the mark of Rove! The last one, of course, Rove would publicly own up to, because despite it being around half of the insanity the President asked for, a tax cut amidst our current circumstances, and one that ONLY favors the well-off (let's not pretend about that anymore) is, and will be spun as, a big win for the President. The Texas thing is just bizarre, though trying to change the rules to advance your political position is, classically, Rovian. The France thing will be denied, but I'm sure Karl had a lot of fun with it. Amazingly, it speaks volumes about the President that while his own team seems to acknowledge that our post-war doings in Iraq are not going well (and Ms. Boudine and General Garner have, as a result, been, well, superceded by Mr. Bremer and his squad), we STILL have time to heap scorn on those who apparently slighted us. I don't know about you, but I want my country run by grown-ups, and not by a teenage prankster advising a petulant child. I do believe I am in the majority on that, except when Karl's people manage to count the votes.
Thanks to the Unseen Editor for telling us about this article, which can be called "Bad Stuff About Salam Pax". David Warren is of the opinion that my and everybody else's darling of the blogosphere, Salam Pax, is insidiously tied (most likely via family) to Baathist regime members, and even after Saddam's fall, is continuing to do their bidding through, among other things, spreading misinformation to American reporters. Well, certainly, the fact that Saddam, whose security services almost certainly monitored inbound and outbound Internet traffic into Iraq, allowed Salam Pax to continue to breathe, always struck me as an indication that he was either (1) an impostor altogether (that theory seems to be discredited and less likely than ever); (2) an Iraqi operating just outside of Iraq with close ties to those inside (say, from Jordan or Syria, or even someone who travels in and out of those places; this is, of course, my speculation); or (3) someone really in Baghdad, with obvious command of English (including American colloquialisms) and familiarity with America and Europe. If it were (3), of course, that leads to two more possibilities: (a) Salam is a master of deception and disguise, especially electronic, and has managed to hide his tracks amidst the "better-than-Stalin's" Iraqi secret police apparatus, or (b) he was sufficiently connected to be protected in his little hobby. Obviously, this report goes to 3(b), Salam is some sort of Baathist plant, whose mission is to spread misinformation. Well, it’s certainly a possibility, and while Salam Pax remains pseudonymous (unless Mr. Warren actually knows who he is, as he implies he does), one that cannot be either proven or rebutted. The truth will eventually set us free, of course, when, as Unqualified Offerings speculates, Salam goes on his world book tour. IMHO, however, everyone has a perspective. Obviously, if Salam were actually in or near Iraq, he had to be in some sort of elite position, to have (1) command of colloquial English and knowledge of the West; (2) a working computer with Internet access; and (3) Saddam not finding him and killing him. This does not make him the insidious force Mr. Warren asserts he is, though it certainly raises that possibility. I find it impressive that Mr. Warren laments the fact that certain journalists who remain in Baghdad and Iraq may be "misled" by the locals, especially charming locals with command of English. Perhaps Mr. Warren regards our "coalition" (meaning the Pentagon) sources as infallible and unbiased as well, especially when their missives are relayed via embedded reporters. I don't know. Whether we take Salam with a grain of salt, or a pillar of salt, this is a valuable perspective that we ain't gettin' from anywhere else. I'm not going to write it off just yet.
TD Terry McAuliffe Extra I, 5-14-03. Well, here is today's Terry McAuliffe e-mailing to the faithful, unexpurgated by moi (sorry for use of the Freedom language, but, well, you know...):
Call and Email our Members of Congress
Last week, I told you how the Democratic Party is
partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way,
Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other
groups representing millions of Americans to organize a
massive public mobilization opposing the irresponsible
Bush tax scheme. Thankfully, Terry only makes 4 points about the current round of tax cuts: (1) they benefit the rich; (2) they won't help states or municipal governments (though I'm not clear on why federal tax cuts would HURT them) and they will cut off the ability for certain increased federal spending, (3) they will leave FUTURE GENERATIONS IN DEBT, and (4) the Dems have a "better" plan. Let's put on our "Karl Rove 3-D glasses" and take a look at this again, and we will realize that Terry's points are (1) who cares, (2) who cares, (3) YES!!! THIS IS A PROBLEM and (4) who cares. What this tells us is what we need to know about the President's tax plan: people who, like Secretary Snow, lamented the horrors of high deficits PRIOR to joining the Bush Administration now have NO PROBLEM with deficits as far as the eye can see -- somehow Bush-GOP Congress deficits are special! THIS resonates with the public, having been conditioned for decades BY REPUBLICANS that "deficits are bad", this one won't just go away, and Bush may very well be valuing tax cuts more than his own reelection chances. Time will tell, but if you DO want to follow Terry's advice and contact your Congressperson or Senator, tell 'em its about the deficits, stupid.
