Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Crucible

by digby

The stakes in the Connecticut race seem to be getting higher among the chattering classes than among the grassroots. For the second time this week, I’m seeing one of the courtiers — in this case the Dean — saying that the race is the referendum on the Iraq war:

The outcome of their fight is important nationally for the meaning that will be attached. While other states such as Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio and Virginia will decide whether Republicans or Democrats control the Senate, this Connecticut race constitutes perhaps the nation’s clearest test on the Iraq war.

Lieberman insists he is not wholly in the Bush camp but still argues that a victory in Iraq is possible and essential for American security — whatever that may mean. “I’m not ready to give up on the Muslim world,” he said, adding that a democratic Iraq could serve as a model for the Middle East. His winning and returning to the Senate and its Democratic caucus would slow, if not reverse, growing pressure from the Democrats for an early pullout of U.S. forces.

On the other hand, should Lamont repeat his primary win over Lieberman and capture the seat, it would add immeasurably to the momentum of the antiwar forces. He says that he is running in order to end the nightmare of “140,000 of our brave troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war.”

Wow. now that’s putting it in stark terms, isn’t it?

Here was court jester Chris Matthews on Tuesday talking about the Connecticut race:

I just don’t want to hear from those people later about how terrible the war is because the one thing about these elections is that in every national poll the number one issue is Iraq and the issue is going to turn on that election because we are already seeing develop a new policy refinement based upon these new political circumstances right now.

Washington has apparently decided that the Iraq war debate hangs on the Lamont-Lieberman race.

Perhaps this last week is a good time to tell all those Washington and Connecticut Democrats who care about this issue that this is how this race is shaping up. All eyes are upon them. The lives of thousands of people may depend on it.

Joe Lieberman is an unreconstructed hawk who, even in the presence of fellow willing bipartisan lap dancer Bob Kerrey, cannot admit that the war has made the threat of terrorism worse:

As Senator Joseph I. Lieberman stood beside Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator, to accept his endorsement on Wednesday, the two seemed to differ about whether the war in Iraq had made the United States safer.

Like Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerrey supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein early on and said that the region was safer without him in power. But he added: “Do I think invading Iraq helped the war on terror? No, I do not. I think it reduced the threat in the region, which was serious.”

His comments put Mr. Lieberman in an awkward position. Mr. Lieberman declined to say whether he believed that the war in Iraq had helped the war on terror.

Initially, Mr. Lieberman cited Mr. Kerrey’s comments about Saddam Hussein, saying that overthrowing him had helped make the Middle East safer, but he conceded that terrorists had “poured into Iraq now.”

Then, pressed by reporters, Mr. Lieberman answered, “It’s a more complicated question than that, and it doesn’t have a yes-or-no answer.”

If the cognoscenti believe that the Connecticut race is a crucible on Iraq, then we’d damn well better work our asses off to make sure that Lamont pulls this thing off. We may win the election but lose the Iraq war debate — at least in the short term — and that would be a terrible thing. The courtiers are looking for a way to discredit the anti-war sentiment in this country and this looks to be the vehicle they are going to use to prove that when the chips are down “America” really doesn’t care that much about the war in Iraq. (Look for them to find out that something like “gas prices” or “moral values” were the top issues in the campaign.)

This race is about more than Holy Joe Lieberman. The Kewl Kidz and the courtiers want to make it the national referendum on the Iraq war.

.

Limbaugh

by tristero

When he arrived in the White House for a sleepover many years ago, George Bush the Elder carried Limbaugh’s bags to his room. This man, who uses Republican presidents as porters, is the very same malicious yet pathetic creature we see here, shaking in what he thinks is a parody of a Parkinson’s sufferer off his medication, but isn’t. Unbeknownst to Limbaugh, involuntary shakes are a side-effect of taking the medication.

Limbaugh, you recall, once coined the odious term “feminazis.” To most of us, Limbaugh’s outrageous attack on Fox is all of a piece. But at least to some of those who thought “feminazis” was a clever, funny, and precise piece of sadistic mockery, Limbaugh’s latest inadvertently off-base display of his total ignorance may come as something of a shock, revealing how seriously his drug addiction has affected his enormous capacity to spew invective.

