Month: September 2007

Rulz

by digby

Village rule number one:

You can’t employ a play on words that any Republican might be able to use as an excuse to run to the fainting couch and have a good old-fashioned cry. Democrats must be as bland and technocratic as humanly possible in their political rhetoric. If they can put their audience to sleep within the first five minutes, so much the better. But that doesn’t mean Republicans and the media can’t have loads of nasty “pun” at the expense of Democrats. For instance everybody loves a good joke conflating Senator Obama with Osama.

Chicago: Thanks for taking questions. What do you see at the event(s) that could really shake up either of the presidential primary races between now and January? I’m not talking about Osama blowing up the Sears Tower or 1,000 GIs being killed in Iraq next month but regularly scheduled events or debates, or the beginning of the millions in TV ads, things within the campaigns’ control.

Jonathan Weisman: How about Obama blowing up the Sears Tower! I never liked that building anyway. (Just kidding, folks.)

Haha! That’s a good one. He’s only a Democratic United States Senator. It’s not like he’s a General or anything. No biggie.

And the jokes are everywhere. Hilarious stuff. Here’s GOP’s most prized, and important, supporter, Rush:

The left has core values. They’re just not ours. But I mean, if Obama Osama — here’s the story. It’s in the Orlando Sentinel. “Obama Osama Leads Star Power or Lends Star Power to Nelson. A Democratic U.S. senator campaigns for his colleague in a town hall forum in Eatonville. About 500 people rose to their feet in a standing ‘O’ worthy of a rock star, as U.S. Sen. Barack Obama Osama hit the stage.”

More Rush:

Well, we’ve got another tape from — I get these guys confused — Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he’s going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate — that would be Barack “Uss-Obama.” And let’s go back to August 1st: “U-Bama” gave a speech on counterterrorism, and here’s a portion of what he said.

FOX Boss
Roger Ailes:

And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don’t know if it’s true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, ‘Why can’t we catch this guy?’

Funny, funny stuff. And with no political intent, which is what’s so hilarious.

Then there’s the middle name. OMG.

If you thought Obama’s last name was enough of a political pitfall, get this: Last night on Hardball, GOP strategist Ed Rogers ridiculed a potential Obama candidacy by using — possibly for the first time on cable news — Obama’s little-known and politically unfortunate middle name. “Count me down as somebody that underestimates Barack Hussein Obama,” Rogers said.

The media, the drive-bys, are in the midst of Obama-gasms. Because Obama — that would be Barack Hussein Obama — has announced the perfunctory and predictable exploratory committee to go out there and ask people what they think he ought to do. And on February 10th, he will announce his intentions — which we all know. Really gutsy of Obama to do this while Hillary’s out of the country. Hillary had a 2 p.m. press conference today, but she canceled it because Obama’s making such big news today. It’s kind of like the “Breck girl” was in New York yesterday ripping into Hillary while she was out of the country. Shows that they still fear her.

That was a triple serving of civil goodness, wasn’t it?

I don’t actually mind them playing around with names. It’s as old as the nation. But I’m very well aware that rule number on is that we can only do it with Democrats like Hitlery, the Breck Girl and Obama Hussein Osama. I wouldn’t want to cause the Village to have another meltdown over an improper play on words. They need some rest.

Thanks to Media Matters, Here’s some more of that good fun from the man on whose radio show the president and vice president frequently appear:

LIMBAUGH: Right. By the way, we had a caller call, couldn’t stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betrayus. New name for Senator Hagel. Here’s now one final bit — well, two more. Question from Blitzer: “Here’s the problem that you have. The administration, credibility in Congress with the American public, because of the mistakes, because of the previous statements, the ‘last throes,’ the comment you made a year and a half ago, the insurgency was in its last throes. How do you build up that credibility because so many of these Democrats and a lot of Republicans now are saying that they don’t believe you anymore.”

From the February 4 edition of ABC’s This Week:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re taking a lot of heat from conservatives over your position. Here was Rush Limbaugh this week.

LIMBAUGH : If Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths. War is not something you put on a timetable.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He calls you “Senator Betrayus.”

HAGEL: Well, listen, everybody has to be somewhere. Everyone has to make a living. Rush has to make a living. And he has a right to say whatever he wants.

Hagel, needless to say, voted to condemn Move-On.