A little break from "Rove Tuesday" to go back to the world at large; I guess we will make this "Roh Wednesday", as South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun meets today with the President in Washington, and North Korea and its nuclear weapons should be real high on the agenda. Politically, this will mesh with Presidential candidate Senator Bob Graham's statement that the Riyadh bombings were avoidable, if American efforts to dismantle al-Qaeda had not been DISTRACTED by the Iraqi campaign. Well, Korea is a real barn burner: if we fuck it up, we might get Seoul leveled, Tokyo nuked, and potentially, shots taken at Anchorage, or Seattle, or Los Angeles (and, most troublingly, Alaska was a "red state"). In the end, we will appease North Korea, and try to find a way not to call it appeasement ("engagement?"; only Bush could go to Pyongyang? we'll think of something...) Anyway, politically, if Bob Graham is willing to sacrifice himself for the cause by calling Bush on FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY, he may create an opening, if he can make the President start to play defense on this (politically, not in national security terms, where no one wants to see the nation's position weakened). Graham is already trotting out the "classified" joint Congressional investigation into 9-11 related intelligence failures -- at issue is whether he has the balls to read the "classified document" into the Congressional record. Either way, I think Graham's strategy here is admirable, though politically suicidal to himself. I'd love to see the public just asking one question, every day, between now and November '04. A two word question. "Where's Osama?"
Taking a look through my "Karl" scope, this all says to me that of the six remotely viable candidates, the Dem to beat -- and the one who can beat Bush -- and if nominated, the one who WILL beat Bush (even though he is unlikely to carry his OWN STATE) is Senator John Edwards. Howard Dean is this year's Mo Udall/John McCain/Bruce Babbitt (despite not being from Arizona!), i.e., the thinking man's candidate (and likely also-ran). John Kerry will be portrayed as a Northern liberal (cultural elite -- cultural elite), and his war position is wishy-washy, which will undercut his "war hero" status. Joe Lieberman is just a non-starter (I could spend days explaining why). Bob Graham just strikes me as "out there", and health concerns will plague him (even as they DON'T plague Dick Cheney). Although I'm really coming to like Dick Gephardt more and more, Karl will have too easy a time painting him as the ultimate insider. Elder statesman is a lousy position in presidential politics: just ask Bob Dole. So, Edwards it is. Young, handsome, telegenic, off to a big lead raising money, and by profession, a man of the people. A TRIAL LAWYER! As one possible sleeper issue, most people think that injured people should be compensated, he may be the perfect man to rail against the $250,000 medical malpractice damages cap Bush proposes, indeed, to show just how UNCOMPASSIONATE the compassionate conservative really is. Oh, and did I mention he's from a SOUTHERN STATE (North Carolina). Even though he'll probably lose his own state (and would lose his Senate seat if he seeks reelection), in a soft economy, I see Edwards as, potentially, next year's Bill Clinton. Its STILL the economy stupid; while the President's brilliantly timed and located 9-11 Republican Convention in New York and attendant wrapping himself in the flag will be about fear-mongering and pandering to Middle America's "patriotic instincts", if the stock market (and everyone's 401K balance) continues to flag, and unemployment drifts up, I see Dubya going the way of H.W. Time will tell, and Karl is smart enough to see these trends too and plan accordingly. But that's what my Karl-meter tells me today.
