Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Cow Is Over The Fence Again

by digby

If you missed Bill Moyers’ Journal last night, I urge you to find the time to watch it or at least read the transcript:

With an eye on President Obama’s deliberations on whether to deploy more U.S. troops in addition to the 68,000 already in Afghanistan, Moyers presented a montage of recorded conversations and his personal memories of President Lyndon Johnson’s decisions to escalate the war in Vietnam. He said:

“Our country wonders this weekend what is on President Obama’s mind. He is apparently about to bring months of deliberation to a close and answer General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan. When he finally announces how many, why, and at what cost, he will most likely have defined his presidency, for the consequences will be far-reaching and unpredictable. As I read and listen and wait with all of you for answers, I have been thinking about the mind of another President – Lyndon B. Johnson. I was 30 years old, a White House assistant, working on politics and domestic policy. I watched and listened as LBJ made his fateful decisions about Vietnam… Barack Obama is not Lyndon Johnson, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and this is now, not then. The situation is different. But listen – and you will hear echoes and refrains that resonate today.”

Refrains like this:

US Senator John McCain predicted an allied win in Afghanistan in one year to 18 months if sufficient troops are sent, as the White House mulls sending tens of thousands of reinforcements.

But he said that timeline is threatened by US President Barack Obama’s delay in rolling out a new Afghanistan strategy.

“I am absolutely convinced and totally confident that with sufficient resources we can turn the situation around,” McCain told reporters at an international defense summit in easternmost Canada.

“I even am bold enough to predict that in a year to 18 months you will see success if the effort is sufficiently resourced and there is a commitment to get the job done before setting a date to leave the region,” he said.

They always say that, knowing that it’s so much more complicated, but also knowing they can make political points. From the Moyers broadcast:

ROBERT MCNAMARA: … If we’re going to stay in there, if we’re going to go strictly up the escalating chain, we’re going to have to educate the people, Mr. President. We haven’t done so yet. I’m not sure now is exactly the right time.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: No, and I think if you start doing it, they’re going to be hollering, “You’re a warmonger.”

ROBERT MCNAMARA: That’s right. I completely agree with you. So this is the-

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: I think that’s the horns that the Republicans would like to get us on. Now if we could do something in the way of social work, in the way of our hospitals, in the way of our province program […] and in the way of remaking that area out there, and giving them some hope and something to fight for, and put some of our own people into their units and do a little better job of fighting without material escalation for the next few months, that’s what we ought to do.

BILL MOYERS: The President’s hopes for a kind of ‘New Deal’ for South Vietnam are stymied by the corruption and incompetence of the government there, which is again on the verge of collapse, even as the enemy – the Vietcong – are consolidating more and more control in the countryside. The walls are closing in, and the President turns once again to his old mentor in the Senate, Dick Russell.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: I’m confronted with-I don’t believe the American people ever want me to run. If I lose it, I think that they’ll say I’ve lost, I’ve pulled in. At the same time, I don’t want to commit us to a war. And I’m in a hell of a shape. I can’t do-I just don’t know.

RICHARD RUSSELL: We’re just like the damn cow over a fence out there in Vietnam.

The whole thing is so reminiscent of what’s currently going on — the clear knowledge that it’s useless, the right wing using it as a political weapon, the wishful thinking about nation building, the sense of inevitability. And you can’t help but be struck by the fact that everyone knows the right always uses war as a weapon and that the liberal political establishment always believes it must cower from the threat.

Update: Bill Moyers is retiring. I don’t know what we’ll do without him.

.

Blanche

by digby

Blanche Lincoln has also generously decided to let the health care bill come to floor for debate today (which was more or less expected), but she seemed to promise that she will help the Republicans filibuster any bill that contains a public option:

“Let me be perfectly clear. I am opposed to a new government administered health care plan as a part of comprehensive health insurance reform, and I will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by Leader Reid as it is written…. I’ve already alerted the Leader and I’m promising my colleagues that I’m prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included.”

So, looks like triggers are back on the table and President Snowe has been called back from Elba:

After announcing her intent to support a health care debate this afternoon, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told reporters she thinks Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will soon have to choose between a triggered public option and no health care bill. She also says Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)–the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate one of its most fierce and vocal public option advocates–has been tasked as a point man on the issue.