But this one, is the piece de resistance of bold, aggressive Republican rhetorical in-your-face hypocrisy. It’s beautiful.

From the September 11 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The Democrats are accusing Petraeus of being a patsy. The Democrats are accusing him of lying. I’ve suggested to you that if you ever — ’cause, you know, I’m talented here, folks. I can read the stitches on the fastballs. I can see between the lines. I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body, and I am telling you that when they say Petraeus is lying, it means they are. When they say that Petraeus is a puppet, they are.

And I’ll tell you who’s pulling their strings: MoveOn.org and that — that contemptible, indecent ad that ran yesterday in The New York Times. The kook, fringe, left-wing blogosphere — that’s who they’re afraid of. They’re not afraid of U — Ubama — I’m sorry, Usama. They are not afraid of the enemy.

Democrats: don’t try this at home. This stunt was performed by a professional hypocrite and character assassin. It takes years of practice to develop the skills to speak out of both sides of your mouth while eating freedom fries, which is why the Village Rules expressly prohibit any outsider progressive group from participating.

H/T to Media Matters for listening to all these bastards and compiling their fetid rhetorical compost.

.

Compassionate Conservatism’s Finest Hour

by tristero

One important thing to remember about stuff like this is that it’s just the tip of the iceberg. There’s so much more, both large and small, that we don’t know about. And Bush has some 15 months left to inflict more of the same:

The federal government has told New York State health officials that chemotherapy, which had been covered for illegal immigrants under a government-financed program for emergency medical care, does not qualify for coverage. The decision sets the stage for a battle between the state and federal governments over how medical emergencies are defined.

The change comes amid a fierce national debate on providing medical care to immigrants, with New York State officials and critics saying this latest move is one more indication of the Bush administration’s efforts to exclude the uninsured from public health services.

…

Under a limited provision of Medicaid, the national health program for the poor, the federal government permits emergency coverage for illegal immigrants and other noncitizens. But the Bush administration has been more closely scrutinizing and increasingly denying state claims for federal payment for some emergency services, Medicaid experts said.

Last month, federal officials, concluding an audit that began in 2004 and was not challenged by the state until now, told New York State that they would no longer provide matching funds for chemotherapy under the emergency program. Yesterday, state officials sent a letter to the federal Medicaid agency protesting the change, saying that doctors, not the federal government, should determine when chemotherapy is needed.

Rules #1 – 200,000,000 For Effective Liberal Politics

by tristero

Following up on Digby’s recent post, I’d like to remind everyone how the system, like it or not, works. It’s quite simple.

If you’re mad at the Democrats who denounced MoveOn, do something about it. Give MoveOn money. If you plan to donate to individual political campaigns, give the money to those campaigns through MoveOn (or an equivalent group).

Money talks, people. And direct donations to Democrats won’t cut it, except to the best of the best. When a truly large portion of a Democratic candidate’s funding comes from MoveOn – more importantly, when a truly large portion of the Democratic Party’s war chest comes from MoveOn and similar groups… well, no guarantees. But I can guarantee that if liberals don’t seriously organize their funding of Democrats, we will repeat the awful spectacle of the last few weeks again and again. (Not to mention the kind of capitulations to the rightwing that, so far, has characterized the 21st century.)

Question: How much money we’re talking about here? Answer: heh, heh, heh. C’mon, you weren’t born yesterday!

For those of you who have been living under a rug, here’s a link to MoveOn. If you don’t like MoveOn, no biggie. Simply donate to a group you do like that endorses and funds political races. And if you donate directly to candidates, do so only to the absolute finest candidates and let the others come begging to MoveOn for endorsements and cash.

One final thing which you may not like to hear. Of course, you have to vote. But I’m sorry to say that if you can possibly afford it, you also have to pony up for decent congresscritters, governors, presidents, etc. No cash, no influence,

Does this sound like a shakedown? Well, yes. But remember, we’re the reality-based folks and like it or not, you’ll have to pay for good government. And if we don’t pay, there never will be even a hope of election reform that helps curb the shakedown. Ever.

Rescue

by digby

I know we’re not allowed to even look sideways at anything with a uniform, but I think this was just a teensy bit erhm … improper.

(Don’t hurt me, please! I take it back! It’s not my place to judge, I know that…)

I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free….

.

