He’s very upset. It seems the British have always been a bunch of mincing cowards and now the US is following in its footsteps along with the rest of the chickenshit Europeans.
T. CARLSON: … will there be any desire at all on the part of anybody in charge of anything in Great Britain to keep British troops in Iraq?
HITCHENS: No.
T. CARLSON: Won‘t the pull-out be immediate at that point?
HITCHENS: It will be, as you say, an abandoned position politically.
And the only question is how to avoid it making—how to avoid making it look—I‘m sorry to keep stumbling—how to avoid making it looks as if it was a scuttle.
T. CARLSON: Right.
HITCHENS: That‘s presumably why this—why Mr. Dannat, General Dannat backpedaled as he did.
Then of course, it would be a phased withdrawal. But they always say that. That used to be, in wartime parlance, when the British army had had to run away from somewhere, such as Dunkirk or—or Terbrook (ph), they would always say it was a strategic withdrawal to prepared positions. That‘s simply military parlance for abandoning an operation.
T. CARLSON: Right. Of course. But this is—I mean, this is inevitable, is it not? It‘s going to happen? The United States must be factoring in the inevitability of this. This is really news from nowhere, isn‘t it? I mean, we‘re going to be alone in Iraq sooner rather than later?
HITCHENS: No. I think it‘s been noticed that a number of those who have been very strong in support for President Bush were leaving office or about to do so.
Surely, that‘s Mr. Berlusconi, Mr. Bush. The change in power in Japan doesn‘t seem to have had quite that effect, though the political support will be stronger than the presence of Japanese forces in Iraq.
Yes, look, you‘re generally right. Those who want to leave Iraq to its own devices and who always did want that are much nearer to being able to claim a victory than they have been for a while. And I hope it makes them very happy.
T. CARLSON: What is—just sum up for us. What is the prospects of the idea now floating around on the Democratic side, maybe on the Republican, as well, of partitioning that country into three separate countries or an alliance, a federation of three countries? Is that going to happen? Is that a wise idea?
HITCHENS: Do I have a chance to make one more point before I answer that? I don‘t want to seem top be dodging it.
T. CARLSON: Yes.
HITCHENS: You‘ll notice that the general also says that he‘s afraid of the army cracking under the strain, which is an argument you hear here, as well.
T. CARLSON: Right.
HITCHENS: What he seems to be doing is positioning himself to be the sort of Colin Powell of the British army. Remember, that was always the view of Colin Powell when he was chairman of the joint chiefs, that the U.S. Army was too fragile to be tested in actual combat, as particularly in Bosnia, if you remember, where he had to be challenged by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “So why do we have this wonderful big, shiny army if we never want to use it?”
That‘s the—the line now taken by military men is, “It really inconveniences us if we have to use our troops in warfare.” Nobody says, look, how are we going to…
T. CARLSON: Well, I think…
HITCHENS: How are we going to learn—how are we going to learn how to fight these people in rogue states and failed states if we don‘t—which are bad conditions, if we don‘t try?
T. CARLSON: Yes, but I think—the question—you don‘t want—if you‘re in the position of—if it is, you know, your job to send people off to go die, you want to make certain that their deaths are in the service of something worth attaining, that it‘s, you know, a wise use of their lives, basically.
HITCHENS: That‘s not—that‘s not—that is a decision not to be taken by generals, however. I‘m a voter. I can make that decision, and I‘m asked to.
The extraordinary thing is that the British have lost a very, very small number of people in Iraq and have gained a great deal of experience, it might be said, and have also done rather well in the Shia areas of the south…
T. CARLSON: Right.
HITCHENS: … which would undoubtedly trump—trounce your other question, would undoubtedly give a large new area of responsibility to the United States if they were to pull out.
So all these are very serious points. Still, there is always something odd to me in the existence of a professional military class that, in effect, is combat adverse, that doesn‘t think anything is worth fighting for.
Colin Powell, if you remember, didn‘t want to even send an aircraft carrier to Kuwait on the warning of Saddam Hussein‘s invasion, less we get ourselves mussed up. I just think it‘s always worth noticing that about the conservative vote here (ph) …
T. CARLSON: It is worth noticing. And you can interpret it a couple of different ways. It‘s interesting. Anyway, Chris…
HITCHENS: If we‘re going to pay—if we‘re going to pay for this huge military establishment, then I think…
T. CARLSON: Might as well use it.
HITCHENS: Yes. Well, we…
T. CARLSON: We‘ve got all these nuclear weapons, you know, sort of languishing in silos. Let‘s use one.
HITCHENS: Well, those are—those really are—those really are useless to us, of course.