Just a brief break from talking about Karl Rove for two things: (1) Here is a self-explanatory petition, to let your Congressional representative know you are pissed (assuming you ARE actually pissed about it, of course) about the proposed new changes which will allow massive media consolidation (that's MORE media consolidation, just like the President is pressing for MORE tax cuts) (thanks to Lisa English of Ruminate This); and (2) I'm certainly saddened to see that, in all likelihood, al-Qaeda has decided it’s time for a comeback, by murdering at least 20 people and injuring scores more in simultaneous suicide bombings over at foreign worker enclaves in Riyadh, capital of Qaeda's home country, just hours ahead of Secretary Powell's arrival there. Draw your own conclusions. I promised further discussion of Nicholas Lemann's New Yorker article on Karl Rove, and doggone it, that's what I'll do. As I mentioned yesterday, Karl is from a large family in Utah. As I can't really remember the last time I heard "Democrat" and "Utah" in the same sentence, I think we can safely assume that Karl's political background was formed early on, and is sincere. Contrary to my ravings, I have little doubt that Karl is indeed an absolute true believer, although I ALSO love ex-Faith Based Initiative Czar John Diulio's description of Karl and the Bushies as "Mayberry Macchiavellians". What are the tenets of Karl's political belief structure that have served him so well? Well, certainly, a love of James Madison and his style of "federalism" (whatever the hell that means; Karl's son's middle name is Madison in homage). Karl, like many (including myself) professes greater trust of smaller, more localized forms of government than he does larger, more centralized governments (such as the one he presently serves). And, as picked up by the Unseen Editor (who has been less invisible recently), Karl, again, despite being in service of Old Money, professes to be opposed to the Establishment -- Karl's candidates, in conjunction with or as part of their short, three or four point "message" (and, if they want to win, they will stay "on message"), will be "outsiders" (at least until they become incumbents, or course). Hence, Karl's folks have gotten great mileage out of the "cultural elite", and in playing up the "arrogance of power" (the high points of which both involve someone named Clinton, (1) bringing in a crew of academic elitist types to impose a national health care plan, and (2) using the instruments of state to cover up lying about a blow job). Look for these themes, if not these very issues, to be brought up, in various ways, in the next 18 months. While Karl's own head is filled with demographic slices of how many GOP votes will be needed in County X in State Y in order for Candidate Z to win, including how many suburban housewives with part time jobs will have to vote, Karl's candidates, and the message they transmit, is always remarkably simple. Remember Bush's four point campaign? Education, tax cuts, hell, that's all I remember and it doesn't even matter, because that's two more than MOST people remember! But AT THE TIME, it’s like the happy tune people sing on their way to vote. A commenter asked, am I saying that the Dems don't have anyone of Karl's skills? Or am I saying that the Democratic versions of Karl Rove don't have good enough candidates? The answer is yes to both questions. We can still win, though. Next post: Who does the TD's "Karl-meter" say looks good on the Dems' side?
The Unseen Editor chides me for yesterday's diatribe on Nicholas Lemann's New Yorker article on Presidential Adviser Karl Rove, having engaged in such a diatribe without even having completed Lemann's article. I say, hey, its Sunday! Besides, my conclusions will be the same anyway, and having completed the article now, my conclusions are, of course, the same. The Mickey Kaus-style editor's notes agonizing against my rhetorical excesses do, however, greatly add to the presentation (as I often require cautionary tales against my own excesses.) Further, I am as guilty as anybody of losing focus on the matter at hand. Karl Rove would never do that. NEVER. We have a lot to learn from Karl... Let me start with a few basic premises, as to my own prejudices, so that we all can understand what's going on here. I don't like the President's policies, as I believe they are destructive to the most vibrant economic activity (newer and smaller business, despite rhetoric to the contrary) and that I believe they are ultimately destructive of the country's moral fiber, by favoring the interests of the rich and super-rich (incomes of $300K plus) at the expense of everyone else (again, despite rhetoric to the contrary). Indeed, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that the policies both Presidents Bush have had detrimental consequences to me and members of my family. I won't even talk about foreign policy. Accordingly, when I encounter a story of an amazing man like Karl Rove, who has chosen to serve lesser (though better-connected) men than himself in a cause that I find disagreeable (oh hell, you know I find it repugnant), my own prejudices come to the