Boxed In?

by digby

BLITZER: On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, there’s growing frustration among Democrats finding themselves boxed in when it comes to the war in Iraq and unable to change U.S. policy despite their majority in the House and Senate.

Let’s go to our Congressional correspondent, Dana Bash.

She’s watching all of this for us — how frustrated, Dana, are the Democrats?

DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Very, Wolf.

The frustration among the Democrats really is palpable. In fact, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said that he tried so hard to find Republican votes on Iraq, he even called GOP Senator Larry Craig. And Democrats are also discouraged because their like-minded anti-war group knocked them right off message. [what message was that? — ed]

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

BASH (voice-over): On the Senate floor, the war debate turned from Iraq policy to raw politics.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MINORITY LEADER: General Petraeus or MoveOn.org — which one are we going to believe?

BASH: Republicans forced through a measure condemning this controversial ad — “General Betray Us” — from the anti-war group MoveOn.org. Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy and trying to change the subject.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: We’re going to be pretty busy in the United States Senate if we turn into the ad police.

BASH: But Democrats privately admit the ad hurt them and may have contributed to the quandary they still find themselves in. After nine months in power, Democrats still cannot find enough Republicans to change Iraq strategy.

SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: The counter-productiveness of MoveOn.org had the effect of freezing all of my colleagues.

Imagine that. One ad in the NY Times and these Republicans decided that they couldn’t vote to end the war. I’d say that’s quite a statement about their morals and principles.

As Yglesias points out here, the entire Village is infuriated at MoveOn, beside themselves at how this group of lazy, stupid, amateur interlopers ruined everything. You see, if MoveOn hadn’t run that ad at least a dozen Republicans would have been able to vote against the war and Johnny would be marching home again, right now! Except, of course, that’s nonsense.

The Eunuch caucus never planned to vote with the Democrats and the Democrats know it. Those Republicans who have the slightest tinge of integrity are all leaving politics. (And there aren’t that many.)

There is a much grander strategy at work, with MoveOn being the Michael Moore sideshow of the moment for both sides to kick around like a beach ball in the grandstands:

BASH: Republican Gordon Smith supports the Democrats’ troop withdrawal deadline, but he is lashing out at Democratic leaders for ending negotiations with Republicans looking for common ground on Iraq.

SMITH: I knew of a lot of senators whose said are you going to give me something that I can vote for this time?

And I was working to that end. But that effort — the plug was pulled on that by the Democratic Senate leadership.

BASH: But the Senate Democratic leader insists he could not convince Republicans to support Democrats’ withdrawal time line and says he won’t compromise just for compromise sake.

“Our principle is that we need to change the course the war in Iraq, not to have an amendment that we say will pass,” said Senator Harry Reid.

Here’s the dirt in simple language: The Democrats know that Ze Party will never let these vulnerable senators off the reservation. They will not vote for anything that will actually end the war, or even create the slightest glimpse of daylight between them and Bush. Rove’s minion, Ari Fleischer has been very clear about what is expected: they must stick with Bush or suffer the consequences. They are committed whether they like it or not. They may say they want a “compromise” but I would bet you a hundred bucks that there is no such deal that could ever get their votes. (Look at what happened with the vaunted elder statesman, John Warner, on the Webb Amendment — and he isn’t even running again.)

Reid and the leadership know this, too. And, frankly, they are more than happy to let the Republicans cling to their loathesome 29% president as they all go over the cliff together. Sadly, they think they are helping them by fanning the flames of this phony MoveOn puppet show so that the wavering wingnuts will definitely cling to the codpiece. It’s a very, very cynical strategy.

That’s why they’re talking about a possible 60 votes next year. They figure these Republicans are tying themselves so closely to Bush they will not have time to untangle the knots before the election.

But, let’s not forget in all this cynical strategery (aside from the inconvenient fact that real people are dying) the Democrats still need to convince the American people that they can be trusted with the reins of power. Pretending to be weak and powerless — or helping the Republicans smear their own allies — doesn’t exactly get them there. As Robert Borosage wrote today:

We’ve seen this before. This is a patented right-wing ploy. They grab on to a random event, inflate it into a national scandal, intimidate the media, and chuckle as Democrats fall for it. The Republican attack squad in 2004 turned a butchered joke by Sen. John Kerry into a measure of Democratic hatred of the military, and the entire Democratic establishment turned on Kerry. They’ve libeled Moveon for years because one of thousands of participants in a 30-second ad campaign contest submitted an entry comparing Bush to Hitler. Now, they get 22 Democrats in the Senate and the supposedly independent Republican moderates to line up and waste time passing a resolution condemning Moveon for its newspaper ad. They do this only to prove one thing – that Democrats are too spineless to stand up even for their allies. That they will cut and run at the first sign of fire.

