Month: March 2008

Inevitable

by digby

Doug Feith makes a “Clean Break” with the Bush administration. Sort of:

In the first insider account of Pentagon decision-making on Iraq, one of the key architects of the war blasts former secretary of state Colin Powell, the CIA, retired Gen. Tommy R. Franks and former Iraq occupation chief L. Paul Bremer for mishandling the run-up to the invasion and the subsequent occupation of the country.

Douglas J. Feith, in a massive score-settling work, portrays an intelligence community and a State Department that repeatedly undermined plans he developed as undersecretary of defense for policy and conspired to undercut President Bush’s policies.

Among the disclosures made by Feith in “War and Decision,” scheduled for release next month by HarperCollins, is Bush’s declaration, at a Dec. 18, 2002, National Security Council meeting, that “war is inevitable.” The statement came weeks before U.N. weapons inspectors reported their initial findings on Iraq and months before Bush delivered an ultimatum to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Feith, who says he took notes at the meeting, registered it as a “momentous comment.”

Oh boy. I sense another round of hissing and spitting among the ex-Bush advisors don’t you?

If that last is true, the Codpiece went out and lied repeatedly after he made that momentous statement. Why just a few days later, he said this:

Again, I hope this Iraq situation will be resolved peacefully. One of my New Year’s resolutions is to work to deal with these situations in a way so that they’re resolved peacefully. But thus far, it appears that, first look, that Saddam Hussein hasn’t heard the message.

And a few days after that there was this:

Q If we do have to go to war and —

THE PRESIDENT: With which country?

Q With Iraq. And if — and with our economy stagnating, what makes you confident that we can afford —

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, you know, I’m hopeful we won’t have to go war, and let’s leave it at that.

Q: excuse me Mr President? Your pants seem to be on fire.

Ok, I made that last question up. No journalist would have dreamed of noticing such a thing.

Not that this is really news. Bush privately said the previous spring “fuck Saddam, we’re takin’ im out,” so Feith isn’t exactly letting the cat out of the bag.[And yes, the Downing Street memo bears this out as well. — d] Still, it’s necessary for historical purposes to ensure that it’s well documented that President George W. Bush was a lying sack of shit who invaded a country on false pretenses for reasons that remain obscure to this day. Every instance makes it more difficult for them to airbrush the truth.

Grab some popcorn and read the whole article. Feith is taking on the State Department, the CIA, Paul Bremer and the generals, blaming everyone but himself, Bush and Cheney for everything that went wrong. And yes, it does sound as if it was written by the “stupidest fucking guy on the planet:” he’s still pushing the ridiculous line that everything would have worked out swimmingly if only they’d given Chalabi and his pals a piece of the action.

What’s most depressing is that the administration has continued to get away with this stuff for the last six years and they will continue to do it until January 19, 2009. Just last week they advanced the ridiculous notion that they have the right under the AUMF to enter into long term treaties with the government of Iraq without Senate approval. As Bush reportedly said privately back in 2000, “fuck the constitution, we’re taking it out.”

Update: And speaking of Chalabi, guess which Maverick Flyboy was one of his strongest backers (and vice versa) going all the way back to 1991?

.

Content Of Their Characters

by digby

CNN reports:

Come election time in November, voters in five states might have a decision to make as big as whom to elect president.

Ballot initiatives have been proposed in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma that would give voters the chance to decide whether they want to do away with affirmative action in government-funded projects and public schools.

Ward Connerly, who heads the American Civil Rights Coalition — a nonprofit organization working to end racial and gender preferences — and the main backer of the ballot initiatives, says the 37 word initiative would read: “The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.”

“It would forbid any state or local agency or special district from engaging in preferential treatment,” Connerly said.Video Watch what Connerly says about the initiative »

Connerly, who is of African-American and American Indian descent, said affirmative action causes resentment. He criticized cases in which a Caucasian student might be denied a college slot in favor of a black student with a lower grade-point average.

“It’s foolish not to think that the kid who is turned away is not going to … resent that,” Connerly said.

[…]

Shanta Driver, National Director of United for Equality and Affirmative Action Legal Defense Fund — an organization dedicated to integrating minority students in educational institutions — said the ballot initiative is a mistake.