“I believe it’s going to be very clear at some point very soon that there are not 60 votes for the current provision in the bill, and that the leader and the leadership are going to have to make a decision and I trust that they will figure out how to do that,” Landrieu told reporters.

“At some point very soon,” meant when Lincoln came to the floor, I’m guessing.

One step at a time …

.

The Christianist Manifesto: A Partial Fisking

by tristero

Led by an admitted felon,* a bunch of extreme, but influential, christianists have released a rambling statement which they’ve pompously called “Manhattan Declaration.” Get it? That’s “declaration” as in “Declaration of Independence” rather than “manifesto” as in “The Communist Manifesto.” I prefer the latter, though. It bugs ’em, that’s why.

A hat tip to Americans United for the heads up and for this response:

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “This declaration is certain to be deeply divisive. These religious leaders want to see their doctrines imposed by force of law, and that goes against everything America stands for.

“The United States is an incredibly diverse nation,” he continued, “and it would be a disaster if government started favoring one religious perspective over others.”

Well, in fact, the US has started favoring a religious perspective, via the faith-based initiative program, continued under Obama with the addition of a faith-based advisory council.** But let’s not get distracted; I’ll confront the F-BI on another day, as will, in more eloquent language than I can muster, Reverend Lynn. What Colson and his fellow creeps are up to is a more salient issue.

The “Manhattan Declaration” is an odiously grandiose screed. It preambles with a long, brain-glazing history lesson starting some 2000 years ago, the point of which is – well, it’s not too clear, but it seems to be that 2000 years of Christians and Christianity fully support the tedious obsessions of modern American christianists. The inconvenient truths of Christian history – pogroms; tortures; burnings; religious persecution; the undermining of the sincere faith of believers in order to foment war, greed, and other political/cultural atrocities; and the perpetuation of stupefying ignorance – are swept under the rug in zippy little subordinate clauses:

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages…

Yeah, we all make mistakes, it’s true. Like the Spanish Inquisition, Or imprisoning Galileo. And christianists credit the religion they mock – yes, these people make a mockery of a great tradition – with any liberal idea they think they can get away with:

It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade;

Took ’em a while.

And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement.

Indeed. And were excoriated for it by other Christians.

The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures

And those very same “crusades” were opposed from the pulpits of countless churches throughout the land, And oh, yes, the leaders of the civil rights movement, which included humanists, Jews, Christians, atheists, and others, were denounced as irreligious liberals.

Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person…

That’s why so many of the signers of this declaration spoke out so forcefully against the torturing regime of George W. Bush and his cohorts. They did, didn’t they?

…and to stand for the common good.

And that is as close as this Manifesto gets to acknowledging that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, liberals, humanists, gays, and others have anything close to a right not to believe what christianists believe. Or that many rights, period.

Let’s go on.

In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society

In other words, all humans are equal but heterosexuals are more equal.

and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

Which means…well, it’s not clear, but it seems like they’re comparing themselves, and their nonsensical crusades against things like decent science education, as well as their well-funded greed machines ministries to the poverty of Christ.

I could go on, but I have more important things to do than read more of Colson’s repellent garbage, like pare my toenails. I’d like to leave you with one more excerpt, however. I thought about giving you the spectacle of Colson, et al, deploring births out of wedlock, which they didn’t do, and didn’t do it ever so convincingly, when Sarah Palin was parading her pregnant-out-of-wedlock daughter around. But that’s too easy: you’ll just instantly agree with me and that’s no fun. Liberals, at least the liberals I like, enjoy a good argument. And I like you folks. Soooo…

Instead, consider the following:

The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

Of course this is bullshit, anyone sane will agree, and the distortions and poor associations between different pseud0-facts make for incoherence, if you try to make actual sense of it. So what is this about? Why is this weird passage in the Christianist Manifesto?

Focus carefully on the style. Get it? No? Ok, let’s spell it out. Check out what this passage contains:

The President and many in Congress…Industrial mass production…human…to be killed…assisted suicide…”voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons…Eugenic…lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”)…the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave.