Yes. And it’s one of the reasons why so many people viscerally loathe Democrats. They allow themselves to be mau-maued over and over and over again, and whether they do it for some purpose or just because they get out-maneuvered, it has helped create the image of cowardice that is far, far more dangerous for them than being affiliated with a an aggressive, in-your-face activist group. It plays right into the Republicans hands for the timorous Dems to scurry like scared little creatures every time a GOPer says boo. So they say “boo” a lot.

This has killed Democrats for years and, not incidentally, paved the way for this ridiculous war in the first place with the Bush administration’s non-stop assault on dissent from very beginning. It’s always something with these people:

In a press conference Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., defended fellow Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., who criticized the Bush defense budget and conduct of the war on terrorism. Asked whether he thought the success of the war had been overstated, Daschle replied:

“I don’t think the success has been overstated. But the continued success I think is still somewhat in doubt. Whether we continue to succeed depends on whether we get the right answers to the questions Senator Byrd was posing yesterday. … I will say that at this point, given the information we’ve been provided, I don’t think it would do anybody any good to second-guess what has been done to date. I think it has been successful. I’ve said that on many, many occasions. But I think the jury’s still out about future success, as I’ve said.”

He also suggested Thursday that it was necessary for the United States to find Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders for the war on terrorism to be considered a success.

Daschle’s comments are noteworthy–Democratic criticism of the conduct of the war has been extremely mild to date. But the points he made are well within the bounds of legitimate debate.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., however, fired back almost immediately by attacking Daschle’s right to criticize the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war. “How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field,” Lott stated. “He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united.” Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called Daschle’s remarks “thoughtless and ill-timed.” Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Davis, R-Va., head of the Republican House Campaign Committee, claimed Daschle’s “divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country.“

That fainting couch is threadbare and its springs are sprung by now. But they’re still hauling it out and the Democrats are still falling all over themselves apologizing for saying things that are perfectly right and perfectly obvious. It’s hard to believe, after all that’s happened, that they are still getting away with this crap.

I actually suspect the Dems have convinced themselves that they are being very clever by fanning the MoveOn flap and pushing the Republicans further over the cliff with Bush. But what’s really happened is that the larger narrative — the “Democrats are a bunch of lily-livered wussies” narrative — has been advanced once again.

I guess we’ll have to see if Bush’s massive unpopularity can trump the voters’ instinctive loathing of chickenshits in the next election. What an inspiring political moment this is.

And once again, the Democrats obscenely shat upon their most loyal, energetic, true believing activists, who work for very little (if anything) and devote their lives to progressive politics. Nice. (Did you notice all the Republicans dutifully burying their noses in the backsides of the NRA psychopaths today? Just a little illustration of how differently the two parties feel about their most ardent supporters.)

Charles Piece puts it best:

22 Democratic senators form[ed] a eunuch chorus — resolutely got pissed off at a newspaper ad. This last, while infinitely more trivial, will be infinitely more significant, for a number of reasons:

1) It manages to put the Democratic majority in the Senate on record as whacking around some of the party’s most dedicated activists and most enthusiastic donors.

2) It gives a win to a rodeo clown like John (Box Turtle) Cornyn.

3) It gives the elite political press another chapter in the story it’s been chewing on for the past 20 years — that the Democrats are nervous about their left-wing base, which will enable the cats ‘n kittens to ignore the fact that the Republican base, which has been driving the crazy train since the turn of the century, holds positions embraced in many cases by a whopping one-third of the population. (Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani were down in Florida this week, for pity’s sake, proudly pandering to the lunatic dead-enders in the Terri Schiavo case as though that wasn’t one of the biggest political fiascos of the past 20 years.) It prevents them from being forced to write about gutted civil liberties and exhausted soldiers, neither of which most of the elite political press give a rat’s ass about.