“It places us in the position of denying … equal opportunity to blacks and Latinos,” she said. Driver and other affirmative action supporters believe this movement would erase the progress made since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Arizona, Colorado and Missouri. Hmmm. Why do you suppose they chose those states? I’m sure this has nothing to do with the fact they are big swing states with large minority populations aren’t you?

I wrote earlier about how the Republicans are going take advantage of the zeitgeist to position Maverick McCain as the real post-partisan. (The Democrats you see, are playing the same old tired identity politics of the past, while the rich, white, war hero Republican has risen above all that to reach across the aisle many times — often angering his own party — to put his country before petty partisan concerns.) By urging equality for all people instead of just the favored minorities, the conservatives are ones who are truly transformational. They don’t believe in divisive racist and sexist policies like affirmative action. As the great conservative hero Martin Luther King always said, they want Americans to be judged by the content of their characters. And nobody has more character than the straight talking, war hero, John McCain.

It would be wrong for anyone to say that they are trying to boost turnout among their racist, sexist, xenophobic base in major swing states. In fact it’s the opposite. By putting such issues on the ballot, they are giving people of good character a way to move past all these phony racial and partisan divisions and transform our politics. Yes they can.

h/t to Joe

.

Foster’s

by dday

It’s Australian for “the Republicans are in deep shit,” mate!

U.S. House – District 14 – Special General

Illinois – 564 of 568 Precincts Reporting – 99%

Name Party Votes Vote %
Foster, Bill Dem 50,947 52%
Oberweis, Jim GOP 46,125 48%

Put it this way: if I told you in the middle of 2006 that Democrats would control Tom DeLay AND Dennis Hastert’s seats in Congress within two years, would you believe me?

Now, Foster needs to be watched. He ran strongly on ending the war in Iraq and stopping retroactive immunity for the telecoms. He needs to be held to those campaign promises. I can’t guarantee that we won’t be putting him on Bush Dog lists before too long. But clearly, this is a big victory for a new Democratic coalition that can win in erstwhile red districts and red states, that can capitalize on this uniquely horrible President and the trashed Republican brand. The NRCC spent a MILLION dollars, one out of every three dollars they have in their account, to save this seat, and they came up short. Foster’s win is a road map for how to win in these districts; run strong against the war and George Bush’s lawbreaking, and offer a real contrast.

This is also a big victory for Barack Obama, who cut an ad that ran all week to help Foster. John McCain came in here to help Jim Oberweis and it didn’t matter. Obama’s reputation as a map changer is very enhanced by this. In a way it’s bigger than his win in Wyoming today.

Oberweis was unique in his dickishness, too, so just seeing him lose is a victory.

There are now DOZENS more seats in play than anybody thinks. This is going to throw the NRCC into total disarray. Tom Cole, their chairman, might have to resign. Money may dry up even more than it already has. This is awesome.

Comments fubared today. I don’t know why — d
.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Men with Puns

By Dennis Hartley

As both Groucho Marx and George Carlin have famously (and astutely) observed, the phrase “military intelligence” may very well be the ultimate oxymoron. Writer/director Dale Kutzera takes that concept one step further in a unique film that has been simmering on the festival circuit since 2006, but is currently making a round of limited runs around the country. Military Intelligence and You!cleverly mixes the political satire of Dr Strangelove and the skewering lunacy of Catch-22 with the film parodist sensibilities of Mel Brooks and the Zucker brothers to deliver a volley of not-so-subtle allusions to the current administration’s all-to-real comedy of errors at home and abroad since 9/11.

Using the technique of seamlessly incorporating film clips from vintage B&W movies and historical archive footage with newly shot narrative (a la Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid and Zelig), Kutzera frames his story as a faux-WW2 military training film, released circa 1944. The “film” is replete with the laughably stilted dialogue, over-the-top melodrama, uber-patriotism and jingoist stance that one expects in a government-sanctioned wartime propaganda production (or an episode of 24). It is all lorded over by a ubiquitous Narrator (Clive van Owen) who delivers in a style that falls somewhere between a vintage Ed Herlihy newsreel and the droll voice-over in Dr. Strangelove.