In other words, Colson and his cronies are saying Obama is Hitler and Democrats are Nazis. They’re planning a Holocaust for Christians.

Disagree that that is the intent? Perhaps you think the gratuitous use of the German was just an accident, or mere intellectual posturing. Or that it’s just a coincidence that the phrase “The President and many in Congress” occurs so close to “Industrial mass production” as well as the word “human” and the phrase “to be killed.”

If you really think this is just some kind of random half-baked nonsense, just boiler-plate, then – and I mean this very sincerely – you don’t know the first thing about how language works in modern American political discourse. And so, you will be satisfied with a liberal rhetoric that counters this disgusting demagoguery with something as unfocused and ineffective as spring rain and mushrooms. And nasty creeps like Colson, Donohue, and their ilk will continue to have regular access to sitting presidents .

And no, I will not get over it.***** This ain’t no party. This ain’t no disco. This ain’t no…

—–

*h/t: The Smoking Gun

Charles Colson, chief counsel to Richard Nixon, served seven months in prison after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice as well as other Watergate related charges.

** Some observers I spoke to at AU’s annual meeting believe that the Advisory Council is not what it appears to be on its face. By appointing, they said, a broad spectrum of people who hate each others’ guts, Obama seems to be encouraging gridlock on faith-based initiatives rather than a smooth flow of funding. Perhaps: after all, Obama is a very astute politician, and there is more than one way to prevent the government from funding Colson-approved boondoggles. But AU leaders were emphatic in denouncing the very notion of the advisory council, insisting it represented an ominous expansion. I tend to agree.

***I jest. Or maybe not. After all, Colson is a convicted felon. And the others who signed this document think like him. And they’ve served to help him accomplish the writing and marketing of “Manhattan Declaration”.

****I counted eleven women out of 154 authors and/or signatories.

***** But, if cute mushrooms are inadequate, what would effective liberal rhetoric sound like? Well, here’s Rick Hertzberg, for example. More like this, please.

Blasphemy!

by digby

Yesterday, I made fund of the fact that little Luke Russert thought that Harry Reid was the new liberal standard bearer because he got a vote to the floor. But this might actually do it:

“In tomorrow’s Washington Post, David Broder, their distinguished senior columnist, certainly not a political conservative, expresses his reservation as a citizen about the steps that we could be about to take,” McConnell said. Reid couldn’t have been less impressed. “To focus on a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while is not where we should be.”

Update: Democrat Mary Landrieu just announced that she’s generously going to allow the historic Democratic health care reform bill to come to the floor. That’s very kind of her.

So it looks like we’re going to get a vote. The question now is what the bill is going to look like after all the amendments.

… it never ends …

.

The Trolls Under The Bridge

by digby

There’s been a lot of talk about Haley Barbour refusing to say whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. I saw the interview at the time and was actually struck by something else:

Matthews: … let me ask you this. Your party deserves credit because you pushed through welfare reform, a tough bill, because Newt Gingrich pushed it and the president had to sign it under duress in 1996, I think. He might have lost 4 or 5% in that fight with Bob Dole. I don’t think he would have lost but he would have lost a lot of ground. So you guys showed the upper hand, you got the job done, you forced a Democrat to eat it and he did.

Why didn’t you ever do that on health care? You’ve had power. You’ve had both houses under Bush, you’ve had both houses and the presidency. You had plenty of chances to get a really good health care bill using taxes or whatever to serve the country that’s not being served by healthcare. But yet you wait around, like a troll under the bridge, waiting for the Democrats to do it and then you come out and bite their leg. Who don’t you walk across that bridge, why don’t you have a healthcare bill when you’re in power?

Barbour: We trolls who are hiding under the bridge, candidly, a lot of Republicans, including me, believe it would be much better to let the states do some things like we’ve done in Mississippi where we’ve had serious tort reform and our medical liability reform has brought down insurance premiums by 60% in four years, we have reformed medicaid so that we are saving the taxpayers money. We think let the states go for a while, see what works see what doesn’t and then come together with a rational bill at the federal level is a better approach.

Mississippi rates 51 (out of 50 states plus DC) in health care ranking. It seems to me that with that record, he should rethink his argument.