4) It was utterly unnecessary. First of all, it’s pointless to respond every time someone flings poo out of the conservative monkeyhouse. It’s what happens in a monkeyhouse. You duck and walk away to go watch the penguins. Secondly, it has been argued that the MoveOn ad was a “tactical” mistake. In what way? What tactical advantage did the Republicans gain from it? Every damn poll since General Petraeus set all the dogs and ponies to dancing shows that nothing he said moved the needle an inch in terms of support for the war. The country, you should pardon the expression, had MOVED ON. Certainly, Republican poo-flinging wasn’t going to change that. The country hates the war, hates this president, and isn’t particularly fond of his party. It hates the Democratic Congress because that Congress doesn’t hate the war, the president, and his party enough. The “controversy” existed only in the minds of useless political hucksters. Now, though, with the assistance of damned near half their caucus, the Democrats have managed to make a tactical blunder out of this affair a week later, cheesing off valuable friends, being laughed at by what is a despised minority party everywhere except Washington, D.C., and currying favor with a political elite that will never, EVER, give it any kind of credit for its abject self-abasement. It is an altogether remarkable feat.

What kind of strategy is that? I get forcing the Republicans to embrace Bush, but why in the world did they think they get any points for helping him destroy MoveOn — and from whom? If they’d have fought this back, or even abstained with a clever wink and a nod, they could have shown the nation (not to mention their own supporters) that they understood that the country and the Democrats are aligned on this war and that the Republicans are no longer in the drivers seat. Instead, it now looks like they’re supporting Bush and Petraeus.

(But then again, maybe they do… It surely seems true that they loathe the Democratic base as much as the Republicans do.)

Regardless of their motives, they just showed the entire country that the Republicans can still — after all that’s happened, after sliding in the polls to less than 30% approval — turn Democratic party leaders into quivering bowls of jelly by simply heading for the fainting couch for the 4,336th time.

All I can say is that this latest one has resulted in my rapidly losing interest in defending them against these same wingnuts. It’s a two way street, you know?

At the end of that segment I posted earlier, Jack Cafferty said what I think might be the perception of the average person to this ridiculous posturing and tired political theatre:

BLITZER:

Let’s go back to Jack.

He’s got The Cafferty File — Jack.

CAFFERTY: It really is pretty disgusting what goes on down there sometimes, isn’t it?

Update: Michael Kinsley has written a good piece today on the Vapor Pageant. As I wrote yesterday, everyone knows exactly what this is, Democrats, Republicans, media and the public. Nobody believes a word of it. And yet it goes on, like some sort of S&M spectacle for which the only purpose is to allow these politicians to act out their respective psychological needs to punish and be punished. It’s bizarre.

Update II: Meteor Blades asks the Dems a question.

I’m guessing the answer is “nothing.”

.

They Don’t Call It The State Of Israel For Nothing, Glenn

by tristero

In a recent post, the usually exemplary Glenn Greenwald lambastes Giuliani for advocating that Israel join NATO. Then he takes Charles Krauthammer to task by noting that 3 out of 4 dastardly deeds perpetrated by the Iranians are directed at Israel, not at the continental U.S. Greenwald’s point is that Giuliani (under the influence of NoPod) and Krauthammer (under the influence of God knows what) have confused Israeli national interests with American ones.

That, of course, is absurd. Glenn is under the bizarre misapprehension that Israel is a country. True, even today the Hebrew word for “governor” is mistranslated as “prime minister.” And “Likud” – the Hebrew word for “Republican”- is usually not translated at all. So it makes sense that most of the little people that don’t count – the Hebrew term is “voters” – think Israel has its own government. But a professional like Glenn? Inexcusable!

Sadly, Glenn isn’t the only pundit who makes this incredibly stupid error. In November 2002, to the embarassment of all, James Fallows published an article in The Atlantic entitled, “The Fifty-first State?” about the upcoming war and occupation of, get this, Iraq. No wonder no one listened to Fallows’ warnings. Oy, veh! The corrections and apologies The Atlantic had to issue!

So Glenn, let’s get this straight: Alaska is 49. Hawaii is 50. That means Israel is 51, Iraq is 52, and Iran makes 53.* Got that? Good.

—-
*”Ayatollah” is Persian for “Democrat.” Once they’re booted out of office, Iran surely qualifies for US statehood.

What’s that? Afghanistan? What about Afghanistan? Is Afghanistan a United State? Ehhh, forget Afghanistan. Everyone else has.