The story is divided between the intrigue taking place at an army intelligence HQ and the ordeals of a downed and captured bomber crew in a Nazi POW camp. Back at HQ, intelligence officer Major Nick Reed (Patrick Muldoon) is convinced of the existence of a Super Secret German Fighter Base that has been launching damaging sneak attacks on Allied bomb squadrons headed for Germany. Reconnaissance missions have failed to produce evidence of these (ahem) weapons of mass destruction, and Reed is having a tough time convincing his fellow Major, Mitch Dunning (Mackenzie Astin) and the boss, General Jake Tasker (John Rixley Moore) that this Nazi “ghost squadron” airfield even exists. The only one who has faith in him is his trusty aide/ex-squeeze Lieutenant Monica Tasty (Elizabeth Ann Bennett, alternately spoofing Lauren Bacall and Veronica Lake).

Meanwhile, back at the POW camp, our intrepid flyboys are teaching us the “Dos and Don’ts” of dealing with Gestapo interrogators, whilst the narrator duly notes whose example we should be following and whose we shouldn’t (like the guy who spills the beans after letting the commandant liquor him up in front of a cozy fire…that’s a no-no!).

The lion’s share of the actual WW2 era training film footage used by Kutzera is blended into the POW camp segment, and comes from a War Department film called Resisting Enemy Interrogation. The rest of the film is seasoned with well-selected scenes from vintage Hollywood WW2 action movies, which infuses Kutzera’s modestly-budgeted production with an impressive roster of “supporting” stars like William Holden, Alan Ladd, Elisha Cook, Jr. and Van Heflin. There is also a notable appearance by a young and particularly gung-ho fighter pilot by the name of Ronald Reagan, who really gives it to those evil empire builders-with a purposeful squint and a pair of hot blazing barrels.

Although it is basically a one-joke premise, I found it a very amusing one. Kutzera’s script may not hold a candle to the timeless quality of Terry Southern’s pointed barbs in Dr. Strangelove, but for right here and right now, it’s pretty much on target. For instance, the narrator refers to Pearl Harbor several times, but never mentions it by name. It is referred to as “the events of 12/7” or just simply “12/7”. At one point, General Tasker lowers the threat level from “orange…to tangerine.” Major Reed gives Lieutenant Tasty a pep talk, urging her to go shopping; otherwise “the evil doers win” – and so on. Not all of the laughs rely on the nudge-nudge wink-wink factor; every time the fictional German city of “Riboflavin” was mentioned, I fell out of my chair. Then again, I still find the running “blucher!” gag in Young Frankenstein hysterical. What the hell-I’m easy.

Some viewers might find all the anachronistic references to our current political situation a little too smug and overly obvious, but you know what? I think people need to be hit over the head with these kinds of allusions right now, even if it comes in the guise of a goofy little 78 minute film that will lose its topical relevance a year or two down the road. And for all of our sakes, let’s pray that it does, starting next Inauguration Day.

Comments fubared today. I don’t know why — d
.

.

Bold Failure to Be Conservative

by digby

I just saw the most absurd story I’ve seen in a while on CNN. They decided to dig into Obama’s record in Illinois and they found some critics. And I know that this will shock you, but the critics are — Republicans. Gosh, I wonder what they have to say!

Dan Lothian:The question is, what did Obama accomplish? I went to Chicago and found out that the answer to that question lies in who you talk to.

New and untested, Barack Obama started early, trying to carve out a reputation as an eager hard working Illinois State Senator. He was elected in 1996. Telling powerful Democrat Emil Jones, the man Obama considers his political godfather, to throw him into the fire.

Jones: He said, “feel free to give me any tough assignments. You know I like to work hard.”

That work, say his critics, resulted in one of the most liberal voting records in the senate during his eight years, pushing for abortion rights, to raising taxes. But what troubles former Republican colleague, Dan Cronin who says he respects Obama and his politics skills, is that considering the presidential hopeful’s campaign of bold change, his past, he says, doesn’t quite add up.

Cronin: There were no bold solutions, there were no creative approaches, there were no efforts to stand up to the establishment.

Gosh, what would that have looked like do you suppose? Bold efforts to slash taxes? Pushing bills to allow prayer in schools? After all, he’s such an unreconstructed liberal that he actually (gasp!) was for abortion rights.

See how this argument works? Obama is presented as a shrieking hippie freak who loves abortion (the emphasis on “for” in Lothian’s report is his not mine) and raising taxes. And that’s also a very weak position, because he refused to “challenge” the “establishment” — he’s not talking about the political establishment, which was Republican during most of Obama’s tenure. Clearly, Obama was standing up to them every time he cast one of those awful liberal votes. The problem was that he failed to properly challenge the Democratic establishment. Boldness and creativity, you see, are defined by how well they flout liberal ideals.