fore, and may well cloud my analysis. This has happened before and will happen again, so let's just get it out there now. Karl Rove, the political mastermind of the "Old Money Administration", is, ironically, a self-made man (coming from a humble family of five children in Utah, with its own interesting Sturm und Drang that will simply end with "Karl is adopted"). Karl didn't even graduate college. Through turns as head of College Republicans (a story in its own right) through which he met George H.W. Bush (then head of the Republican National Committee) and the Bush clan, and an amazing career as political advisor, and political direct mail consultant (it’s all about niche marketing), Karl is now as politically powerful an advisor as we have seen in generations. He has much to teach us. Today's Karl Rove lesson: THERE IS NO MIDDLE. There is no such thing as a swing voter. There are "unattached" voters, some on the far left, some on the right, many with views that are hard to categorize on the left-right scale. Karl views his job as to activate the passions of these people enough to get them out to pull the lever Republican (and he has done a damned good job of this). Such groups include Arabs in Michigan or regularly-church-attending Catholics. Karl also plays trends: federal (frequently unionized) workers tend to be Democrats, and favor larger central governments; note how forcefully the President wanted the new Homeland Security Department to be non-union. Why is listening to Karl so important? Hey, Karl wins. It’s as simple as that. By depicting his old-money, Establishment group as upstarts (remember that? George W. Bush pegged Al Gore as the Washington insider -- he, the SON OF A PRESIDENT cast somebody ELSE as the insider) Karl...creates...winners. I had always noticed something amazing in my own mail: back when Clinton was in office, to the extent I GOT anything from the Democratic party (which was rare, despite it being my party of registration), the offers were to go to events (or not) or to pay a lot of money to occasionally meet with relatively minor officials (state senators, city councilmen, and the like). What I got from the Republicans, by contrast, was amazing: often for as little as $1,000, I could get my picture taken with the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Clinton (and his star-fucker crew of Blumenthal, Carville, Morris and company) were cavorting with Hollywood, the Hamptons and Silicon Valley for mega-bucks to put on TV ads, while the supposed party of the people courted the super-elite. The GOP, of course, put on ads too. And God knows it got its massive contributions from big contributors (more then the Democrats ever did!). But, other than labor unions, its hard to see a broad-based national fundraising scheme operating for the Democrats. The GOP seems to pitch everybody, and pitch broadly. Bush had thousands upon thousands of contributors at the $100 and $1000 levels (and he rewarded those who organized these donors -- the Pioneers -- with impressive access and accolades). When it comes to WINNING, the GOP is suddenly the party of the little guy...would that it governed the way it campaigned (and would the Democrats raise money the way they purport to govern). One of my commenters has suggested that if everybody who read this (including myself) were to simply grab a handful of voter registration cards the next time one found such a pile at a government office and send them to every unregistered voter we knew (likely to vote Democrat), we would be doing something far more valuable than all of the my preaching in the world. I couldn't agree more. Tomorrow (if I feel like it): what makes Karl tick ideologically.
Happy Mother’s Day to all applicable. The Unseen Editor suggests that I comment on an article in this week's New Yorker by Nicholas Lemann called "The Controller", Karl's Rove's plan to take over politics. I smell... multi-part series... (Warning, long post today...) I haven't read the full article yet, but we can get started anyway...here is The New Yorker's public press release:
"In the same way that prophetic fundamentalists
are always on the lookout for emblazonings of the number
666, the Mark of the Beast, in Washington everybody is
highly attuned to the possibility that most of what goes
on bears the Mark of Karl Rove," Nicholas Lemann writes
in "The Controller," in the May 12, 2003, issue of The
New Yorker. Nonetheless, "although the No. 1
occupational disease in the field of political
consulting is a conversational tendency to run up one's
own brilliance while, either subtly or overtly, running
down the candidate, Rove manages to combine a manner
that has no trace of self-effacement with an attitude
toward his boss which appears to be truly worshipful."
Rove, who is President Bush's chief political adviser,
recalls his first meeting with him, in 1973: "I can
literally remember what he was wearing: an Air National
Guard flight jacket, cowboy boots, bluejeans.... He was
exuding more charisma than any one individual should be
allowed to have." Rove's "main goal over the next year
and a half is making George W. Bush what his father