If Mississippi improved to the level of the best-performing state in each of these categories, this is what its citizens would see:

The state is a disaster when it comes to health care on every front. But they have reduced their premiums and now nobody can expect restitution if a drunk doctor cuts off the wrong limb, so everything’s just ducky in Haley’s world. In fact the whole country should “experiment” with Mississippi’s great successes.

In case you were wondering, number one is Vermont, followed by Hawaii and Iowa. If Barbour and his buddies were willing to take the lead of the states that actually deliver pretty good health care his words wouldn’t ring so hollow. But all he cares about is destroying trial lawyers on behalf of his rich friends and throwing poor people off Medicaid. I don’t think that’s a serious solution to the problem so there’s no reason to listen to anything he or any other Republican says on this subject.

.

The Thrill (Up The Leg) Is Gone

by digby

..it turns out that Obama is a limp girly man after all.

Chris Matthews: He is leading with his chin on just about every issue out there — healthcare, terror trials, job losses, even the breast cancer report. He’s exposed and vulnerable. His poll numbers are dropping.

Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egghead? Why did he bow to that Japanese emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geitner to be his economic front man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan? And who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City, the media capital of the world … so they could tell their story?

Is Obama channeling Adlai Stevenson for heaven sake?

He and Ron Brownstein and Susan Page of USA today went on to discuss the fact that Obama is an egghead and an elitist who’s listening to Ivy Leagers who think they know everything instead of Real Americans who “went to state schools.” (I’m not kidding, that’s what they said.) I guess Matthews hasn’t heard that song for a while and as with his favorite Pat Boone album, he just has to get it out and play it now and again.

Not that I think Obama is doing a terrific job of speaking to the everyday concerns of Americans. But it’s not because he’s too smart and went to Harvard fergawdsakes. (As I wrote yesterday, one of the smartest populist reformers around is Elizabeth Warren, who also happens to be a Harvard professor.)

But if what you want is stupid, folksy, common touch know-nothingness, here’s a memorable little pile of dumb:

Matthews: I’ve been so impressed by Lincoln’s words this week — government of, by and for the people. It isn’t government of, by and for the people. This is being decided, the biggest issue of our time, this economic crisis, the worst, according to the wall Street Journal,since the 1930s, by people so much bigger headed than most voters, than most members of congress, certainly than me. This is being decided by people like Hank Paulson.

THANK GOD this president has this secretary of treasury and not the one other ones he had before, perhaps. But Richard, the people can’t vote on things like this.

Wolf: (nods sagely)

Matthews: We can’t understand it. I’m one of them. I don’t get it. What are all these derivatives and all this short selling and all this complicated financial … skigamadoo or whatever you call it. What is it?

Wolf: Even the candidates have problem getting through this alphabet soup. I mean, they’ve both mangled the players and the key terms of those involved here. Are they talking about firing the right person when he talks about Chris Cox? Is it Fannie Mac or Freddie Mae?

Matthews: I’m just wondering if it’s above our pay grade? I think Carly Fiorina may have been right. These guys can run for president but they can’t be Secretary of the Treasury.

Matthews: Even elected presidents can’t master this financial game. It’s too complicated. Shouldn’t they come out and tell us who their economic team’s gonna be? … The reason I ask is because we saw the president this week and Bush has all the native intelligence you can have. He doesn’t want to touch it because for a layman to start talking about the economy right now is very dangerous. Right Lynn?

Lynn Sweet: It’s tough. It’s interesting because who would have thought that his treasury secretary would emerge from this crisis…

Matthews:the third secretary, two are gone…

Sweet: Right. That he would emerge from this looking as the strong person in the administration, who’s pulling it together. And we’ll see if the congress gives him the power to run the economy.

Matthews: Is congress willing to make him King Henry as they put on the one of the magazine covers?

Wolf: the cover of Newsweek…

Matthews: Will they let him be King Henry?

I don’t think anyone’s going to mistake Matthews for an intellectual any time soon, so he’s safe from the Stevenson curse. No egghead is he, this man who was ready to name the Treasury Secretary King at the first sign of trouble.