If you watch the segment, be sure to check out Sam Seder’s comments, that Limbaugh’s real job is to insulate his listeners from reality. He’s absolutely right. The only real issue is funding for stem cell research, which the Republican party – consistent with its mistrust of all things scientific, be they biological, physical, ecological, or statistical – opposes. But suddenly the airwaves are all atwitter with chirpy parrots concerned with whether Michael J. Fox was acting. As if that matters one whit.

What matters is that the United States under Republican rule is deliberately undermining its commitment to world-class scientific inquiry. But gee, science is hard.* Let’s speculate on whether Fox hyped his symptoms or not.

My god, what a waste of time given the seriousness of the real issue. But unfortunately, it’s important. As long as malignant fat like Limbaugh clogs the arteries of discourse (sorry, after two cups of strong java, I couldn’t resist), we have to confront it and resist. Meanwhile, the real subject – the real issues in stem cell research, its potential and limitations – are not being addressed by a public that needs to be, and deserves to be, informed. Ditto evolution, global warming, racism, poverty, war, nuclear proliferation – you name it. Perhaps, in living memory, there never were halcyon years for cultural discourse in the US, even when Murrow strode the earth. But I do seem to recall that once upon a time there was at least some concerted effort by the media to focus on real news instead of obsessing on the worthless, grotesque bloviations of lying, unscrupulous, ignorant pricks like Limbaugh.*

Jane Hamsher has some excellent comments on this weird story.

*Actually, science isn’t that hard, even the fuzzy math. Because as difficult as it may be, say, to wrap one’s mind around the details of stem cell biology, it can be comprehended, if you’re willing to spend the time to do so. What’s really hard is trying to grasp creationism or astrology, because there literally is nothing there that is capable of actual meaning. Nor are there legitimate ways of finding meaning in pseudo-science. To understand that crap – now, I’ve always found it well-nigh impossible.

* Special note to any lying, unscrupulous, ignorant pricks who may have chanced upon this blog post: I apologize in advance for lumping you in with Rush Limbaugh.

We’re All For It!

by digby

The Republicans are taking a new tack on stem cells. In response to the Michael J. Fox “backlash” Ken Mehlman just said on CNN that Jim Talent supports stem cell research but he just doesn’t think the government should pay for it. He pointed out that nobody says that the private sector shouldn’t pursue stem cell research. What’s the problem? (It’s a lie, of course. Talent’s position is actually much more complicated than that and just as ridiculous.)

This argument worked back in the day with the Hyde Amendment banning public money for abortion because some people object to the expenditure on moral grounds. Maybe it will work again. But I don’t think stem cell research has ever had the kind of visceral punch that abortion has and the benefits to everyone are far more obvious. (After all, it’s only dizzy women of child-bearing years who might tempt some man into getting her pregnant. Men can get Parkinson’s disease.)

Mostly, though, it undercuts the moral argument the Republicans have been making about their (phony) “culture of life.” Back in the 70’s, when the Hyde Amendment was passed, Republicans could get away with making practical arguments like “people shouldn’t have to pay for things that morally offend them.” But this isn’t the “me decade” anymore. The Republicans are no longer supposed to be just the defenders of traditional values — they are supposed to be true believers. I don’t see how the religious right could support such a “split-the-difference” strategy.

On the other hand, the religious right has recently been remarkably supportive of the party covering up for closeted GOP congressmen seducing teen agers, so it’s hard to see where they might draw the line.

.

Do I Have To Draw You A Picture?

by tristero

Any Democratic candidate that doesn’t mention the unending disaster of Iraq within five seconds of beginning any interview or speech should be forced to listen to the collected speeches of Newt Gingrich for the week after s/he loses in November. Here’s why.