wasn't, a reëlected President," Lemann writes, "but he
is too ambitious to want only that. The real prize is
creating a Republican majority that would be as solid
as, say, the Democratic coalition that Franklin
Roosevelt created—a majority that would last for a
generation and that, as it played itself out over time,
would wind up profoundly changing the relationship
between citizen and state in this country." Rove is legendarily thorough. He "has an omnipresent quality," Lemann writes. "Everybody seems to have just heard from him—he's a master of the little note or phone call on important occasions." For the most important campaigns, Rove "produces written plans far in advance, mapping out the race in its entirety, and he's famous for sticking precisely to the plan no matter what." One former candidate of Rove's tells Lemann, "Karl, then as now, was a master of the numbers. He wrote a book outlining the campaign: exactly how many votes I needed and where they'd come from." Asked to define what kind of person is a Democrat or a Republican is, Rove tells Lemann, "First of all, there is a huge gap among people of faith....They form an important part of the Republican base. It's easy to caricature them, but they're essentially your neighbors who go to church on a regular basis and whose life is a community of their faith and who are concerned about values.... I'm not exactly sure why, but if you're married and with kids you are far more likely to be a Republican than to be a Democrat." Democrats? "Somebody with a doctorate," Rove remarks. In 2004, voters "will see the battle for Iraq as a chapter in a longer, bigger struggle. As a part of the war on terrorism," Rove says. Of the future of the Democratic Party, Rove tells Lemann, "I don't think you ever kill any political party. Political parties kill themselves, or are killed, not by the other political party but by their failure to adapt to new circumstances. But do you weaken a political party, either by turning what they see as assets into liabilities, and/or by taking issues they consider to be theirs, and raiding them? Absolutely!" Well, look, I'm married with a child (perhaps it has to be PLURAL?); on the other hand, my law degree is technically a doctorate. I believe in a higher order in the universe, but not a sadistic patriarchal interventionist Old Testament Deity. I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat. What Karl is proposing sounds CLINTONIAN. Karl is talking about the mechanics of winning, FOR ITS OWN SAKE. [Editor’s note: This is why you wait to read the article! Karl Rove is, if nothing else, a true believer. Besides, it’s his job to be a strategist. Shouldn’t it relieve you that Bush and Cheney – unlike Clinton – don’t personally involve themselves with such mundane details?] Our party had two people (and their entourage) who thought like this. One of them is my senator. Our party will continue to pay the price as long as this soul-less strain of thought continues, like a virus, to infect the thinking of our party. (And yes, Terry McAuliffe should be removed, preferably by the end of the week; just as Iraqi doctors now refuse to work with officials tainted by the former regime...) Let's step back a second: Karl is not speaking about some glorious POLICY VISION. For Republicans, such a vision might sound something like this: "I see a country where people are free to pursue their dreams, their business dreams, their dreams of raising and prospering with their family, their dreams of building a proud and caring community of schools, churches, and other caring institutions, without the heavy hand of Washington interfering at every turn, and to add insult to injury, imposing heavy taxes to impose ITS notions of caring, right and wrong, and everything else." You know what? That vision kind of sounds nice to me: find me some polity or party that stands for that, and I might support it. Oh wait, that's not the GOP. Right now, the GOP are DELIGHTED to have Washington impose standards for schools ("no child left behind"), for churches ("faith-based initiatives"), and has no problem telling states and localities what do from Washington (medicinal marijuana laws in California or assisted suicide laws in Oregon), and this GOP has no problem spending "the people's money", and spending it at record levels. In substance, the GOP HAS reduced some annoying tax levels paid (in some cases, uniquely paid) by people of high income or wealth, such as the estate tax, or the current proposed dividend tax reduction. Oh, and we'll seize on one horrible but still ONE UNIQUE terrorist incident and use it to roll back CENTURIES of constitutional protections in a matter of DAYS, and to keep the country on perpetual pins and needles of anxiety (complete with a cabinet secretary whose job it is to make periodic vague announcements for just that very purpose). My God, TD, what kind of unified agenda is THAT? How is THAT in any way advancing that beautiful policy dream you put out above? BINGO!!! IT ISN'T!!! But the Republicans have sold the bill of goods -- the glorious suburban city on the hill which we drive to in our SUV and take our Stepford wives and kids to church, school and the country