T. CARLSON: I hope so.
HITCHENS: Good point.
Now what was your last question again? I don‘t have time for it.
T. CARLSON: As I always do talking to you, I got caught up in it and we‘re out of time.
HITCHENS: And I talked myself out of a job yet again. So all right.
But you let me do it.
T. CARLSON: Thank you. Christopher Hitchens, I appreciate it.
HITCHENS: You too.
Petulant Hitch is feeling very let down by the warriors these days. He voted for them to die and they are simply not cooperating. (Think of all the experience they’re missing out on!)
How long before he looks at the suicide bombers of Al Qaeda and sees the kind of courage, committment and fortitude the west has clearly lost? I’d say it’s a matter of weeks.
Reason #678 why a modern democracy should have a secular government. Here’s an excerpt from David Kuo’s book:
While the conferences were being birthed, we were also figuring out what to do with the Compassion Capital Fund. Promised originally at $200 million per year then cut in early 2001 to $100 million, and then again to $30 million, it was only faith-based money we had to distribute [even though $8 billion of new money had originally been promised].
Many of the grant-winning organizations that rose to the top of this process were politically friendly to the administration. Bishop Harold Ray of Redemptive Life Fellowship Church in West Palm Beach had been one of the most vocal black voices supporting the president during the 2000 election. His newly-created National Center for Faith-Based Initiatives somehow scored a 98 out of a possible 100. Pat Robertson’s overseas aid organization, Operation Blessing, scored a 95.67. Nueva Esperanza, an umbrella of other Hispanic ministries, headed by President Bush’s leading Hispanic ally, Luis Cortez, received a 95.33. The Institute for Youth Development, that works to send positive messages to youth, earned a 94.67. The Institute’s head was a former Robertson staffer. Even more bizarre, a new organization called “We Care America” received a 99.67 on its grant review. It was the second highest score. They called themselves a “network of networks” an “organizer of organizations”. They had a staff of three, all from the world of Washington politics, and all very Republican. They were on tap to receive more than $2.5 million.
All this information trickled in to our office when we requested updates on the Compassion Capital Fund. It took a while, but we finally got the list of recommended grantees. It was obvious that the ratings were a farce.
[A few years later,] my wife Kim and I were together with a group of friends and acquaintances. Someone mentioned that I used to work at the White House in the faith-based office. A woman piped up and said, “Really? Wow, I was on the peer-review panel for the first Compassion Capital Fund.” I asked her about how she liked it and she said it was fun. She talked about how the government employees gave them grant review instructions – look at everything objectively against a discreet list of requirements and score accordingly. “But,” she said with a giggle, “when I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero.”
At first I laughed. A funny joke. Not so much. She was proud and giggling and didn’t get that there was a problem with that. I asked if she knew of others who’d done the same. “Oh sure, a lot of us did.” She must have seen my surprise, “Was there a problem with that?”
I told her there was actually a huge problem with that. The programs were to be faith-neutral. Our goal was equal treatment for faith-based groups, not special treatment for them. This was a smart and accomplished Christian woman. She got it immediately. But what she did comported with her understanding of what the faith-initiative was supposed to do – help Christian groups – and with her faith. She wanted people to know Jesus.
Whether out of a cynical power grab, as it most certainly is with many of the preachers and all of the Republican politicians including Joe Lieberman, or whether out of a sincere desire for people to know Jesus, this is a recipe for disaster. Right now, they only have to content with atheistic malcontents like me who don’t appreciate my tax dollars going to religion at the expense of other programs. But it’s only a matter of time before it sets off infighting among the churches themselves.
And I hate to be nasty about this, but this woman he describes is not actually an innocent. She giggled about how clever she was for automatically giving the non-religious Christian groups a zero because she was among people whom she obviously assumed would approve of such behavior. When she saw that she was dealing with someone of integrity she backed off and pretended not to have realized that she was not being a good Christian or a responsible adult. It was not a simple misunderstanding.
