Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Confronting The Rogue President

by tristero

If you think Republicans took the day off in 2000, 20002, and 2004, think again. Get up off your asses. Here we go:

What is the most important issue facing the country that the Democrats must tackle? The rogue presidency of George W. Bush.

Anyone who thinks this will be easy or pleasant needs to get to a certified physician, fast. Nevertheless, the path to staunching the blood in Iraq and America’s shameful complicity in it, the path to preventing possible nuclear war with Iran, the path to reversing the evisceration of the Constitution — all these and so many more converge at the flat feet of the Worst President Ever. And it will not be easy to rein him in.

I think it’s a pretty safe bet, even for William Bennett, that Bush will try to precipitate a constitutional crisis over the limits of presidential power (from his standpoint, none) in the next two years. Having lived through Watergate, and remembering how terrifying (even if eventually, exhilirating) it was, I am personally dreading it. Imagine how the Dems in Congress feel.

So let us make this clear to them:

If George Bush wants to continue to wreck America, then there is no way anyone in Congress with a modicum of self-respect and love of country should let him get away with it.

That’s easy to say, but what if it means a dangerous constitutional crisis?

Don’t answer right away, folks. Stop. Think.

The standard cliche American response to these kinds of challenges is an instantaneous, adrenaline-fueled shout of, “Bring it on!” The intense desire to engage the enemy, mano a mano, to stop all the pussy-footing, and let’s get down to it! We can win this thing! Plans? Plans??! I don’t need no stinkin’ plans! I’m right, I’ll win and I’ll just let the weak plan what happens then.

And we know how well that works. So step 1 in the post 11/07/06 world is for Dems and liberals not to act like drooling violent morons – because we’re not, and anyway, it never works outside a Stallone movie – and think this through. To paraphrase Susan Sontag, we know we’re strong. We are going to have to be smart.

In order to confront an out of control, delusional, and ruthless president, the Democrats are going to have to be in control, levelheaded, and prepared to do whatever it takes.

What does “whatever it takes” mean? Well, has everyone forgotten what happened during Schiavo?

Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted – but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge’s order, The Miami Herald has learned.

Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.

For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called “a showdown.”

In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.

…

…agencies answering directly to Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in Florida law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge’s order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge’s order whenever an agency appeals it.

…

Participants in the high-stakes test of wills, who spoke with The Herald on the condition of anonymity, said they believed the standoff could ultimately have led to a constitutional crisis and a confrontation between dueling lawmen.

“There were two sets of law enforcement officers facing off, waiting for the other to blink,” said one official with knowledge of Thursday morning’s activities.

In jest, one official said local police discussed “whether we had enough officers to hold off the National Guard.”

Some jest. Anyway, that’s what “whatever it takes” means. The risk of an armed confrontation between different parts of the federal government.

Now, don’t just say, “Fine with me, he wants it, it’s his fault, let’s stop talking about it and go for it!” Think about what that means. And the consequences of what could have happened had the (Jeb) Bush guys not backed down during Schiavo.

Most importantly, forget about thinking you have the courage to risk that kind of confrontation. You don’t. I don’t. No one does. Even if it shows beyond a doubt how far the Bush administration is prepared to go, the bizarre Schiavo confrontation was an incredibly stupid mistake. And we are all goddammed lucky it didn’t get worse.

No. Think about how we can stop Bush, who is at least as stupid and impulsive as his brother, from provoking another armed confrontation, this time at the national level. And still get him to behave like a president and not Rufus T. Firefly.

It’s not easy, but it has to be done. it is quite possible to confront and stop Bush while also not provoking a repeat of Schiavo.

Bush will start testing the new Congress as soon as he can. He will claim the power to do something beyond the normal range of the Executive, and it will be nothing anyone should make a constitutional crisis over. Congress will let him get away with it. Why go to the mat over something relatively trivial – like phone records, say, of calls between Jeff Gannon and the White House to see where Gannon received the inside info about the Plame case?

But they shouldn’t tolerate any attempt to exceed the powers of the presidency, not matter how seemingly unimportant. Because Bush will, as he has repeatedly done, raise the stakes until he is able to grab the power he really wants and is met only with a demoralized and cowed opposition.

Reality will be far messier than any what ifs. But this is what I think the position should be for the new Congress. Bush can, and will execute the duties of the office of the president but Congress should let him get away with nothing that exceeds the power of his office. No matter what he does or threatens to do.