club -- so what else matters?! Amazingly, this is the very emptiest of values -- prosperity with a purpose -- the purpose being the maintenance of the prosperity of the prosperous. OF COURSE Karl doesn't know why "believers" and church-goers tend to favor the Republican view of things, he can't identify with their "values" because he personally is devoid of values. The end and the means are the same thing to him (Clintonian, I tell you). Obviously, Middle American and Southern religious fundamentalists are at home with a party that spouts their "values" of bigotry and intolerance as its platform. [Editor’s note: This, folks, is that famous liberal tolerance and open-mindedness at work – and the kind of elitism that Rove can easily exploit!] That was easy; it certainly explains a healthy element of the GOP "base". So what? The Democrats have become a reverse caricature of that: the party that stands for abortion on demand (and little else) and is similarly shrill and dismissive of opponents of that view for the most part. What of it, TD? OK, good. You see where I'm going. Clinton essentially taught Karl everything he now knows about national politics: triangulation, sleight of hand, strategic lies, repeating meaningless slogans as mantras, and the result now sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Clinton was a brilliant, hard-working, self-made man. Dubya is a lazy man handed Daddy's job. So what? In the end, both men had this going for them: winning itself for its own sake carries more importance than advancing any policy or vision once the office is won. If anything, at least Dubya has a vision of irresponsible tax cuts favoring rich people, Clinton didn't even have THAT. Karl is a better tactician than anybody (except Bill C. himself -- and maybe -- MAYBE-- Hillary), AND his boy has the mantle of incumbency, and can play whatever games and push whatever buttons (including starting wars, as necessary) to keep the levers in play. So we beat Karl at his own game? WRONG! We have one chance to beat these motherfuckers. ONE. Because, if Karl gets four more years, he may very well achieve his unified-field-theory vision of eternal Republican rule. And we have one way to do it. And that is by throwing away the play book, and going back, 100%, to a campaign of policies, and values. The policies and values have to be REAL, selling them will take 6-8 word sentences, no more than 2 syllable words, of course. But the policies and values are MORE IMPORTANT. We have to beat Karl and the soulless automaton self-interested motherfuckers with the one thing they don't have: SOULS, and real values. [Editor’s note: For starters, how about giving the Republicans credit for having “real values”? Just values that you disagree with. You sound like Michael Moore…] Affirmative reasons to vote Democratic (and if it’s going to come down to "protecting a woman's right to chose", let's give up now). OK? Good. We know our mission. So, let's keep the cards and letters coming.
Time for...more...blog...reviews...
Meryl Yourish
eponymous blog (a writer, a weblog, her opinions) is the
work of Richmond-based (via New Jersey) web designer and
writer Meryl Yourish, who is a very popular blogger
indeed. Though she purports to be "center-left", the
blogroll leans to the right (center-right, of course),
and the posts lean, well, hawkishly pro-Israel, and
eclectic else-wise, though, well, center something.
Humor drifts in there, and Meryl tries to call it as she
sees it...
An Unsealed Room
is the work of Israeli blogger (via the USA) Allison
Kaplan Sommer, formerly a journalist with The
Jerusalem Post now living north of Tel Aviv. The
perspective is a fascinating one, I would guess to the
right of many Israelis, though in no sense, on the
right.
It’s time for more blog reviews (why? because I said so!) Today, we see a category called "Jew blogs" from Harry R. of The View From Here (many of which are already on the dog run). Let's go to some of the ones that are not heretofore on the dog run (and let's give 'em a big Shalom):
Jewschool
is the work of blogger Mobius, and is a tour de force of
matters of interest to modern Jewry, including resurgent
anti-Semitism, Zionism and Jewish educational issues.
The links section includes educational and informational
resources, rather than blogs, and is worth a look. Well
written detail in the professional looking website.
Hasidic Rebel
is the work of pseudonymous blogger Rebel, who has been
described as a Hasidic version of
Salam Pax in the sense that he is a dissenter from
the community at large (although the Hasidic community
is much less likely to throw the rebel into an airless
dungeon and torture and/or execute him, but you get the
idea). The posts are a fascinating insight into a
community that most of us have little insight into. A
short blogroll features mostly Jewish bloggers
(including one in Yiddish).
Yada Yada Yada
appears to be the work of bloggers Mobius and Binyamin,
and represents "works in progress" on a variety of
subjects Jewish that eventually make their way to
Jewish Week magazine. Eclectically Jewish is the
best description I can come up with, reflected in posts
and blogroll.