The report went on to discuss Obama’s “present” votes and explained that they are a weird Chicago anomoly. And it pointed out in passing that Obama was actually known to work across the aisles. But the upshot of the story was that Republicans were quite disappointed that Obama didn’t propose bold, innovative conservative legislation. I’m shocked.

Lothian wound up the reports saying:

So an interesting debate there in the state of Illinois. Of course, when you’re running for president, everything is under the microscope.

Yes. A microscope with a conservative filter.

Update: Ferchrist’s sake. This “critic” Cronin has apparently been all over TV with this nonsense and nobody has yet mentioned that he’s on John McCain’s Illinois team. Media Matters caught ABC’s Terry Moran broadcasting the same swill:

Moran featured commentary about Obama from two Republican state senators from Illinois, Dan Cronin and Kirk Dillard. Moran noted that Dillard, who spoke of his “respect” for Obama and of working together with Obama on legislation, is “a [Sen.] John McCain supporter.” But at no point did Moran note that Cronin is also a McCain supporter and a member of McCain’s “leadership team.” Moran aired clips of Cronin attacking Obama’s voting record, and saying of Obama’s accomplishments in the Illinois Senate: “You know, I hate to burst the bubble, but there’s been a lot of hype. And, you know, when he served down here, his career was not particularly distinguished. … There were no bold solutions. There were no creative proposals to take on the establishment. He’s a Cook County Democrat, and he went along with the program.” McCain’s campaign website lists both Cronin and Dillard as members of his “Illinois leadership team” and as “Illinois delegates.”

Comments fubared today. I don’t know why — d
.

As The Stomach Churns

by digby

Noting the absence of virtually anything but primary campaign coverage in the news, LA Citybeat columnist, Mick Farren writes:

[T]he saturation coverage has morphed into some surreal, verging-on-fantastic soap opera, maybe closer to Twin Peaks than As the World Turns, but a soap all the same.

The male lead is, of course, the poised, handsome Barack Obama, with his elegant mannerisms and even more elegant suits, but who, according to the portion of the script written by the attack dogs of the right, is a secret Muslim fifth-columnist, a one-man terror cell, who, if elected, will sell us out to Al Qaeda within hours of his inauguration. (And if his middle name and picture of him in turban aren’t sufficient proof, his refusal to wear an enamel pin of the flag in his lapel clearly brands him as un-American.)

Pitted against the devious Obama, of course, is the ruthless and power hungry Hillary Clinton, with her equally devious repertoire of cunningly faked emotions who will rail, pout, and posture as the moment or circumstance dictates. According to this twisted plot, Hillary is really motivated by a psychotic will to power after being globally humiliated by her husband Bill, who is not only a serial philanderer, but the Tony Soprano of the Democratic Party, with Ted Kennedy snapping at his heels like a jealous Paulie Walnuts – the twin hit-men of the left.

But what is a soap with sex? This of course was seemingly supplied by the otherwise bumbling former POW, John McCain, who had supposedly engaged in an allegedly torrid affair with a hot-blonde telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman. This appeared to have all the making of a perfect soap scandal, only marred by the fact that McCain at times bears a remarkable resemblance to a boiled potato, and Iseman looks like a younger and less severely groomed version of his wife. Then overnight, by a process that I have yet to fathom (the unfathomable often being a key element in soaps), it turned out to be all the fault of The New York Times…

The one area that doesn’t seem to figure in the daily drama is the White House. George Bush hardly rates a cameo in the 2008 political soap. The war drags on with the only end seemingly in Bush’s imagination and speeches, while the mounting stack of corruption charges, the torture debate, and the efforts to immunize the telecom giants against class action suits for domestic spying are hardly mentioned by anyone but Keith Olbermann.

The real question is, do I believe a word of these endless theatrics? The truth is maybe in there, but it’s become so bent out of shape that belief can only be suspended as we wait for the next day’s installment, and maybe the plot device of the evil twin.

That’s exactly how I see it at the moment, too, although I’d say the blogosphere’s Rashoman plotline is quite innovative. Depending on how you look at it, of course.

Comments fubared today. I don’t know why — d

Update: Mick Farren’s name corrected. So sorry for the error.

.