Thank You

by digby

So the President, behaving a little bit more than usual, like we’d all interrupted him while he was watching his favorite cartoons on the DVR, stepped before the press conference microphone and after side-stepping most of the substantive issues like the Israeli raid on Syria in condescending and infuriating fashion, produced a big-wow political finish that indicates, certainly, that if it wasn’t already — the annual Republican witch-hunting season is underway.

“I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. Military. “And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. “And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like Move-On-Dot-Org — or **more** afraid of irritating them, than they are of irritating the United States military.” “That was a sorry deal.”

First off, it’s “Democrat-ic” party, sir. You keep pretending you’re not a politician, so stop using words your party made up. Show a little respect. Secondly, you could say this seriously after the advertising/mugging of Senator Max Cleland? After the swift-boating of John Kerry? But most importantly… making that the last question? So that there was no chance at a follow-up? So nobody could point out — as Chris Matthews so incisively did, a week ago tonight — that you were the one who inappropriately interjected General Petraeus into the political dialogue of this nation in the first place! Deliberately, premeditatedly, and virtually without precedent, you shanghaied a military man as your personal spokesman — and now you’re complaining about the outcome, and then running away from the microphone? Eleven months ago the President’s own party — the Republican National Committee — introduced this very different kind of advertisement, just nineteen days before the mid-term elections. Bin Laden. And Zawahiri’s rumored quote of six years ago about having bought “suitcase bombs.” All set against a ticking clock, and finally a blinding explosion… and the dire announcement: “These are the stakes – vote, November 7th.” That one was ok, Mr. Bush? Terrorizing your own people in hopes of getting them to vote for your own party has never brought as much as a public comment from you? The Republican Hamstringing of Captain Max Cleeland and lying about Lieutenant John Kerry met with your approval? But a shot at General Petraeus — about whom you conveniently ignore it is you who reduced him from four-star hero to a political hack — that merits this pissy juvenile blast at the Democrats on national television? Your hypocrisy is so vast, sir, that if we could somehow use it to fill the ranks in Iraq you could realize your dream — and keep us fighting there until the year 3000. The line between the military and the civilian government is not to be crossed. When Douglas MacArthur attempted to make policy for the United States in Korea half a century ago, President Truman moved quickly to fire him, even though Truman knew it meant his own political suicide, and the deification of a General who history suggests had begun to lose his mind. When George McClellan tried to make policy for the Union in the Civil War, President Lincoln finally fired his chief General, even though he knew McClellan could galvanize political opposition – as he did… when McClellan ran as Lincoln’s presidential opponent in 1864 and nearly defeated our greatest president. Even when the conduit flowed the other way and Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear the Army because it wouldn’t defer the service of one of McCarthy’s staff aides, the entire civilian and Defense Department structures — after four years of fearful servitude — rose up against McCarthy and said “enough” and buried him. The list is not endless — but it is instructive. Air Force General LeMay — who broke with Kennedy over the Cuban Missile Crisis — and was retired. Army General Edwin Anderson Walker — who started passing out John Birch Society leaflets to his soldiers. Marine General Smedley Butler — who revealed to Congress the makings of a plot to remove FDR as President — and for merely being approached by the plotters, was phased out of the military hierarchy. These careers were ended because the line between the military and the civilian is… not… to… be… crossed! Mr. Bush, you had no right to order General Petraeus to become your front man. And he obviously should have refused that order and resigned rather than ruin his military career. The upshot is — and contrary it is, to the MoveOn advertisement — he betrayed himself more than he did us. But there has been in his actions a sort of reflexive courage, some twisted vision of duty at a time of crisis. That the man doesn’t understand that serving officers cannot double as serving political ops, is not so much his fault as it is your good, exploitable, fortune. But Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the General’s skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of ‘the planted last question’ at a news conference, to indicate once again that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party in terms of character assassination and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond. That, sir, is not only un-American — it is dictatorial. And in pimping General David Petraeus, sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it. You did it again today, sir, and you need to know how history will judge the line you just crossed. It is a line — thankfully only the first of a series — that makes the military political, and the political, military. It is a line which history shows is always the first one crossed when a democratic government in some other country has started down the long, slippery, suicidal slope towards a military junta. Get back behind that line, Mr. Bush, before some of your supporters mistake your dangerous transgression, for a call to further politicize our military. — Good night, and good luck.

