Month: August 2007

Civility

by digby

I’m sure most of you have heard the latest words of wisdom from Ted Nugent by now. You know, where he calls Barack Obama a piece of shit and says Obama and Hillary Clinton should suck on his machine gun? Where he calls Diane Feinstein a worthless whore? Right.

Anyway, on the heels of last week’s opus by a writer for a prestigious neocon and conservative think tank calling for Bush to declare himself emperor and then the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders [Mexicans], which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans, and Rush Limbaugh saying that the Democrats are going to buy the black vote by invading Darfur, it’s been quite a week for racist and eliminationist talk from mainstream right wing sources.

It’s good to see that Bill O’Reilly is drawing a line in the sand at least:

“These are people who are wishing people with whom they disagree, ill. That’s who they are. That’s what they do. That’s all they do.”

Oh, wait. He wasn’t talking about the prestigious neocon think tanks which pay their writers or George W. Bush’s favorite talk show host or even the frequent FOX guest, Ted Nugent. He was talking about Daily Kos.

The Best

by digby

Patriotic Americans who insist that the United States is the highest pinnacle to which any nation can aspire, really should be shocked and embarrassed by things like this:

An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births. “The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries,” said the annual State of the World’s Mothers report.[…]Tinker said some nations ranked high in part because they offer free health services for pregnant women and babies, while the United States suffers from disparities in access to health care.

I don’t know why these Republicans aren’t embarrassed that their great country ranks lower than every developed country in the world except Latvia, but they aren’t. But then, they just lie, don’t they? Here’s your possible next president Rudy:

America has the best medical care in the world. People come here from around the world to take advantage of our path-breaking medicine and state-of-the-art treatments.

Well, rich people do anyway, and those are the only people who count.

I guess this argument works on Republicans who don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves (most of them) and are employed. Let’s hope they don’t lose their jobs.

I’ve said this before but I really think this is something the Democrats should get into the health care debate. They need to inject a little righteous indignation that we are so lame in this — appeal to the national pride. They should say “I’m embarrassed that this great country ranks below every developed country but Latvia,” — launch a sort of JFK “man on the moon” competitive thing that challenges the country to have the kind of health care we can be proud of, where we don’t have babies dying needlessly because we don’t provide their mothers adequate access to health care.

John Edwards brought up some passion on this in one of the debates and it was very effective. He mentioned it again in his speech last week:

A few weeks, ago I met a man named James Lowe in Wise, Virginia. James spent the first fifty years of his life without a voice — literally without a voice — because he didn’t have health care. All he needed was a simple operation to fix a cleft palate. That a man in the richest country in the world could go unable to speak for 50 years because he couldn’t pay for a $3,000 operation is something that should outrage every American. We are better than that. America is better that that.

I think that is the correct way to talk about this. It’s outrageous. We should all be embarrassed and ashamed that this happens in our country and we should insist that something be done. But I’d go even further and put this in explicitly patriotic and competitive terms.
If you love your country and believe it is the greatest in the world, you will not let it continue to be anything less than the number one nation in every metric of good health. It’s the American way to be the best.

Most of us don’t need this kind of argument and plenty of others can be persuaded by a good plan or by the sense of their own precariousness. But there are those, I believe, who are temperamentally unable to make the leap to compassion or even, “there but for the grace of god go I” self-interest, at least not openly. They just can’t do it. But this might be a way to give them a path to fundamentally changing the health care system. It’s worth a try. We really need to get this done.

.

Front Burner

by digby

I’m sure that all of you have heard by now about the fundraiser for Darcy Burner this week-end. As Jane explained:

While George Bush may be a political albatross for just about any Republican to bear these days, he sure can wring cash out of the corporatist arm of the party. He’s going to Washington State on Monday to play rainmaker for Dave Reichert, who is running against Blue America candidate Darcy Burner in WA-08. Darcy is holding an online town hall on Iraq this Monday. Reichert, on the other hand, is proving sort of town-hall adverse and has taken to ambushing constituents with robo-conference calls instead.

It’s a fun idea all on its own, of course, making pate out of the lamest of lame ducks. But it’s actually more than that.

Some blogger wondered recently (can’t remember where, sorry) why Burner has become such a Netroots “darling.” It’s an interesting question and worth trying to answer, I think. I had the pleasure of meeting her at both Take Back America and at Yearly Kos — in fact, at the last event I had a delightful conversation with her and Matt Stoller, Rick Perlstein and Kathy G. in my room, which was joined at the end by Mike Stark! (How’s that for some name dropping?)