This is not to say that only a rightwing Christian would do such a thing. It could be anyone who had a vested interest in the outcome — which is exactly why people like this woman should not have been making such decisions. But how can you say that committed religious people should not be involved in such things? You can’t even ask the question. The only way to deal with this is for religion not to be involved in such things.
Kuo’s message is actually very interesting in this regard. He’s seen the intersection of politics and Christianity up close and he came away believing that his religion was becoming tainted by politics:
“Christian Americans are at a critical juncture, and we have some hefty decisions to make regarding our personal and political values,” said Kuo. “During my tenure in the White House, I came to realize the extent to which religious organizations were being manipulated for political purposes and rewarded through financial shenanigans. The myriad ways this situation compromised the central tenets of Christianity was deeply and profoundly disturbing for me. What hangs in the balance is not only the integrity of our faith, but the stability and moral fiber of our nation, as well as the religious and political freedom upon which it stands.”
The deal was struck long ago. Churches are not expected to contribute to the public treasury nor is the public treasury supposed to subsidise churches. Not everything has to be part of politics and government. History (and current events) shows that countries are far more stable and democratic when they have religion live side-by-side with government rather than entwined with it.
Kuo’s book is about his religion being corrupted by politics. I am concerned about politics being corrupted by religion. I think we are both right. This country does better when the two spheres operate independently. As long as they aren’t wrapped up in one another there’s no reason we can’t all get along.
Can we get one thing straight? The “leaking” of James Baker’s secret plan to end the war — which Baker himself is appearing all over television *not* talking about, is a political ploy to get wobbly Republicans to believe — again — that the “grown-ups” are riding to the rescue. Jesus, how obvious can they be?
I’m watching Lee Hamilton fall all over himself to say he is not going to be partisan I believe him. He’s a very nice,agreeable gentleman. But it’s just a little bit much when he asserts that James A. Baker III, the fucking Bush family fixer, is similarly objective. Please. James Baker is as cutthroat a partisan as ever lived.
Once you’ve sold out your elder reputation to the degree that you will lie, cheat and twist the facts without regard to any sense of fairness or decency to obtain an election victory for your boy, I think you’ve given up any claim to “statemanship” — at least until the cheating bastard is out of office.
DemFromCT has an interesting post up this morning over at Daily Kos discussing the rise of hyper-partisanship. He quotes an interview with the authors of The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track,Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann:
Is the current Congress demonstrably more partisan than those in the past? Why does it matter?
MANN: Partisanship particularly increased after the 1994 elections and then the appearance of the first unified Republican government since the 1950s. Now it is tribal warfare. The consequences are deadly serious. Party and ideology routinely trump institutional interests and responsibilities. Regular order — the set of rules, norms and traditions designed to ensure a fair and transparent process — was the first casualty. The results: No serious deliberation. No meaningful oversight of the executive. A culture of corruption. And grievously flawed policy formulation and implementation.
It really can’t be overstated how Newt’s bare knuckle style of politics changed the way things worked in Washington. When it was combined with the big money media operations that finally came to fruition during that era — Limbaugh, FOX etc. — any old fashioned notions of political comity went out the window. And it was such a strong series of below the belt punches that it knocked the Democrats to the ground for nearly a decade. (It was providence that the Democratic president at the time was a skilled rope-a-dope fighter who could withstand a relentless rain of blows.)
The assault on the political system was so intense that they even pushed the nuclear button and impeached the president for trivial, political purposes. The president’s very successful governance and the Senate requirement for a supermajority were all that kept them from going through with it. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, with the use sophisticated media techniques and manipulation of the various levers of government under their control, they managed to seize control of the presidency despite a dubious outcome in a state run by the president’s own brother — and they got away with it. (They even got the press to repeat their snide mantra: “get over it.”)
Think about that. Within one two-year period, the Republicans tried to remove a legitimately elected and popular president from office on a purely partisan basis and then assumed the presidency through an unprecedented partisan Supreme Court decision after losing the popular vote.
We all watched that happen, many of us not realizing how extraordinary and how dangerously undemocratic the US political system had become. It was all “legitimate” after all. No laws were broken. Newt’s take-no-prisoners political style had become normal. But it was nothing compared to what was to come.