The Accidental 50-State Strategy

by dday

I’ve seen nothing intelligent in the traditional media about the potential outcome of today’s Wyoming Democratic caucuses (here is a good primer as to how they work), but this is a really cool story about Wyoming’s Democrats, and why this extended primary that will touch perhaps every state in the Union is a good thing for the party.

But this time, Democrats here say, it feels different. In contrast to all the dismally attended, demoralized Democratic presidential caucuses of past years, the outnumbered Democrats of Wyoming might actually have something to roar about.

Some Democrats here say they have never seen a political mood swing so overwhelming or so fast — from the status quo of irrelevance to full kiss-kiss campaign embrace, in nothing flat.

“I have never had a period of compressed political intensity like these last 48 hours,” Kathleen M. Karpan, a longtime Democratic activist and former Wyoming secretary of state, said Thursday. Ms. Karpan, who supports Mrs. Clinton, of New York, took a week off from her law practice to help with last minute details before Saturday.

Around the state, caucus locations are being moved from living rooms to meeting halls. Here in Laramie County, the most populous, Democrats reserved the Cheyenne Civic Center, which will seat up to 1,500 people for an event that in the past has drawn maybe 250.

“People are excited that it would actually matter,” said Margaret Whited, the party chairwoman in Park County in the state’s northwest corner. Ms. Whited said all the energy and attention swirling around the caucuses could help in the fight against her biggest enemy: apathy among Democrats who think their voices do not count.

This is particularly important considering that Democrat Gary Trauner almost won the at-large Congressional seat in Wyoming in 2006, and is running again in an open seat in 2008. Suddenly thousands of Democrats who’ve never been to a party meeting, who’ve never volunteered or phone banked or stuffed envelopes, are getting a taste of one aspect of civic participation.

I’m sure it was not Howard Dean’s goal to have a primary season drag on until June. But in a perverse way, it has become an extension of his 50-state strategy. I’ve now been completely turned around on this and think it will pay plenty of dividends in November, especially downticket, barring some kind of disaster in Denver. But as long as the conclusion is at least somewhat amicable, and I think it still can be, we’re going to be in good shape in this general election and for years to come. And the biggest proof of that is right here.

More people say they are Democrats than said so before voting started in this year’s presidential contests while the number of Republicans has remained flat, a survey showed Thursday.

The Associated Press-Ipsos poll had additional bad news for the GOP: The number of independents and moderates satisfied with President Bush and the country’s direction has dipped to record or near-record lows.

John McCain, who has wrapped up the Republican presidential nomination, appeals to many independents. But the high levels of unhappiness among centrist voters, who can tip national campaigns, will present him with a challenge for the November election…

Just 22 percent in the AP-Ipsos poll said the country is moving in the right direction, about even with the 21 percent record low last June. Only 11 percent of independents and 23 percent of moderates said things were going well — the lowest ever in the poll for independents, and near bottom for moderates.

Thirty percent overall said they approve of the job Bush is doing, tying his worst showing last month.

When you have excitement and activism and weeks upon weeks of commercials and rallies and speeches promoting progressive principles and values, there’s an impact. Even in Wyoming. Republicans now trail Democrats on practically every major issue, including immigration, taxes, reforming government, foreign policy, and morality. We have some rough waters to negotiate as the Clinton-Obama battle hits a fever pitch. But if they are traversed, this could be a really fun election year.

(As for a prediction, there are only 59,000 or so registered Democrats in the state, so this will be a small set of caucuses – if 30,000 come out that would be amazing. If you look at the other states in the region you’d have to say Obama is favored. There is a history of electing women in Wyoming, however, so you never know.)

As a final note, if you read one thing this weekend you owe it to yourself for it to be this excellent post by Pach at FDL, about the netroots and the Democratic primary.

…but if you’re just dying for something a little more fiercely partisan, here. It’s ridiculous to have Hillary Clinton continue to praise John McCain and the lifetime of experience he’ll being to the White House, reinforcing that only Republicans can steer the national security ship, and I – dday, NOT Digby – have no problem denouncing and rejecting that right-wing frame.

Update from digby: Comments not working right now so I’ll put this here.

I have not defended Hillary’s ad, nor do I have any problem denouncing it or any other right wing frames. I do not like it, never have. In fact, I have been denouncing the use of right wing frames by Democrats for years on this blog. You can all take it on faith that I reject, disavow and repudiate all uses such frames across the board, no matter who does it.