.

Dance With Them That Brung You

by digby

Looks like Sarah Palin has disappointed some of her fans:

She’s making a big mistake. One of the most important things a country star does is cater to the fans. It’s expected that they will stay for long hours and sign memorabilia and get their picture taken:

Have you ever wondered why careers of country stars last a long, long time? The biggest reason, of course, is great songs. Another reason is that country stars know how to treat fans. Look at Kenny Chesney, one of the hottest out there, who is always ready with a smile at a meet-and-greet. George Jones and Willie Nelson are always ready to give an autograph or have a photo snapped. One year during Fan Fair, Garth Brooks signed autographs for 23 hours without a taking a pee break. Amazing! Alan Jackson, tall, country and shy, will always allow a photo and share an autograph. It’s just part of being country.

I’ve reported before when young artists refused to give fans autographs. Once again, I have to remind you youngsters that fans are the reason you are allowed to go onstage and sing. You owe your career to the fans. Sorry, but I’ve got to call names, and it makes me angry.

Maybe there were extenuating circumstances and legitimate reasons that some of these situations occurred, but artists — especially young artists — deserve to be told how the public views their off-stage behavior. They need to know what the word is on the street.

A case in point is the recent Indiana State Fair. It runs for 10 days in Indianapolis, and country stars perform there each and every day. It’s wonderful to get a report back that says, “Darryl Worley is the nicest guy you will ever meet.”

Then I hear Miranda Lambert refused to give autographs for security reasons. How crazy is that? Security? I have become a fan of this girl, and she has lots of fans, but will they stay around if she refuses to give autographs? I doubt it.

Yep. Indiana.

Palin may have felt she could walk away from her Alaskan constituents after less than two years, but she’s better not walk away from her fans. Being a big shot country celebrity is a very ritualistic pursuit and she had better learn the rules.

And unfortunately for her, country stars have to have a very, very strong work ethic. They work hard for their money and always put the fans first.

.

Talking Points For Turkey Day

by digby

Campaign For America’s Future does yeoman’s work on many important issues, most recently their campaign to bring back America’s manufacturing base. They are committed progressives who put their time and effort into making the country better for average people every day.

But for all the important things they do, this may be the most immediately useful and practical for you and me:

Dear Heather, For millions of Americans, Thanksgiving is home, food, and family. And for many of us, the inevitable polite conversation with the uncle who has squandered too many hours listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. How are you to survive an evening with your Uncle Mortimer? You know, the uncle who looks vaguely like Dick Cheney. He worships Ronald Reagan, considers “French” an insult, and wants to know where Obama was really born. Neither he nor his wife, Aunt Minerva, ever tips more than ten percent. Uncle Mort knows you’re a “liberal,” and he eagerly sits next to you at the Thanksgiving table, armed and ready with the usual conservative tripe. Not surprisingly, he starts with what’s hot: *** Thanksgiving Day: Gearing up for the Chat with Uncle Mort Mort: You hear about Sarah Palin’s new book? Heather: Uhhh… Mort: She’s on the march! Giving Republicans some backbone. Given the mess Obama has made of things, Americans are going to sweep Democrats out in the fall. Heather: We’ll see. Didn’t work out for Republicans very well in upstate New York. Mort: You watch. A Palin-Beck ticket will cast out Obama and his socialist crowd. The turkey. Heather: Please, Obama’s no turkey, he… Mort: No, no. Pass the turkey. The problem with Barack Hussein Obama is that he’s spending us into bankruptcy. And it hasn’t worked! Heather: How long did it take you to get that shop of yours to turn a profit? Two, three years. So Obama inherits the worst economy since the Great Depression, two wars, a broken health care system, an economic hole that took years to dig – and you want miracles in 10 months? In fact, he staved off the crash and the economy is showing some signs of life. More needs to be done. If it weren’t for the Recovery Act, layoffs at your nieces’ schools would be twice as bad. In fact, what we need is more federal help – for states, for jobs rebuilding schools and roads. We need more jobs programs, not less. The gravy… Mort: More spending isn’t gravy, America can’t afford it. Heather: No, no, pass the gravy please. Actually, we need more federal spending now. Unemployment could remain over 10 percent through all of next year unless Congress creates jobs. We need to put young people to work, aid states and localities to prevent layoffs of police and teachers, and expand investments in new energy and infrastructure to boost our economy. We can afford it. Interest rates aren’t soaring. And our debt and deficits will get worse if we don’t get the economy going. Mort: Ha! Your party is already going to create a one-trillion dollar deficit with its plan for a government takeover of all health care. Heather: It’s funny you say that. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care reform legislation will lower the federal deficit by more than $100 billion over the next ten years. And it’s not just about cost. Aunt Mary is terrified about losing her job because she won’t get insured with her current ailments. Well, under the reform, insurance companies no longer can deny people insurance for pre-existing conditions, or cut them off of insurance when they get sick. We’ve got a stake in this right here around this table. Mort: Baloney. Heather: I don’t think that’s on tonight’s menu. Mort: You know what I mean. Like “global warming,” or does Al Gore call it “climate change” now? Nothing but an excuse for a giant Pelosi energy tax. Heather: Come on, you can’t believe this stuff. You don’t want America to remain dependent on foreign oil, running up foreign debts to buy oil from countries that help finance the terrorists. You laugh about ice caps melting – but I can tell you farmers care, and now insurance companies are starting to charge higher rates because of the cataclysms to come. We both want America to succeed. Well, the green industrial revolution will be the engine of growth over the next decades. Obama’s saying let’s invest in new energy, new technology, new efficiency – both to get us off of our addiction to foreign oil and to help lead this new revolution. That’s the way America built its prosperity – and its middle class. Mort: Yea, but private companies provide jobs, not government. We don’t capture new markets with government spending. Heather: Yes, private companies will profit and expand. But government investment has always been key to our industries. Think airlines out of World War II. The Internet, which started as a Pentagon program. Computers, and now biotechnology. If we want to compete in the new energy field, we need public and private leadership to drive this forward. If we don’t, our grandchildren will inherit a frightening world. And the countries that work to capture these industries – the Chinese, the Germans – will eat our lunch in the new economy. Mort: I’ll think about lunch later. Look, what we need now is leadership to get us out of this hole. Obama is taking us into a free-fall. Heather: Leadership? Please. Where is the leadership on the Right? Limbaugh said on Day One he wanted Obama to fail. This while the country was in the midst of an economic crisis and two wars. Conservatives decided from the beginning that they would bet on his failure, and obstruct everything he tried to do – spurning his offers to negotiate. They chose to be the Party of No. Mort: We conservatives have a plan. Cut spending, cut taxes. Let’s get back to small government, free markets. A strong military. Dithering over Afghanistan isn’t what made America strong. Heather: I understand, we’ll have to agree to disagree. But remember, we tried that way for eight years, and let’s face it, the result was calamity. The longest and deepest recession and the worst financial crisis since the 1930’s. One of the worst foreign policy mistakes in American history – the preemptive war in Iraq. An unprecedented rejection of fundamental human rights, a culture of sleaze, and Watergate-style abuses of power. Gilded Age economic inequality and a blind rejection of science. And in the aftermath of one of our nation’s worst natural disasters, Hurricane Katrina, there was sheer incompetence and indifference to human suffering. The free-fall happened, and now we give thanks that the worst is over. Next fall, Americans will have to decide if they want to go back that way. That’s a debate I’ll look forward to having. Mort: Me too. We can agree to disagree. Pass me more of that turkey. I do agree it’s particularly good this year. Heather: Thanks, I knew you’d like it. It’s local and organic! *** To all of you, whether your dinner companions shine red or blue, we at the Campaign for America’s Future wish you a happy Thanksgiving. Sincerely,

Robert L. Borosage, Co-director Campaign for America’s Future

Send it along to all of your liberal friends. You know they’re going to need it.

Seriously, CAF does a number of really useful things that sometimes fly below the radar but really make a difference. This, for instance.

.

.

Auntie Andrea And Little Luke

by digby

More sage insights from the spawn of Russert:

Andrea Mitchell: Luke, you’ve been watching all of the vote counting up there. Harry Reid is bring a vote to the floor, most people think he’s a pretty good vote counter. With Ben Nelson indicating that he’ll at least let it get to the floor, they’re going to get this up for debate.