After taking office under the most questionable circumstances in history*, they proceeded to rule as if they had won in a landslide. Once 9/11 happened, he had the mandate he’d been pretending to have and the Republican congress docilely turned their power and responsibility over to the president as if he were a king. What little dissent had been tolerated (such as Jim Jeffords defecting) was completely quashed and Democrats’ only function in the government was to serve as a straw-man foil for the Republicans to run against.
DFC writes:
From … the Hastert policy of only considering bills acceptable to the “majority of the majority”, to Frist’s considering of the Nuclear Option of changing the rules about filibusters, the House and Senate have become a “my party before my Country” institution, and it started in 1994.
That “majority of the majority” is especially important when looking at this period of Republican rule. In one of the most cynical decisions of their reign (and there have been many) they consciously governed without any support from the opposition, even to the point of scuttling popular bipartisan legislation rather than allowing the opposition to participate in any meaningful way. There has never been a case of partisanship so severe in American history.
Throughout this period they successfully manipulated and co-opted the media in a thousand different ways. Their decades long project to mau-mau the press about its alleged liberal bias and the emergence of rightwing media served to obscure this story as it was unfolding. The leaders of the political media became ensconced in the new Republican political establishment and reflected their attitudes and biases.
Probably the starkest illustration of that was this famous comment about Bill Clinton by the dean of the Washington Press Corps:
“He came in here and he trashed the place,” says Washington Post columnist David Broder, “and it’s not his place.”
He was ostensibly speaking about the president having an affair but it is redolent of the common Republican view that after Ronald Reagan, the Republicans had a permanent lock on the presidency that was rudely foiled by this interloper. Republicans constantly mentioned that Clinton won with a 43% plurality and therefore, 57% of the nation had rejected him. Oliver North even said “he’s not my commander in chief,” during his unsuccessful race for the Senate. Senator Jesse Helms said [Bill Clinton] “better watch out if he comes down here [to North Carolina]. He’d better have a bodyguard.”
That was the least of it as any of you who are above the age of 30 or so well remember. There has rarely been a more vicious partisan environment than during the 1990’s. And the media, as frightened as anyone of this marauding hoard of political hatchetmen, naturally sidled up to the bullies as a way of protecting themselves. Hence, David Broder saying that it was Clinton who came to town and trashed the place when it was really Newt Gingrich and his wild revolutionaries who broke all the rules of civility and comity.
As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that “language matters.” In the video “We are a Majority,” Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: “I wish I could speak like Newt.”
[…]
Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.
This was was way beyond what we had long accepted as the polite language of politics that allowed people to battle over issues but maintain decent human relationships when the workday was over. The kind of “bipartisanship” that the old lions are constantly going on about was killed in the 80’s and 90’s by a political machine that consciously set out to demonize first liberals and then Democrats. David Broder and his friends in Washington can’t wrap their minds around the fact that there was a deliberate right wing strategy to kill bipartisanship because they reluctantly went along with it, were duped by it or embraced it themselves.
So, why am I taking this little trip down memory lane of which most of you are all too well aware and need need no reminding? Because we are very possibly going to win this election and you can very confidently place a large bet in Las Vegas that the cries to end the partisanship will be deafening. I have little doubt that the entire Washington press corps is gearing up for a full scale vapor-fest if the Democrats attempt to demand even the slightest bit of accountability for the past six years of corruption and failure. The Democrats have to accept that they will once again be fighting the entire political establishment.
You can see the outlines already. Time’scover this week features Barack Obama, the latest empty receptacle of establishment bipartisan wishful thinking:
Obama’s actual speaking style is quietly conversational, low in rhetoric-saturated fat; there is no harrumph to him. About halfway through the hour-long meeting, a middle-aged man stands up and says what seems to be on everyone’s mind, with appropriate passion: “Congress hasn’t done a damn thing this year. I’m tired of the politicians blaming each other. We should throw them all out and start over!”
“Including me?” the Senator asks.
A chorus of n-o-o-o-s. “Not you,” the man says. “You’re brand new.” Obama wanders into a casual disquisition about the sluggish nature of democracy. The answer is not even remotely a standard, pretaped political response. He moves through some fairly arcane turf, talking about how political gerrymandering has led to a generation of politicians who come from safe districts where they don’t have to consider the other side of the debate, which has made compromise–and therefore legislative progress–more difficult. “That’s why I favored Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposal last year, a nonpartisan commission to draw the congressional-district maps in California. Too bad it lost.”