And the second issue? The unbelievably widespread moral corruption of the Republican Party. Start by denouncing the degenerates who would sneer at a Parkinson’s patient in order to evade the vitally important issue of funding stem cell research. Then mention the crass appeals to racism in the ads, the refusal to take responsibility. Then Foley, Abramoff, Reed, Cunningham, Libby, Armstrong Williams, Betting Bill Bennett, Michael Brown – my God, the list of creeps and hypocrites is long and getting longer by the moment.

And the last name on that list? Donald Rumsfeld. Which brings you right back to issue #1.

Iraq.

[Updated to add the story about the gay aide to the homophobic Harris who may have slept with the Republican candidate for governor of Florida. The GOP truly has set new standards for hypocrisy.]

I Don’t Think We Should Deny People Rights To A Civil Union

by digby

The New Jersey Supreme Court has just held that gay Americans should be accorded the same legal rights as other Americans in a ruling that George W. Bush will support.

“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.

“I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights,” said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (search). “States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.”

The ruling is also in line with the presumed GOP nominee for president in 2008:

MATTHEWS: But in so many cases in the last president election—the gay marriage issue was used effectively to rally the Christian conservatives to the polls, and it helped bring about the majorities in states like Ohio. You‘re saying that your party has never taken a position adversarial to gay marriage and issues like that?

MCCAIN: On the issue of gay marriage, I do believe, and I think it‘s a correct policy that the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, a marriage between man and woman, should have a unique status. But I‘m not for depriving any other group of Americans from having rights. But I do believe that there is something that is unique between marriage between a man and a woman, and I believe it should be protected.

MATTHEWS: Should there be—should gay marriage be allowed?

MCCAIN: I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there‘s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don‘t have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of a union between man and woman.

He later added:

Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe that people want to have private ceremonies, that‘s fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.

The court found no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, but found that unequal dispensation of rights and benefits were contrary to the constitution. That sounds like something old St. McCain, who has flipped flop more than a dying carp on this issue, agrees with.

The NJ legislature will have to find some way to profer equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Unless it decides to, the state will not be obligated to perform any marriage ceremonies. They could decide that it’s a simple form that must be filled out and notarized. Churches will have to decide if they want to perform ceremonies or not, just as they do today, and the state has nothing to say about it — just as it doesn’t today. All this amounts to is equality under the law.

Religious people can fight among themselves all they want about what this means, but the state should not be in the “sanctity” business.

sanc·ti·ty

1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.

The state’s job is to insure equality under the law and this ruling properly achieves that.

.

Backlash

by digby

This is really starting to piss me off. The press continues to insinuate that Michael J. Fox is “raising eyebrows” and causing a “backlash” with his ads supporting stem cell research and there is no evidence that there is any backlash except in right wing talk show pig circles.

From Media Matters, here’s ABC:

ROBERTS: You bring up Missouri and a big debate about Michael J. Fox, of course, who is suffering from Parkinson’s, and he has really gotten into the race there, and raising a lot of eyebrows.

Really? Whose? The extremists who value a smear in a petrie dish over living breathing humans beings? Well, no kidding. They are on the losing side of a very important argument that could affect every single one of our lives. But is there any eyebrow raising among anyone else? I haven’t heard it.

I don’t remember anyone raising eyebrows at that smarmy Ashley ad in the 2004 election. In fact, I recall the press having a total love fest over it even though it was the crass exploitation of a young girl’s pain to make George W. Bush look caring and fatherly:

“The largest single ad buy of the campaign comes from conservative Progress for America,” Time Magazine reported. “It shows Bush comforting 16-year-old Ashley Faulkner, whose mother died on 9/11. As it happens, the spot was made by Larry McCarthy, who produced the infamous Willie Horton ad that helped the first President Bush bury Michael Dukakis under charges that he was soft on crime. If that is the iconic attack ad, this is the ultimate embrace—to remind voters of the protectiveness they cherished in the President after Sept. 11. The ad has been ready since July, but sponsors waited until the end to unveil it.”

“He’s the most powerful man in the world, and all he wants to do is make sure I’m safe.”