The great Keith Olberman.

See the video at Crooks and Liars

.

Blah, Blah, Blah

by digby

Here’s a good piece by Tom Edsall at Huffington Post on the ineffectual questioning of A Man Called Petraeus last week.

Considering all the sturm and drang this week about what is appropriate to say in the presence of medals and uniforms, if you didn’t know better, you’d almost think these Democrats didn’t want to end the war at all. That can’t be right.

.

Shunning The Outsiders

by digby

Paul Krugman had some words of wisdom today on the The Man Called Petraeus:

To a remarkable extent, punditry has taken a pass on whether Gen. Petraeus’s picture of the situation in Iraq is accurate. Instead, it was all about the theatrics – about how impressive he looked, how well or poorly his Congressional inquisitors performed. And the judgment you got if you were watching most of the talking heads was that it was a big win for the administration – especially because the famous MoveOn ad was supposed to have created a scandal, and a problem for the Democrats. Even if all this had been true, it wouldn’t have mattered much: if the truth is that Iraq is a mess, the public would find out soon enough, and the backlash would be all the greater because of the sense that we had been deceived yet again. But here’s the thing: new polls by CBS and Gallup show that the Petraeus testimony had basically no effect on public opinion: Americans continue to hate the war, and want out. The whole story about how the hearing had changed everything was a pure figment of the inside-the-Beltway imagination. What I found striking about the whole thing was the contempt the pundit consensus showed for the public – it was, more or less, “Oh, people just can’t resist a man in uniform.” But it turns out that they can; it’s the punditocracy that can’t.

This is about maintaining the integrity of the Village; the public is largely irrelevant to these little beltway pearl clutching pageants. I remember when the Lewinsky scandal broke, the Villagers all pretended to be aghast at Clinton’s despicable, horrible act and were certain that the president’s “days were numbered” because the nation (people just like them, don’t you know) would rise up in revulsion. These jaded adulterers, perverts and hypocrites hyperventilated on our TV screens for months like Victorian dowagers whose corsets were cutting off the circulation to their brains, reaching for ever more florid language to decry the “deplorable, reprehensible, unforgivable” behavior of a man who did something that every one of them had either done or knew intimately people who had.

The country watched with amazement. And interest. Who wouldn’t? The endless tabloid tittilation was irresistible. And Clinton’s polls, confoundingly, went up. The day he was impeached, his approval rating soared. The Village closed its ears and continued the shunning.

Here’s Todd Gitlin, writing about the Village media dynamic:

Start with the Sunday morning barking heads, the high church that certifies each week what the political class is and ought to be talking about, issuing self-fulfilling prophecies for inside dopesters. Consider especially ABC’s “This Week,” where Cokie Roberts declared, on Jan. 25, 1998, with the Lewinsky story four days old, “There’s only one real question that’s being asked in Washington this week, and that is, can President Clinton survive?” Along the Potomac, among the knowing, it was thunderously clear what was real – and it was not the fate of women without childcare, or children without doctors. One function of the Sunday shows is to make certain notions thinkable. Between his Sunday punditry and nightly reports, no one bulldogs America’s political conversation more than ABC’s Sam Donaldson. Donaldson’s repute rests not on his reporting, not on his preparation, but on his leather lungs, his selective bullying and his bellow. He jeers the big cheese in charge, whoever it is, because ideology matters less than attitude. On “This Week,” the emphatic Donaldson makes George Will look thoughtful, the studious boy who does his homework as opposed to the loudmouth pumped up on attitude. Here was Donaldson on Jan. 25: “If he’s not telling the truth, I think his presidency is numbered in days. This isn’t going to drag out. We’re not going to be here three months from now talking about this.” Of course more than nine months later Donaldson, Roberts, Will & Co. were still talking about “this.” But Donaldson, Roberts, Will, Tim Russert and the rest matter not because of their acumen, let alone their accuracy, but because powerful people think that what they say matters – because official Washington and its eavesdroppers watch the Sunday shows in order to know what they had better take into account as they plot their own moves. Like prosecutors talking about “this case” as if they were observers from the far reaches of outer space, journalists like to talk as though “this story” had a life of its own, as if it landed and stayed on front pages and Sunday morning shows by itself. Already, on Jan. 25, Donaldson was declaring, “I’m amazed at the speed with which this story is going.” Of course it all depends what the meaning of “this story” is. On Jan. 21, the day the Monica story broke, it was Donaldson – not “this story” – who, at the White House press briefing, asked whether Clinton would cooperate with an impeachment inquiry.