Anyway, it was delightful because Darcy Burner is not only an extremely impressive person — very smart, dedicated, charming. She’s a real listener. You can tell that she’s paying attention with all cylinders firing, taking in what people are saying, whether it’s a bunch of windy smartass bloggers or an average person who’s telling her how they feel about an issue. She’s engaged, all there.

She’s also, quite obviously, incredibly sincere about her politics and motivated to put her considerable energies into doing something positive and meaningful with her life, for the good of the country. She’s not naive (nobody who’s worked in the softwear business for years could be.) She is, however, earnest — which I know is unfashionable among the kewl kidz and the cynics. (It always is.) But the fact is that it’s a truly wonderful trait in a progressive politician. It makes you believe that things could really change. Without that, you’ve got 10 point plans and a lot of technocratic mumbo jumbo.

I believe this is why she’s a favorite of the Netroots. She’s smart, she’s progressive, she listens and she really believes she can make a difference. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but she is the kind of person I’d like to see leading this country. It’s that simple.

If you’re of the same mind and would like to contribute some coin to the effort, you can do so here.

.

Surging

by digby

I just saw Sam Brownback say it straight out: the military surge is going so well that now we need to give the “political surge” a chance to work.

Cokie says everyone is getting more realistic.

Update: Oddly, George Will is making sense.

.

Cover Band

by digby

You can tell it’s almost September. The Bush administration is going back to the only thing it’s ever been successful at — rolling out product and marketing it. The AP reports that the Pentagon is creating a new Propaganda War Room to bring us the good news:

According to a memo circulated Thursday and obtained by The Associated Press, Dorrance Smith, assistant defense secretary for public affairs, is looking for personnel for what he called the high-priority effort to distribute Defense Department information on Iraq. The move _ requested by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England _ comes as administration officials are gearing up for a rash of reports on progress in Iraq and recommendations from the military on troop levels going into next year.
[…]
The Pentagon dismissed suggestions that the communications desk will be a message machine or propaganda tool, and instead said it is being set up to gather and distribute information from eight time zones away in a more efficient and timely manner. “I would not characterize it as a war room,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Friday. “It’s far less sinister than that. It’s more like a library.”[…]
Defense officials familiar with the plan said it will provide information to other federal agencies, including the White House and State Department, so that officials can speak more consistently and accurately about the war. The plan would put a team of people in the Joint Chiefs of Staff top-secret operations center. Less than a year ago, Smith developed plans for teams of people to “develop messages” for the 24-hour news cycle and “correct the record” when news agencies put out what the Pentagon considered inaccurate information. At the time, he outlined an operation that resembled a political campaign _ such as that made famous by Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign war room _ calling for a “Rapid Response” section that quickly answers opponents’ assertions. It was set up to focus more resources on the Internet and blogs and book civilian and military guests on television and radio shows. While portions of the plan were put in place, much of it was shelved when Donald H. Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary and Robert Gates took over.

Let’s talk about Dorrance Smith for a moment. Here’s what Harper’s wrote about him last month:

Dorrance Smith, a former ABC News producer, has been close to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld since the Ford Administration. Which probably explains why the Bush Administration picked him to be assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. In November 2005, shortly after President Bush nominated him for the post, Smith wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal claiming American television networks—including Fox News—had an “ongoing relationship” with the pan-Arab news network Al-Jazeera. That prompted Senator Carl Levin, then the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to put a hold on Smith’s nomination. Smith, Levin said, believed that “Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Al Qaeda have a partner in Al-Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the U.S.” And such a person, Levin reasoned, should not be given a senior Pentagon press-relations job. But the Bush Administration had other plans, and Smith was named to his job in a recess appointment in February 2006. Recess appointments are the Bush Administration’s preferred method for installing hacks into key positions (see John Bolton), and Smith hasn’t disappointed: even though he heads an agency that is meant to be the main liaison between the Pentagon, the media, and the American public, he has, we’re told, yet to hold a single press briefing. […]
The stated mission of the Public Affairs office is to provide accurate information to the media and the public. But Smith’s aim seems to be to turn his office into a political spin operation that serves the White House. For example, he posted “Five Myths About the War on Terror” on a Defense Department website, a document greatly lacking in facts. Two of the “myths” he seeks to debunk: that “Secretary Rumsfeld ignored military advice to increase troop levels in Iraq,” and that “the administration has been distracted from waging an effective war in Afghanistan by Iraq.” Smith has also sought to turn the Early Bird—a daily collection of articles on defense and national security issues assembled by the Pentagon—into what one reporter called “an in-house propaganda rag.” Smith has used the Early Bird to circulate letters he has written to newspapers that criticize media outlets for allegedly misreporting the situation in Iraq. (Apparently some of these letters were so ridiculous that no newspaper would publish them.) Smith also created a rapid-response team of administration loyalists who craft emergency spin on news stories that don’t reflect well on the war effort.