Bush thinks he’s king. It is high time to inform him that he holds a far greater office and he cannot be permitted to demean that office by acting like a mere king.

And while Congress is reining him in, they must be smart about it, find a way to prevent Bush from exceeding any of his powers while, at the same time, foiling Bush’s desire to stage Gunfight at the OK Corral in Washington, DC, with live ammo.

It’s not gonna be easy…

Dear Preznit Quackenbush

by tristero

Dear Preznit Quackenbush,

You poor guy. To get you used to the new reality, my brilliant, beautiful daughter thought you might like to play this simulation of what the next two years will be like.

And me, I thought you could do with a little music:

Love,

tristero

Goodbye, Rick!

by tristero

It’s a zero sum kind of a universe. Such good news for the US Senate and the country – Rick Santorum will no longer stink up the chamber with his sulphurous emissions.

Unfortunately, Santorum now has a lot of time on his hands to pursue the floppy-eared objects of his desire.

Do they make chastity belts for dogs?

Big News!

by digby

Oh my god. I can’t believe it. I never expected this. Britney Spears filed for divorce today.

Ok, I’m going to channel Heidi Klum at this moment and say to Rick Santorum, Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee: You’re AÖut!

Seriously folks, this is an historic night. The first woman speaker of the House was elected tonight — the most powerful female in American history. That is an awesome thing even if she is from the seventh circle of hell San Francisco.

More on all this tomorrow. Right now, I’m going to drink some expensive champagne. (It’s not only election day — it’s my anniversary!)

.

Early Heads Up, But Not About The Election

by tristero

Everyone will want to read, should it get online, and it should, Max Rodenbeck’s article, “How Terrible Is It?” in The New York Review of Books.

Essentially, the answer, based on expert analysis by terrorism scholars and Rodenbeck’s study of Bush Administration documents, is that the issues are more complicated than the simplistic public discourse in the US can manage to explain. Furthermore, without minimizing the threat from terrorists in the slightest, the article makes it quite clear that the threat was manageable without the hysteria Bush and Co. generated. In fact, their “bone-headed” response unquestionably made the situation more of a mess than it was or had to be.

I was also happy to see confirmed my opinion that nuclear terrorism is a cause, of course, for concern, but that Perle’s loopy panic on the subject is quite uncalled-for.

Now, back to your election obsessing!

Spinning The Ratfuck

by digby

Wolf Blitzer: Let me talk a little bit with you about some of the reported glitches coing up in voting. Democrats are already charging the Republicans are engagin in some dirty tricks out there and they’re complaining about some of the activity especially some of those so-called robo calls that have gone out from the national republican campaing committee.

I want to give you a change to respond to the charge that your side is engaging in dirty politics.

Ken Mehlman:I’m not familiar with that Wolf. I thin that my goal is to get more Republicans and more Democrats and more independents. Everyone who is watching this show, I don’t care what your politics are, I want you to go out and vote.

Know this Wolf, in 04, we know two things. First, Democrats produced a playbook that they gave to everyone of their state parties. They said “if there’s not intimidation, allege that there is.”

Secondly, in 04 there were two states and it was Democrats who were involved— in Ohio it was about misleading voterrs about where they should vote and when they should vote and in Florida it was about threatening and harrassing people who wanted to hand out flyers at the polls. In Wisconsin we know that it was actually criminal activity, slashing tires of people who wanted to go to the polls.

I hope Democrats won’t do it again, but the fact is you’ve already seen some questionable activity. In Heather Wilson’s district, New Mexico 1, Republican precincts where people tried to vote, they were turned away because there weren’t enough ballots. As of earlier today, the Democratic county clerk hadn’t rectified that problem. I hope that’s fixed.

Rick Santorum held a press conference earlier today where he pointed out that a lot of the rural parts of that state, his supporters, were having a lot of problems working with the voting machines.

In Montana, we saw the same thing the Democrats did in 04, where people were misled about where and how to participate.

So, I hope we don’t have that problem.

Both parties’ goals ought to be more people participating, more people having confidence in the system, and more people being able to participate in a way they know their vote won’t be cancelled out by someone playing shenanigans. I don’t think people ought to cry wolf for the sake of gaining politically, particularly if they’ve been the ones, as they were in 04, who were engaged in inappropriate actions.

Wolf: Alright. I think all of hope that these elections today go very smoothly, as smoothly as possible but we’ve been reporeting there have been some problems, some glitches, some long lines, have already been reported. We’re going to watch this very, very closely here at CNN.