It’s Saturday here at the talking dog...that means a visit with our friends at Pravda. First stop, Turkey, where Pravda asserts that the Bush Administration, via Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is still contemplating appropriate "paybacks" to Turkey for its failure to cooperate with the Iraq war by ceding some military bases to American forces for the attack. It’s good to see that the Bush people don't hold a grudge! In other resentment news, Pravda tells us about American poultry-related quotas, which will end up reducing (greatly) American chicken exports to Russia (perhaps forcing a step-up in exports to...Iraq). OK, what can we learn from this? It seems that, after not having a clear vision of integrated foreign and trade policy since at least the Reagan Administration (maybe longer), we now finally do. Unfortunately, it is what I will call "foreign policy of the 4-year old"-- spiteful, self-centered, short-sighted (otherwise, incoherent, of course). Can the Democrats make an issue of this? Is the Pope Italian? (Um, TD. the Holy Father is of Polish origin...) Well, look, the country is well to the right of the average Democratic primary voter (much closer, BTW, to the average REPUBLICAN primary voter, and that includes most registered Democrats). Sentimental arguments about us "being mean to those nice allies", or even "our high moral standing in the world" will get us nowhere. My problem with the Bush policy is basic, and brutally "Republican". By making the world more chaotic by fucking with established alliances and institutions (like NATO"> , which, thanks to Bush's petulance is in deep trouble, not to mention the much-less-important UN), we UNDERMINE, not strengthen, our own security. Now? As we increase the pores and fissures through which free-agent lunatics like bin Laden can operate. By weakening our alliances, may be cutting off some valuable early detection that had been helpful in the War on TerrorTM. The current world "order" is chaotic enough, without this. Somebody has got to stand up and make this argument. To be honest, since right now, IMHO, none of the 9 little Indians has anything to lose (6, really, because Sharpton doesn't expect to win himself, of course, Moseley Braun is just a stalking horse against Sharpton, and I can't even remember that Kucinich is running). I'd love to see somebody just go crazy, and say, here are the problems with the Administration's foreign policy. Specifically, winning wars are great (though we're gonna have problems occupying Iraq, but that's now a sideshow. Being a big swinging dick may play well domestically, but our allies represent a net benefit to us (not a net cost), and their positions have to be considered in order to maximally leverage our own power, especially in a MORE chaotic world of non-state actors. (Hey, anybody who can come up with "memes and themes" for this will get extra credit!) In short, just as the Bush economic policies are weakening us domestically, the Bush foreign policies are weakening us AGAINST TERROR. Somebody, just say it. Anybody! (OK, not Lieberman, who wants to beat the Republicans from the right). Such a statement would be perfectly OK coming from Gephardt, or Dean, or Kerry, or Graham, or Edwards. SAY IT!!! For God's sake, its 4th and 37 guys, throw the damned bomb!
Happy birthday to TD Dad. So far, not much action in my memes and themes contest. If we don't come up with something good, we'll be left with the likes of Terry McAuliffe, and this mass e-mail to supposedly sympathetic Democrats.
In fact, that e-mail will be the subject of today's "practical Democratic conscience" critique:
"Democracy can work, particularly when a lot of people
get on the phone or by email, and just let them know
what's on your mind." -- George W. Bush, 5/5/03
OK, here we go. I see some good stuff there, but mostly bad stuff. As always, the big thrust is "we're the party of abortions on demand". Opposition to that is the definition of a judicial extremist – pretty much that one issue. I have said many times that Democrats need to lose that issue; the die-hard supporters of this issue will find other GOP positions (the environment and gun control come to mind) sufficiently offensive for this one issue not to matter. The very phrase "right wing extremists" itself smacks Clintonian...but of course, this IS Terry McAuliffe writing this. It looked like Terry might be getting somewhere on tax cuts, i.e., they don't lead to growth. But...yup, you saw it too...he mentions that the Democrats' plan calls for "targeted tax cuts". Ooops. OUR tax cuts are OK, but theirs are NOT? This is not going to be the answer, just our political benefactors are more deserving of tax cuts than THEIR political benefactors. A dead loser. The other social spending proposed in the "stimulus" package is nice, but once again: OUR aid to business is OK, theirs isn't? Aid to state and local government sounds nice, but their cumulative deficits are in the $100 BILLION range; shall we just add THAT to the federal deficit? What did I like? McAuliffe mentioned THE issue: getting the economy moving. Other than that, however, it’s the standard-issue Democratic package: true believers (I'm guessing 20% or so of all voters on average) believe in it; not too much for everyone else. Let me make it easy: McAuliffe is a holdover from the bygone Clinton era, personally symbolizing some of the abuses of that era (remember Terry's interest-free loan to the Clintons to buy their starter home in Chappaqua so Hillary could be a Noo Yawker?). He is the symbol of crass, soul-less fundraising at any cost and expedience uber alles that is the Clintonian legacy. Don't get me wrong: Bill Clinton himself, if he were eligible to run, would likely destroy Dubya in '04 (and Hillary Clinton might well defeat him as well, though at what cost?). But after Bill (and Al Gore who has pre-bowed out) the Democrats are a party bereft right now of shall we say "Presidential" talent. Having now seen this sample of Mr. McAuliffe's work, I say, very simply, the time has come for Mr. McAuliffe to end his feckless tenure as Democratic National Committee chair. Let someone without troublesome ties to the previous regime do the job.
While we ponder life, the universe and everything, let's |