I’m no longer interested in writing about the day to day hysteria in this primary and have not been commenting about the use of right wing talking points and the back and forth between the candidates in general since January, preferring to let the food fight unfold without my superfluous input. (There are many bloggers who will happily accommodate you.) But I certainly do not defend or condone either of the candidates deploying right wing frames, which both of them have done to great effect for months now. Perhaps I will write about that someday when we all return to sanity.

.

Jack Bauer Saved Los Angeles

by digby

I’ve got a new post up over at CAF about how Bush is going to make the world safe for Jack Bauer this week-end. In case you haven’t heard, he’s going to veto the ban on CIA torture. (Hey, you never know when you’re going to need to waterboard somebody who refuses to tell Jack where the craft service table is.)

Comments fubared today. I don’t know why — d
.

Senator Hothead: Out of the Fire, Into the Brimstone

by dday

John W. McCain crept ever so slowly away from the loving embrace of Rapturist nutcase John Hagee today.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month “if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.”

McCain has come under fire since televangelist John Hagee endorsed him on Feb. 27, but until Friday his response had been tepid. The Arizona senator merely said he doesn’t agree with everyone who endorses him. He said Friday he had been hearing from Catholics who find Hagee’s comments offensive.

Hagee, leader of a San Antonio megachurch, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the great whore” and called it a “false cult system” and “the apostate church” — “apostate” means someone who has forsaken his religion.

On Friday, McCain took a stronger stance on Hagee’s views in an interview with The Associated Press.

“We’ve had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics,” McCain said […]

He was responding to one critic in particular, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, who raised the issue in a Thursday conference call with reporters.

“She made the attack. I am responding by saying that I am against discrimination and anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic, anything racial, and I have proved that on the campaign trail,” McCain said.

Pelosi did close the circle on this. Without her making it an issue, McCain had no reason to distance himself. But of course, this is just the beginning. I know Republicans wouldn’t be satisfied with their opponent picking and choosing what comments to repudiate. They would bring up every single statement and demand a pound of flesh after another.

The idea that anti-Catholicism is the only spot on Hagee’s record is just nuts. He believes that Jews are responsible for their own persecution, including the Holocaust, for turning away from God on MOUNT SINAI. Wow, way to hold a grudge, O Lord. This, of course, wasn’t enough for Abe Foxman to actually condemn Hagee, but mainstream Jewish groups have, and Hagee has pissed off multiple religious and ethnic groups in his day, so this isn’t going away.

Furthermore, on the same day that McCain moves away from Hagee, he heads right into the belly of the beast.

Sen. John McCain, in his post-victory debut before the conservative movement’s top donors and leaders, will address the Council for National Policy’s annual winter meeting here today.

His remarks at the event, which has always been closed to the public and will have only a partial accommodation of the press this year for the first time, could turn out to be his make-or-break pitch for support from some of the right’s most influential critics of his past positions and policies.

“This is the most distinguished collection of conservative leaders and donors, and he was anxious to appear as part of his ongoing effort to consolidate support for his candidacy within the conservative movement,” said Charlie Black, Mr. McCain’s campaign adviser.

Maybe Black was doing lobbying work on the Straight Talk Express instead of brushing up on the Council for National Policy. Because I’d use a lot of words to describe them, but “distinguished” is not one of them. Here’s a useful primer:

CNP was conceived in 1981 by at least five fathers, including the Rev. Tim LaHaye, an evangelical preacher who was then the head of the Moral Majority. (LaHaye is the co-author of the popular Left Behind series that predicts and subsequently depicts the Apocalypse). Nelson Baker Hunt, billionaire son of billionaire oilman H.L. Hunt (connected to both the John Birch Society and to Ronald Reagan’s political network), businessman and one-time murder suspect T. Cullen Davis, and wealthy John Bircher William Cies provided the seed money.

Top Republicans were quickly recruited to fill in the gaps; hard-right thinkers met up with sympathetic politicians. And suddenly, the right had a counterpart to liberal policy groups. Christian activist Paul Weyrich took responsibility for bringing together the best minds of conservatism, and his imprint on the group’s mission is unmistakable: It provided a forum for religiously engaged conservative Christians to influence the geography of American political power.