Yeah, I’ll bet.

I don’t know if my prediction is going to come true, but it looks to me as if they are at least giving themselves the option.

.

Monitoring The Dirty Tricks

by digby

Two unbiased observers, Joe Scarborough and Michael Smerconish, just pointed out that it’s sickening to see Democrats whining about election irregularities when they do exactly the same thing, even worse. Like in Philadelphia where they are allegedly “mining votes” left and right as we speak. Or New Jersey where they have rigged the voting machines.

The one thing Republicans unbiased observers can’t bear is Democratic hypocrisy and election stealing. This is why it’s good that Laura Ingraham told her listeners to crank call the Democratic Voter protection hotline. They’ve got to stop the madness by any means necessary.

Earlier David Gergen pointed out that if the Democrats win this election, even if it’s a huge win, it won’t be because anyone wants them in power or even likes them. (How could they? They’re Democrats.) This, of course, is completely different than the 1994 Republican Revolution which was a national affirmation of conservative ideals.

Oh, and FYI, heavy turnout always favors Republicans.

You can feel the foundations of the status quo crumbling and all the panicked insiders looking around frantically for purchase.

.

The Theocracy Movement: Redefining Marriage Exclusively As Religious Sacrament

by tristero

We’re gonna have a little fun along the way in this post, maybe even a few yucks as we ponder a few of the ideas surrounding the opposition to gay marriage. But the subject isn’t funny in the slightest. Not in the slightest. And opposing gay marriage, that’s only part of what makes it so awful. I apologize up front for the length.

In responding to David Klinghoffer’s defense of evangelical condemnation of same sex relationships in the wake of the Haggard affair, Jonah Lehrer notes several blatant flaws. Among the more bizarre is Klinghoffer’s argument that assumes a priori that a desire to have sexual intimacy with a person of your own gender is “just another temptation to be denied.” In fact, Klinghoffer goes so far as to compare the irresistible lust of woman for woman to – I’m not making this up, people, I am not that imaginative – the alluring scent of pepperoni pizza to an observant Jew.

Hmm…well… Yes, it’s true, and I’ll be the first to admit it. Certain limitations make it impossible for me absolutely to confirm that indeed sapphic desire is not like a near-uncontrollable urge to stuff your face with a high calorie, high cholesterol convenience food topped with cured pig parts (their exact provenance you don’t want to know) which your religion forbids you from eating. But I really, really, doubt it.

Now here’s another argument David makes. But this one isn’t silly. This one’s ominous, once you start to look at it for a minute:

This is why gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. When the awe in which people once held matrimony is diluted, by treating it as a man-made and thus amendable institution rather than a divinely determined one, heterosexuals find sexual sins of all sorts harder to resist.

Ok. I’m gonna ignore debuking David’s logic here ’cause it’s simply too obvious. It’s the notion of marriage as a “divinely determined” institution that is deeply troubling, the assumption David tosses off as a patently obvious given while on the way to the “therefore” part of his logical assertion. Let’s think about that a bit.

Yup, David is saying that if Ted Haggard married you, you’re married. But if instead, you went to the Justice of the Peace, a nice little old woman who’s lived with her pepperoni pizza – sorry, I meant her partner, I got confused – for 30 years and raised three kids, if she marries you in a civil ceremony, you’re not married. Why? Being exclusively “secular,” there’s been no “divine determination,” that’s why. But, what’s exactly meant by “no divine determination?”

Well, it can only mean “not by Pastor Haggard or some other cleric” because what else could it mean? Two people can’t just go off and get “married in the eyes of God” without someone pious third party agreeing that yes, God was looking. Otherwise, who’s to say, other than the couple themselves, that God really was looking? That couple may not be as pious as they should be. They can’t themselves determine divine imprimatur.

And that someone else, who could that be? Someone like a priest or a rabbi. It certainly can’t be merely some possibly atheist clerk in a government office, even if she’s straight because… What’s her religion? If she’s not in good with God, then there you are, the marriage has not been divinely determined. (Okay, may not be. As you’ll see, it hardly matters ’cause marriage licensing is only one part of it.)

This is bad enough. But the implications of what David is saying are far more worrisome. He is challenging the basic principles upon which the United States government rests. He is asserting that the United States is actually a theocracy ruled by divine law, that the US has forgotten that it must adhere to divine law, and it must stop pretending that it is a civil, i.e., secular, government. Especially when it comes to such vital issues as marriage, which is clearly “divinely determined.”