He sounds like the perfect guy to help us all get the good news about the surge. In fact his operation takes me back to the good old days of 2002:

“We’re getting the Band together,” White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told the group on their first conference call last week.

The “Band” is made up of the people who brought you the war in Afghanistan—or at least the accompanying public-relations campaign. Their greatest hit: exposing the Taliban’s treatment of women.

Now, they’re back for a reunion tour on Iraq. The Band’s instrument, of course, is information.

They aim to use it against Saddam Hussein, respond to his disinformation and control the message within the administration so no one—not even Vice President Dick Cheney—freelances on Iraq.

That’s no easy task. The members talk every day by phone at 9:30 a.m.

The key players are a handful of rising stars in their early 40s and under:

For starters there’s Deputy Communications Director Jim Wilkinson, 32, a fast-talking Texan who has become an unlikely but keen student of Islam. He recently got back from a trip to Morocco where he continued his study of Arabic (which he can now read and write pretty well).

It was Wilkinson who spearheaded the successful Afghan women’s campaign last year. A Naval Reserve officer, Wilkinson got his start working with Bush ally Texas Rep. Dick Armey. He’s the go-to guy when the White House needs information against its enemies.

In the last few weeks, he and his underlings have weeded through hundreds of pages of news clippings, U.N. resolutions and State Department reports to compile an arsenal of documents against Saddam Hussein. They released the first round last week: “Decade of Defiance and Deception” (a broken-U.N.-resolutions hit parade).

Then there’s Tucker Eskew, 41, a savvy South Carolinian, who will soon be named the director of the new Office of Global Communications, which will be formally launched this fall. Neither a Texan nor a lifelong Bushie, he earned his stripes during the Florida election mess by becoming the campaign’s tropical smooth-talker.

[…]

The White House is sending administration bigwigs to hearings this week and next to help make Bush’s case against Saddam Hussein—not just to Congress, but to the American people. It’s the Band’s job to make sure that case gets heard.

There are two things the administration does very well: stealing from the taxpayers and giving the money to their rich contributors and rolling out new product with PR and propaganda. The problem is that over and over again their product is not just defective, it’s toxic and deadly. Caveat Emptor.

.

Saturday Night With TiVo

Divine Trash, Hidden Jewels, Part 4: So what’s on your DVR?

By Dennis Hartley

At the risk of instigating a public stoning, I thought I would take a bit of a departure this week and switch over to the (gulp!) small screen. So if you’re a TV snob, you might want to tune out now and spare us the eye-rolling and the predictable “Jesus, why don’t you people try reading a book?” admonishments in the comment section, mmmmkay?

For those still with me (both of you), I have compiled a list for your perusal (in no particular ranking order) of TV shows I have found to be compelling enough to earn the “priority” nod on the DVR (yes, there IS such a thing as good television, although it does take a bit of work to separate the wheat from the chaff). I’m sure some of your favorites are here; or perhaps I can turn you on to something you might have overlooked!

Entourage (HBO)- A rising young actor, Vincent Chase (Adrian Grenier) climbs onto Hollywood’s “A” list and drags his lifelong buddies from “the neighborhood” to the top with him. Jeremy Piven continues to steal the show as super-agent/super asshole Ari Gold. Art imitates life on several levels; Kevin Dillon (Matt’s brother) plays Vincent’s perennially overshadowed actor sibling, and the storyline is allegedly based on co-producer Mark Wahlberg’s real-life misadventures in Tinseltown. A surprisingly upbeat, good-natured show, despite all the Hollywood pettiness and backstabbing involved.

Mad Men (AMC)-I have a lot of hope for this one. Set on the cusp of the New Frontier (circa 1960) this series centers around Don Draper, a Madison Ave “ad man” who is tops in his field, but is going through an existential crisis (“This place has more failed artists and intellectuals than the Third Reich,” he observes about the ad agency that employs him). Series creator Matthew Weiner was a writer for “The Sopranos”, and I’m already noticing some signature themes (family loyalty, primal doubts and territorial pissings). It’s kind of a post-modern take on the “Dick van Dyke Show” (by way of Neil LaBute).