And from Josh Marshall I see this headline is up on CNN right now:

Michael J. Fox ads for Democrats spark backlash

The Republicans have no shame, but you can kind of understand it. They have to discredit the sick, the dying and the widowed and they have to hide the dead. They can’t let Americans see the effects of their policies. The press, however, has no obligation to help them do their dirty work.

*As Marshall points out, the article that accompanies the CNN headline explains why Rush Limbaugh is completely full of shit even as it says that he represents some sort of “backlash.” Why they chose to run that headline is anyone’s guess. Reflex, probably.

.

Press Conference

by digby

Did you know that the GWOT is harder and more challenging than any war in human history because the enemy are lethal cold-blooded killers? It is. Nobody has ever faced such a terrifying foe as George W. Bush and we should be grateful that he has courageously faced them down with nothing more than a prayer and a codpiece.

Oh, and people of both parties have to take responsibility for the decisions they make in life.

Letting Go Of God

by tristero

I could write a million words about how great Julia Sweeney’s Letting Go Of God is, how wonderfully funny, moving, and genuinely thought-provoking, but I couldn’t possibly convey how much of a blast it is to see and hear live. I saw it last night on a whim. One of the best whims I’ve had in years.

If you haven’t seen it and you live in New York, then for God’s sake – or for the FSM’s sake – call up some friends and get tickets. It’s only playing through this Sunday, the 29th, and the theater seats around 100/150 tops. She’ll be performing the piece elsewhere as well, so you might want to check her site for the where and when.

Trust me, you want to see this one live (unless your name is Deepak Chopra, for reasons that become obvious). If you’ve heard Sweeney on the radio, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. What are you waiting for? Go get your tickets before it sells out, you goddamn, God-forsaken fools!

JoeNixon

by digby

courtesy Billmon

The NY Times blog “The Empire Zone” doesn’t seem to think it’s even possible that Joe Lieberman could have done anything unethical with his 387,000 slush fund. They have relegated the story to its blog that nobody reads.

The truth is that $387,000 in petty cash expenses in a primary race is an enormous sum and it should set off all kinds of bells in the minds of journalists and, as Matt Stoller discusses here, the good government campaign finance groups:

If a Senator put $387,000 in cash out on the streets in the final two weeks before the election – we’re talking cash here – and then failed to disclose where it went to reporters or anyone else by using the petty cash account, wouldn’t you think that good government groups who care about campaign finance laws and disclosure would be slightly interested? I would. Yet since Lieberman revealed this on his FEC forms late last week, only the Lamont campaign has been willing to file an FEC complaint.

If Lieberman gets away with this, FEC laws are effectively meaningless, and so are state election laws. I’m frankly surprised that a scandal of this magnitude is going largely ignored by Democrats, Republicans supporting Alan Schlesinger, and good government groups across the spectrum. Can you imagine if Bob Menendez did this in New Jersey? The good government groups would be all over it. Or Tom Kean Jr? You’d see a press conference with Reid and Schumer the next day. And yet, because it’s Joe Lieberman, he’s handing out hundreds of thousands in cold hard cash before the primary to undisclosed individuals, there’s no outside groups calling foul. Still, we’re all in this together, which means that if Lieberman is allowed to shovel hundreds of thousands of dollars without consequence through his petty cash account, then next cycle you’re going to see every Senate, House, and Presidential campaign use it to avoid disclosure requirements. Their claim can simply be ‘Lieberman did it’, and they will be absolutely right.

Where are the good government groups? Common Cause? CREW? Democracy 21? Public Campaign? Public Citizen? Any one of them could file a complaint with the FEC. Any one of them could file a complaint with the state board of elections. Here’s information on how to do it. This is a really really bad precedent to allow to be set.

Yes it is. There is nothing to stop campaigns from hiding huge, unusual expenses in a petty cash account and then avoid scrutiny of it until long after the election unless somebody draws attention to it.

.

And The Deaths Pile Up

by tristero

Horrible, horrible:

…October marked the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq this year…

On Tuesday, the military announced the deaths of four more U.S. troops, raising the month’s toll to 91. At least 2,801 members of the U.S. military have died since the war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

And who knows how many Iraqis were killed?