The current Executive Director of the CNP is Kerry Purple Heart band-aid guru Morton Blackwell, and here are some others:

Some well-known figures affiliated with the CNP include Rev. Jerry Falwell, anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly and the Rev. Pat Robertson. But its the lesser-known CNP mainstays that are more indicative of the organization’s politics. They include:

Richard Shoff, a former Ku Klux Klan leader in Indiana.
John McGoff, an ardent supporter of the former apartheid South African regime.
R.J. Rushdoony, the theological leader of America’s “Christian Reconstruction” movement, which advocates that Christian fundamentalists take “dominion” over America by abolishing democracy and instituting Old Testament Law. Rushdoony’s Reconstructionalists believe that “homosexuals . . . adulterers , blasphemers, astrologers and others will be executed,” along with disobedient children.
Reed Larson, head of anti-union National Right to Work Committee.
Don Wildmon, TV censorship activist and accused anti-Semite.
Lieutenant-Colonel Oliver North, Major General John K. Singlaub and other principals from the Iran-Contra Scandal.

And McCain thinks that distancing himself from Hagee and going to talk to THESE GUYS is going to fly?

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a lot more. CNP is basically where the furthest of far-right agenda leaders, the “let them eat cake” anti-government crowd and the Christian Dominionist crowd, meet to network and strategize. George W. Bush met with them in 1999. The transcript was never released. What did McSame say?

.

Testy Pilot

by digby

St John had a bit of a meltdown today on the campaign plane. He was very upset that NY Times reporter Elizabeth Bumiller brought up the fact that he had met with john Kerry in 2004 about being his VP. Apparently it touched a nerve.

But hey, who doesn’t want to snap at smarmy reporters like Elizabeth Bumiller, eh? No biggie. Except, that propensity of his to lose his temper is considered something of a problem among some people in ways that should concern all of us. From Salon, Via Susie Madrak:

It is not difficult in Washington to find high-level military officials who have had close encounters with John McCain’s temper, and who find it worrisome. Politicians sometimes scream for effect, but the concern is that McCain has, at times, come across as out of control. It is difficult to find current or former officers willing to describe those encounters in detail on the record. That’s because, by and large, those officers admire McCain. But that doesn’t mean they want his finger on the proverbial button, and they are supporting Clinton or Obama instead.

“I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor,” said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and is now campaigning for Clinton. “I think it is a little scary. I think this guy’s first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse.”

“I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military,” said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama. “It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?” Gration asked. “I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him.”

Remember this?

An outraged Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today called Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) insincere and partisan, suggesting the Illinois freshman as much as lied in private discussions the two had about ethics reform last week. (McCain’s letter is here and here; Obama’s letter of last week is here) McCain is perhaps the most admired Republican senator in the country and is likely an ’08 presidential candidate. Obama, of course, is the Democratic Party’s featured player, rivaling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) in nationwide popularity and fundraising prowess. It is rare for a Senator to rebuke another so publicly, and all the more exceptional that McCain does not cloak his language in layers of euphemism. “I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform were sincere,” McCain writes. Obama attended a meeting with McCain and senators committed to a bipartisan task force on ethics reform. McCain left the meeting convinced that Obama was open to working closely together, according to an aide. But the next day, Obama wrote McCain that he preferred his own party’s legislation to a task force and suggested McCain take another look at the Democratic caucus’s Honest Leadership Act, which does not have a Republican cosponsor. Wrote Obama: “I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work[.]” McCain, in his letter, takes exception to Obama’s suggestion that his task force, which Dem. Sens. Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson support, would impede reform. McCain: “When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. … I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.” Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, called McCain’s letter “confusing” and “headscratching.” He said Obama “remains committed” to reform and will work with “any Republican and Democrat” who is serious about the issue. His letter to McCain, said Gibbs, signaled his preference “to get legislation through committee, rather than wait for a task force.” In his letter, McCain says that his task force proposal would ensure that meaningless or cosmetic reforms aren’t rushed into law — and that the solution in the end would reflect the interests of both parties and their voters. His last line suggests that Obama will not soon regain McCain’s favor. Writes McCain, “I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.”

Yes, that man certainly has the right temperament to be the leader of the free world, don’t you think?

Update: Oh My. I guess we know why McCain went ballistic at this coming up again:

Jonathan Singer: There’s a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain’s people — John Weaver — had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don’t remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom… if there was any “there” there.

John Kerry: I don’t know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn’t surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active — let’s put it that way.

Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than…

Kerry: Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop… [JK aswers phone]

.