Weeds (Showtime)-Season 3 has arrived! Two bongs up for this brilliantly funny social satire about a single suburban mom making ends meet with a thriving pot business. Propelled by sharp writing and one of the best ensemble casts ever. “Bitch! I can eyeball an ounce from outer space!”

Saving Grace (TNT)-Holly Hunter is superb as Grace Hanadarko, a police detective in Oklahoma City. Grace is a complex character; a crack detective (of course) who overindulges a bit in the vice department, drinking and screwing (the wrong men) with wild abandon. Although I find the weekly murder mystery subplots fairly routine, this is far from your typical cop show, mostly thanks to an angel named Earl (played by a scenery chewing Leon Rippy, who some may recognize from HBO’s “Deadwood”). Earl has been sent to help Grace get back on “the right path” (her name contains the words “grace” and “dark”, get it?) Believe it or not, this all works. Will Grace ultimately go toward the Light, or cave in to her Dark side? ‘Spose you’ll have to tune in to find out!

Damages (FX)-Another screen actress taking the plunge into the Vast Wasteland these days is Glenn Close. Close seems to be having the time of her life playing Manhattan-based power attorney Patty Hewes, who specializes in multi-million dollar lawsuit cases. This first season appears to be following one storyline, involving a class-action lawsuit against an evil Ken Lay-type billionaire (Ted Danson). This series has the potential to get quite interesting, particularly when it focuses on Patty Hewes’ morally ambiguous approach to achieving her goals. There are hints in the first several episodes that Patty may share more character traits with Danson’s manipulative power broker than the viewer is prepared to be comfortable with. The show exudes a twilight noir vibe that I can go for in a big way. Keep your eye on this one.

Big Love (HBO)-I never thought I would get hooked on a show about a Utah fundamentalist Mormon family engaged in a plural marriage! Bill Paxton plays the perpetually exhausted Bill Henrickson, just your average home improvement store owner with a house, a house, and one more house in the ‘burbs. Oh, and three wives (Jeanne Tripplehorn, Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifir Goodwin). And seven kids. And they’ve got to be discreet (although by the end of Season 1, they have been “outed” at least half a dozen times). The predictable domestic squabbling gets a bit tiresome at times, but what keeps things moving (in Season 2) is a subplot involving Bill’s father-in-law (the great Harry Dean Stanton) a “prophet” and leader of a cultish desert compound, who is attempting to muscle in on his business. Good acting all around, and earns extra points for originality.

The Henry Rollins Show (IFC) – Great rants, insightful, candid interviews and live performances by the coolest bands on the planet. Janeane Garafalo is a welcome addition this season. Stay pissed-off, Henry…we wouldn’t love you any other way.

Real Time With Bill Maher (HBO)-Whether you find him funny or not as a standup is a moot point; the man mediates a mean panel. Essential viewing for the thinking person.

The Daily Show (Comedy Central)-Hah! You thought I forgot, didn’t you? Does it even need to be explained?! Jon Stewart continues to be the best antidote for MSM fatigue.

And…currently on hiatus but worth anticipating:

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (NBC)-Behind the scenes at a fictional SNL-style late-night sketch comedy show, from “West Wing” creator Aaron Sorkin. Drifts into soap opera territory at times, but well acted and smartly written. Great ensemble cast.

Extras (HBO/BBC)-Ricky Gervais is a bloody little genius! Somehow, this wonderfully droll satire about those ever-hopeful souls who toil at the lowest rung of the acting profession slipped under my radar (I don’t think HBO hyped it much) but after catching up on the first two seasons via DVD (at the urging of friends), I eagerly await season 3.

Boston Legal (ABC)-Denny Crane! ‘Nuff said.

Curb Your Enthusiasm (HBO)-A show that makes you cringe with empathic embarrassment while you laugh uncontrollably. I can’t speak for you, but as a practicing self-centered neurotic Jew, I have had more than my share of Larry David moments…

Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! (Showtime)-Ambush journalism meets Vaudeville. Hypocrites and charlatans scurry for cover when Penn and Teller turn their spotlight on them. Teller is the perfect foil, playing Harpo to Penn’s Tourette’s-afflicted Groucho.