But the Declaration of Independence is extremely clear; the power of the American government resides in the people, not in some kind of divine will. The binding agreement of marriage did not descend from God. And even if it had, the Declaration asserts that the legal power for that agreement resides not with God but with the people.

Therefore a couple married in a civil ceremony is deemed married in the eyes of American society. The divine determination? That’s between the couple and God (or not, depending upon their beliefs). It’s optional, as far as the American government is concerned. And thank God for that.

Therefore, the laws that govern marriage most certainly can be changed to enable any two people that love each other to get married in the eyes of the US government. If the people so choose. (And, of course, sooner or later they will. And I hope I live to see it.)

Stepping back for a moment to the larger picture, there is nothing that says American conservatism, as a political philosophy, must embrace the overthrow of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. However, today’s Republican party, dependent upon religious nuts for political support, have created a kind of radical conservative worldview, paradoxical as that sounds, as opposed to the older reactionary one.

David’s little tucked away assumption actually is a radical assault on bedrock American political philosophy. And I assure you, he and and his pals know it.

I’d also like to note one final thing about David Klinghoffer’s worldview, which was glossed over.

For the sake of argument, let us grant that the only genuine marriages are not civil marriages but only those that are “divinely determined,” i.e. religious. Well, there’s a huge question here that Klinghoffer sidesteps: Whose religion?.

Surely, David realizes this problem. An in his book*, David provides numerous sophisticated theological arguments to postulate the basic, and eventually real, unity by the people of the Book. No, I haven’t read David’s book, but here is some of Commentary’s description in their careful review of his ideas**:

Rather than thinking of their respective faiths as related but rival systems, [Klinghoffer] believes that the time has come for them to realize they are in the same boat; whatever their doctrinal differences, they are engaged in promoting the same truths, defending the same values, and worshiping the same God.

Not exactly an original observation, but it’s not exactly a trivial one, either, especially when combined with David’s extraordinary ability to synthesize and extrapolate. Here is Klinghoffer himself describing how the three religions are essentially one:

Being a “kingdom of priests” [as the Bible commands Israel to be] means ministering to others in a priestly role, for who can claim to be a priest if he has no congregation? God’s instruction to the Jews at the moment of the revelation of the Torah was to serve the congregation of humanity, bringing the knowledge of the Lord to them. It would seem that the Christian church now plays the role of congregation … with the Jews serving in the ministerial position. Christians and Muslims alike know of the God of Abraham only because they met him in the Bible…. It served God’s purposes that there be a unique religion [Christianity], acknowledging Him, for the people who spread out from Europe. It was not Judaism. It departs from Judaism in many ways. But in revering the God of Israel it contains the seeds for an ultimate reunification of the people [of the earth] in God’s service.

By now, I’m sure the parallels between David’s worldview and some of the more apocalyptic utopian ideas of the evangelicals is clear. In fact, Klinghoffer’s borrowings of Christian evangelical tropes makes his description of the meta-religion sound something like a pepperoni knish. (I couldn’t resist, sorry.)

And now, let’s take David’s breathtaking vision of one super-religion that potentially re-unites all of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and apply it to that pesky question of exactly whose religion is the real divine determinant of marriage. It’s easy. Obviously, anyone married as a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim is married.

Well, I’m gonna not argue Talmud with David Klinghoffer, I wouldn’t know where to begin. But I certainly know bullshit when I read it and his ideas sure as hell stink to high heaven.

First of all, there is a big “No Duh!” Klinghoffer simply cannot escape.

The notion of some kind of transcendent, reunited (!!!) uber-religion of the Book is, in the real world of our lifetimes and our children and their children and so on, utterly preposterous in and of itself – Protestants are still killing Catholics the last I checked, and no one in America can figure out what the Shia’s got against the Sunnis, and Jews: reform Jews aren’t considered Jews by certain powerful sects in Israel.

One unified religion with one God? So, um, what, exactly is the Holy Spirit, David? Chopped liver? Back here on planet Earth, religious belief is eclectic and highly contentious. And “reunited?” Religious belief was eclectic and highly contentious in Jesus’ time, too, fer crissakes. And in the time of his disciples.

And underneath David’s bullshit, dig we must. And we find that the question “whose religion?” wasn’t met with an answer. It just slid and slipped down the drain.