I’m reminded of this because the whole of DC seems to be once again wringing their little lace hankies and calling for the fainting couch over the phony Move On controversy, pretending that Move On did something uniquely despicable and that the Republicans who wore purple heart band-aids at their political convention and slimed John Kerry as a traitor, are truly aggrieved that someone would use the word “betray” in the same breath as a General. Everyone knows it’s a puppet show. Everyone knows it’s a ploy. The country thinks it’s a waste of time. But the Villagers are determined to ensure that no outsiders influence the political process. To that end they all — the press, the Republicans and the Democrats alike — gather together to repel the invaders.

The fact is that the nation believed that the Petraeus “Report” was a set-up even before his testimony. And ever since then, the numbers are actually edging down for the president and the Republicans. But this is of no consequence to the Village. That the Republicans are obviously scrambling to hold on to their base and pulling out every stop to distract the public from their Iraq quagmire — and the public knows it — is irrelevant. It’s not about the country. It’s not about the war. It’s not even about politics. It’s about protecting the political establishment.

It’s true that the Right has a vast network of outside groups. But they are top down, stick with the program no matter what organizations. The president himself hosted a group of completely deranged wingnut bloggers just this week and they literally wept. If they go “off the reservation” it’s with the permission of the pooh-bahs. And if they are attacked, the entire right wing apparatus will be brought to bear to protect them, with the willing acquiescence of the Democrats, who have never, to my knowledge, brought any of the non-stop right wing character assassination tactics to the floor of the senate for condemnation. The right wing noise machine and the Democrats all work for the Village.

Perhaps the single most ironic thing about this latest flap is that Move-On’s original name was “Censure and Move-On” — the organization was formed to try to persuade the Senate to censure Bill Clinton for his behavior and avoid impeachment. Today, Move-on was censured by the Senate, with the help of 23 Democrats. It’s almost unbelievable. The Village will not tolerate interference.

(One would think that the Democratic Villagers, at least, would appreciate the money and the energy and the commitment and the media push-back that groups like Move-On and the blogs provide. Clearly they don’t. There’s plenty of money from pharmaceutical companies and telcom companies and defense contractors to go around. They don’t need money or help from outsiders. The Village does just fine, thank you, no matter which party is in charge.)

Outside the Village, citizens of the United States live in a parallel universe where the war is loathed, just like the president who led us into it, and where Republican phony sanctimony is seen for the cheap political theater it is, just as it was during the Lewinsky scandal, when Democrats tripped over Republicans to condemn the president. Then, as now, the denizens of the Village showed their loyalty to the Village.

But now, as then, when they look at the polling numbers they should realize that while Drudge may rule their world, the rest of the country is on another page entirely. The voters may not care about Move On (although Move-On’s three million plus members surely do) but they do care about the war.

Chris Dodd got it right:

By the way, say what you will about her, there is one presidential candidate who has handled this correctly from the beginning. Perhaps that’s because she knows exactly what the Village rodeo is all about. After all, she and her husband were also considered outsiders who came to town and “trashed the place.” As they were told in no uncertain terms “it’s not your place.“

It’s not Move-On’s either, apparently. Or mine. Or yours.

Update: For something a little bit more uplifting and inspirational, here’s Rick Perlstein’s take. It will give you reason to go on.

Update II: Move-on has a petition you can sign if you find this censorious, somewhat Mccarthyite, Village behavior to be unseemly in a democracy.

.

Dear Senator Clinton

by tristero

Dear Senator Clinton,

I understand that you have referred to Dick Cheney as “Darth Vader”. I regret to inform you that you are wrong. Even the least attentive aficionado of Star Wars knows that the man who became Darth Vader once had a soul and displayed normal human emotions.

Furthermore, Darth Vader is a fictional creation. Dick Cheney is all too real, as difficult as that might be to believe.

Your constituent,

tristero

P.S. Further proof that Cheney is not Vader comes from the fact that Cheney has no military experience. Finally, Annakin Skywalker never accidentally shot anyone in the face.