Life on Mars (BBC America)-I was a pushover for this one. It mixes two of my favorite genres, sci-fi and gritty British police procedurals (think “The Time Tunnel” meets “Cracker”). John Simm plays present-day DCI Sam Tyler, who gets hit by a car while chasing a suspect and wakes up in the year 1973. He’s still a cop, but now finds himself demoted to a DI. Most of the dramatic tension comes from Sam’s frustration with the comparatively primitive technology available to homicide investigators a scant 30 years ago (no cell phones, no computer databases, no DNA sampling, etc. ). Most fascinatingly, we are presented with three possible realities: 1) Sam really has traveled back in time 2) He is in a coma in 2006 and imagining it all, or 3) He is from 1973 but off his nut. Great use of period music (lots of T.Rex and Bowie!).

Saxondale (BBC America)-Not for all tastes (especially considering its, erm, less than charming lead character) but I’m a huge fan of this wry Britcom’s star/co-writer, Steve Coogan (“24 Hour Party People”). Coogan has created a truly original character in Tommy Saxondale, an ex-roadie with “anger issues”, now working in pest control. Ruth Jones excels as Magz, his anarchist girlfriend. It may take you several episodes to get into the rhythm of the character; especially since most of the best lines are muttered by Saxondale under his breath (you really have to pay attention to catch all the subtleties). Hey, BBC America-where the hell is Season 2? (Anyone?)

.

Great Game

by digby

Jim Henley and Kevin Drum outline how the occupation will likely play out.

Henley:

Most civil wars eventually end, so the Beltway Consensus intends to ride the Iraqi one out. Assuming it concludes, whoever’s in charge can declare victory, as if the whole point of invading Iraq was to eventually “end” the civil war that would break out as a result of the invasion…Which is to say, if we end up with a basing agreement after an eventual armistice, the real purpose of the war will have been served.

Drum adds:

while it’s true that all civil wars end eventually, “eventually” can be a very long time. If we’re lucky, this one will end when the ethnic cleansing is finished and every region in the country and every neighborhood in Baghdad is fully segregated. That might only take a couple more years. If we’re unlucky, the war will continue until the Sunni minority is obliterated and one of the Shiite factions has gotten a firm upper hand. That might take more like five or ten years.

The latter is more likely, but in any case the final resolution hardly depends on the U.S. presence. The Iraqis are going to do whatever the Iraqis are going to do. As Jim says, the only thing we get out of staying — aside from the certainty of increased instability and at least a decent chance of a wider regional war — is the possibility of owning two or three gigantic bases once the fighting stops.

Why permanent bases? I think the great sage and oracle Ann Coulter said it best:

“Liberals are always talking about why we shouldn’t go to war for oil, but why not go to war for oil? We need oil.”

That’s pretty much what we did and deep down we all know it. The usual dirty hippy conspiracy theories. Sure, there were other reasons. All the grown-ups had at least a few. Some may not have acknowledged this one, even in their own minds. But this was the fundamental reason, beyond “suck on this,” beyond Osama, certainly beyond “spreadin’ Demahcracy.” We know for a fact that if Iraq had been Liberia or Rwanda or Darfur or even Pakistan we wouldn’t have interfered. There are Saddams and Taylors and Liberias all over the world.

The world is running out of oil and the US government wanted to insure that they had a permanent beachhead in the biggest oil rich region in the world. (And what a good idea it was to turn it into an anarchic free fire zone in the process.) But, as Henley and Drum both point out, it will probably end eventually.

I wonder what would have happened if they’d spent the trillion or two (by the time it’s all done) on alternative energy instead.?

.

“Bush Doesn’t Care About Black People”

by digby

I’ve got new post up over at The Big Con you might be interested in. It’s about Karl Rove and how Katrina may be his most lasting legacy — and greatest triumph.

.

Do The Wild Kabuki

by digby

Oh, how surprising:

The chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday denied a newspaper report that he will urge President George W. Bush to cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq next year.

“The story is wrong,” Marine Gen. Peter Pace said through a spokesman. “It is speculative. I have not made nor decided on any recommendations yet.”

The Los Angeles Times, citing military and administration officials, said on Friday that Pace was expected to contend that keeping significantly more than 100,000 troops in Iraq through next year would severely strain the military and compromise its ability to respond to other threats.

This happens a lot with Pace. He always comes around.

Meanwhile, Greenwald reports from the Kabuki Lounge:

The CNN article yesterday, citing an anonymous Bush source, claimed that “White House officials are not privately involved or blessing the lobbying campaign to undermine al-Maliki.” CNN quoted the official: “There’s just no connection whatsoever. There’s absolutely no involvement.”