How about Buddhists? Are they married? What about Hindus? What about Pastafarians (disciples of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)? Look at the excerpt from David’s book. These minor religions – as we all know, there really aren’t too many Hindus around – they don’t figure in David’s raputurous vision at all.

And that’s the reason, David, why there is civil marriage in America and I thank God there is.

So that one religion can’t “determine” which other religions have the blessing of the Divine for a marriage and which don’t. Because once you start redefining marriage,*** you have established one religion over all others, namely the religion that the state decrees has the right to marry you.

And that’s not a good thing, David.

Trust me, if marriage is ever redefined as sacred, the folks who do so? They ain’t gonna buy your Jewish “priesthood” crap. Not for one fucking second. You think, it’s gonna be like, “Step aside, Pat Robertson! Here comes the real priest to lead the Christian congregations of the world. Sound the shofars! It’s… Rabbi Klinghoffer!

Uh-huh. Pepperoni pizza will sprout wings long before that day.

Okay. No more ridicule. This is serious:

When you play with American theocracy, David Klinghoffer, you are playing with fire. And I mean that literally, my friend and you know what I’m talking about. So, I’d read that Talmud again if I were you. And read it carefully.

Something tells me you will find nothing in there that requires Jews to construct an elaborate intellectual structure to support their own annihilation. But that is exactly what you are encouraging when you start asserting that civil institutions are in fact, religious ones. Back off, sir. What you’re talking about really is not good for the Jews.

Forgive him, Father. He knows not what he is doing.

—
*Please don’t get me started on the title. I could rant on for days at how many awful assumptions it contains.

**If the review gives an inaccurate precis, I’d appreciate a detailed description of exactly how from David himself. Otherwise, I willl assume at least rough accuracy, which is confirmed by a later quote from the book itself.

*** That’s right, Klinghoffer and his colleagues are the ones redefining marriage, as an exclusively religious institution. I am defending the institution of marriage as the traditional civil institution it has been since the Revolution.

Waiting, Waiting…

by digby

So, MSNBC has chosen the most partisan Republican election lawyer in the country, Ben Ginsburg, to be their legal expert. (I’m kind of surprised they couldn’t get Limbaugh to reprise his earlier work with the network.)

In other news, the robo-call aspect of the vaunted 72 hour GOP Suppress the Vote operation seems to have captured the attention of the media. At least for now.

Lot’s of voting problems everywhere, especially in Ohio. Mean Jean Schmidt couldn’t get her voting machine to work. And that impeachment managing scumbag Steve Chabot was turned away:

Chabot turned away from poll

Howard Wilkinson reports:

Congressman Steve Chabot found out just how serious elections officials are about the new voter ID law when he showed up to vote at his polling place in Westwood.

Chabot went into the polling place at Westwood First Presbyterian Church about 9:30 a.m. and pulled out his Ohio driver’s license to show the poll workers. They looked at his license, and told the congressman that, even though they know perfectly well who he is, his driver’s license was issued to his business office, not his home, which is his voting address.

Somewhat sheepishly, Chabot went back out into the parking lot, jumped in his 1993 Buick – the one he talked about on his campaign commercials – and drove back to his home a few blocks away to find a proper ID.

“I guess I’ll see if I can find a utility bill,” Chabot said. “That’s the law. You have to have proper ID.”

Chabot returned about 10 minutes later with a bank statement and a Social Security Administration statement in hand.

He went inside and voted quickly.

“My wife told me to bring two documents just to be sure,” Chabot said. “I guess this just shows the poll workers are really doing their job.”

Easy for him to say. he doesn’t work for a living. He’s a Republican congressman.

Their vote suppression efforts seem to be working out well so far. And we’ll have the likes of Ben Ginsburg explain how this is all necessary to prevent mexicans, blacks and old and working people from voting Democratic voter fraud, so that’s good.

We always had to win big enough they couldn’t steal it. Let’s hope that wave is a Katrina level 5 and it’s enough to carry us over the huge levee of obstruction and suppression they’ve built to hold it back.

If you have a few minutes today, Call For Change. There isn’t going to be any real news for hours.

I’m going out to Vote!

.

Cheney Is Out Hunting Today

by tristero

That’s right, once more, Cheney’s roaming the countryside, and he’s got a gun.

But don’t let that stop you. Get to your voting precinct and cast your vote for the Democrats.

For safety’s sake, yours and ours.