Little Luke:That’s what all signs are point to right now. But the interesting thing we can take away from this is a point that NBC producer Ken Strickland made that I think is great. It’s that Harry Reid, no matter what happens, he is showing to the liberal base that he has done everything in his power to get a bill with a public option to the floor at least up for debate.

This satisfies the liberals, this satisfies the MoveOn.org crowd, and really, I think it will show him to be the standard bearer of the liberal cause, Andrea.

Andrea Mitchell: Luke Russert, you’re in the right place with the best story in town. Thanks so much.

Young Luke is quite the analyst. You can see why he was vaulted to the top of the American news business over the heads of others who have far more training, brains and ability. It’s in the blood.

Just in case anyone missed it, Little Luke thinks that actually getting a public option in the bill isn’t important to liberals— the real victory is that the public option got to the floor. Apparently, Villagers think this whole thing was simply a bid for attention and now that the savvy Reid has delivered that, it doesn’t matter what the bill has in it, we just love him to death. After all, liberals would certainly would never be so bold as to forget our place and think we might actually win something. How silly.

To the wise and worldly Little Luke, liberals are children to be appeased with gestures and shiny objects. I wonder where he learned that?

.

Circus Circus

by digby

Republican strategis Cheri Jacobs said on MSNBC that the KSM trial will be a “referendum on torture.” If only. Evidently, she was riffing on her piece this morning in The Hill in which she compared KSM to OJ Simpson and accused the Obama administration of having the trials in NYC in order to get a liberal jury to acquit Khalid Sheik Mohammed because they hate Bush and are trying to distract from their failed presidency:

Obama will retread his “blame Bush” message to shift attention from his own failures. We will be implored to feel sympathy for al Qaeda after dramatic testimony of terrorists undergoing enhanced interrogation techniques. What we won’t hear are the far more horrific details of the deaths of thousands of Americans killed on Sept. 11, 2001. And, sadly, an American defense attorney will object to descriptions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed putting his sword to the throat of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl, slicing open his neck and beheading him, leaving his pregnant wife widowed and his unborn son fatherless. An American judge may be compelled to sustain the objection.
War crimes are uniquely brutal. They require a unique form of justice. Obama and Holder have confidence in war commissions for some terrorists, but not for others. Why? Is Obama preparing to exploit the deaths of 3,000 Americans killed by an act of war in order to score politically with yet more “anti-Bush” campaign camouflage? For a juror, will a guilty vote on an al Qaeda terrorist who was waterboarded seem like support for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney — and a vote against Obama?
We are at war. Holder acknowledged that fact at Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow enemy combatants are war criminals, yet Obama and Holder have decided these terrorists are more like O.J. than Osama. Remember what happened to justice by a jury of peers with O.J. Simpson.

I don’t think Sarah Palin could have made a worse argument. But nevermind — in the 24 -addled minds of wingnuts, their violent bloody fantasies are all fact and should be recognized in any court of law as a form of “truth” beyond a reasonable doubt. Pornographic violence shall set you free. OJ and Osama, a tainted jury of Obama worshippers. All we need is Oprah and the wingnuts would pass out from the biggest “O” of their lifetime.

I’m beginning to wonder if this was a good idea too but obviously not for those reasons. The problem is that everyone who’s defending these trials is saying that there is no possible way that KSM and the others won’t be put to death at the end, which basically translates into the idea that these are going to be kangaroo courts with a pre-determined outcome. That doesn’t exactly promote the basic tenet of out justice system — innocent until proven guilty. (Chris Matthews went crazy after Jerry Nadler used the words “alleged” to describe the prisoners.)

I get that Holder says they will receive the maximum punishment — he’s the prosecutor. That’s what they say. But rather than saying something like “we have faith in the rule of law” or that “justice will prevail,” everyone else is indicating that the trial is just a silly formality as well. A little bit of sober respect for the process would go a long way right now. Otherwise, you really can’t blame even decent people of principle (as opposed to twisted political opportunists) for wondering if the “show” actually is worth doing.

.