But Zelikow, at least, now seems to have some official role in forming Bush policy on Iraq. Zelikow was originally scheduled to testify about the Future of Iraq at a July 18 hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, but on the day of the hearing, the Subcommittee’s Chairman, Vic Snyder, announced (via LEXIS):

We also had originally scheduled Dr. Philip Zelikow, who had worked with Secretary Rice I think from 1905 — I’m sorry, 2005 to 2007. I want to just touch on these details for a minute. A very smart guy, we were looking forward to him being here. He had finalized his written statement with the staff on late Monday afternoon. It was distributed to all our members on Tuesday morning and sometime in mid-morning, we received a call from his assistant that he would have to cancel.

I put in a call to him to try to get him to change his mind. It turned out he called back later that day and informed us that somewhere in that intervening time the administration had approached him about being a consultant with the administration and work on Iraq war policy. And he didn’t think it was appropriate for him to be testifying publicly.

At least according to what Zelikow told Chairman Snyder, “the administration had approached him about being a consultant with the administration and work on Iraq war policy.” Although it is unclear if he accepted, one can presume that he did, since he cited that formal consulting relationship with the Bush administration as the reason why it was now inappropriate for him to testify in public about Iraq. Is Zelikow formally working with his old administration colleagues to form Iraq policy while being paid by Ayad Allawi to restore him back to power?

It really is very strange how all of Official Washington, seemingly at the same time, collectively decided to turn on Prime Minister Maliki — who, after all, was elected democratically and was the leader in whom we were placing all of our hopes for progress in Iraq. Obviously, there is a very potent and well-funded effort to induce exactly that policy change at the highest levels of Republican power.

Coup is still a four letter word, isn’t it?

.

TNR On The Spit

by digby

Ezra’s feisty new “fem-blogger,” Kathy G., has some choice words for The New Republic:

As a journalistic institution, TNR plays a unique role in the development of policy and politics. Its circulation has always been low (and in recent years has declined drastically), but many of the people who read it are very powerful: media elites, D.C. lobbyists and activists, and policymakers in the White House and the Senate, and on Capitol Hill. If TNR supports a particular policy or idea, that carries serious weight, especially when what it supports is conservative. It enables the right to say, “Even the liberal New Republic endorses X,” and that has tremendous credibility and resonance. It doesn’t matter if 19 out of 20 articles in a given issue are liberal; the one wingnutty one out of the 20 will, by virtue of its setting, be all the more influential.

To explain it a little more fully: I remember an example I had in a game theory class, where a leader is deciding to go to war or not. The leader has two advisers, one known to be a hawk and the other known to be a dove. The basic insight was that the leader would tend to listen more seriously to a dove urging war or a hawk urging peace, because the advice each was giving would be against type, and thus had extra credibility. That’s why politicians like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are so deeply damaging to Democrats, because when they say anti-war Democrats are unpatriotic, uninformed people will think there’s something to it. Whereas when Bush and Cheney say such things it’s par for the course.

The same principle applies to the New Republic: when a venerable liberal institution like TNR strongly endorses a breathtaking range of illiberal positions, and starts smearing liberals who disagree with them as extremist and unpatriotic in the bargain, the damage it does to the liberal cause is profound.

I still read certain TNR writers and I link to articles I find interesting. But as with the Foreign Policy clerisy, I don’t think there’s any doubt that there’s an editorial disdain toward anyone who doesn’t live within the very narrow confines of acceptable Village opinion. They may live in the “liberal” part of town but they have the same style and habits of mind as their conservative neighbors. And their reflexive need to disassociate themselves from “those people” who live on the other side of the tracks has made them useful pawns for the right wing. Until now…

Today, TNR is under siege from the nasty wingnuts at The Weekly Standard and they don’t like it much. In fact, they are stunned. It seems that no matter how much they try to be precise, moderate and accommodating they just can’t buy themselves immunity from right wing smears and character assassination. (This comes as no surprise to most of us.) I feel for them, I really do.

But after being called some very undignified names and treated as a mortal threat to democracy by TNR, I can’t help but feel it would be a moral hazard to step in and defend them against the right wing this time. They evidently needed to be personally schooled on what happens if you get on the wrong side of Billy Kristol before they could understand the full scope of neocon thuggishness and recognize that the veneer of intellectual sophistication and urbane wit they value so highly actually covers a cutthroat malevolence born of Richard Nixon and Leo Strauss. We blogofascists are cuddly little kittens compared to those highbrow goons and our hearts really are in the right place.

It’s a mighty clarifying lesson to find out who your friends and enemies really are.

.