This will, I predict, be the latest fad: bipartisan nothingness. Now that the Republicans have successfully moved the political center so far to the right that they drove themselves over the cliff, we must stop all this “partisan bickering” as if the Democrats have been equally partisan and therefore can ask for and expect the right to meet them halfway, which they never, ever do. That means we must let their most heinous ideas congeal into conventional wisdom, let their criminal behavior go unpunished, clean up the global disaster they’ve created, do the heavy lifting to fix the deficit they caused. While we’re fixing things, they’ll count their ill-gotten gains, catch their breath and gear up to trash the place all over again.
Modern bipartisanship can be simply defined as Democrats repeatedly getting taken to the cleaners by Republicans. Until the rules of the game are changed it will remain so whether Democrats are in the majority or not. That pathetic Charlie Brown with the football ritual is what Joe Lieberman is running on and what Joe Klein is angling for with his Blankslate Obama love-fest. (Norquist called it date rape but that’s too kind — the Liebermans and Kleins love being in the spotlight giving wingnuts lapdances. They enjoy every minute of their rightwing orgy — they just don’t want to take responsibility when they turn up with wingnut transmitted diseases.)
It is going to take some deft media management and skillfull legislative action to stop this pattern, but stop it we must. We have had more than two decades to assess this and this is how the conservative movement works. You can almost feel the relief (and even the glee) in some of the recent right wing claims that losing will be good for the party.
“The importance of losing elections is greatly underrated,” he adds. “There’s not any way Ronald Reagan would have been elected in 1980 if [Gerald] Ford had been elected in ’76.”
This time the stakes are so high and the failures so manifest that we cannot allow this zombie revolution to rise again. No matter how tempting it is to let bygones be bygones and get to work to “fix” the problems, the Democrats must recognize that fixing the problem requires discrediting this Republican revolution once and for all. Until that happens, they will keep coming back and each time they do they destroy a little bit more of our democracy.
We may win this one but we are basically the janitors, winning the contract to clean up after the conservative frat boys trashed the place for the last few years. And Daddy Broder believes it when his boys tell him it was the cleaning people who caused all the damage because he just can’t bring himself to admit that they are out-of-control misfits because they come from good families and dress so nicely when they come to the club. We need to make sure the dean and all his friends have their noses rubbed in what their boys have been up to all these years before we can ever hope to do anything but take out the garbage and change the sheets every few years.
*The fact that the deciding Supreme Court vote was cast by a justice appointed by the candidate’s own father in a case based upon partisan decisions made by the president’s own brother the governor of Florida made this the most egregious case, even compared with Hayes-Tilden race in 1876. It was corrupt on an entirely different level. And looking at it now from the perspective of six years down the road, we can see that that very first act of blatant cronyism presaged the way the Bush administration would work, from Cheney’s energy task force to the botched occupation of Iraq to Katrina.
Michigan Citizens for Science (MCFS) is happy to announce that we won a major victory with the State Board of Education on Tuesday. Having failed to have pro-ID [“intelligent design” creationism] language included in a bill earlier this year to harmonize the educational standards for public and charter schools in the state, House Republicans turned their attention to the State Board of Education and attempted to influence that board to include anti-evolution language into the new science standards. The BOE rejected those attempts with a unanimous vote.
And this is as good a time as any to make the point that Kitzmiller was a far more important decision than Scopes, for three reasons. First of all, unlike Scopes, scientists were permitted to testify extensively on the theory of evolution. Secondly, the judge’s decision was particularly damning, putting creationists on notice that their legal antics were dishonest and wasting the judiciary’s time.
But the most important reason is that, unlike Scopes, the good guys decisively won.
Back in 1925, Scopes was convicted, as part of Darrow’s strategy to appeal the case eventually to the Supreme Court. Instead, the case got kind of waylaid on a technicality. In Kitzmiller, the verdict was an unequivocal slam-dunk for science, reason, and the core American value of separation of church and state.
Here we have a smoking gun that should convince everyone that we must continue to honor the constitution and require the government to get warrants before spying on Americans. It’s not because we want to help the terrorists and it’s not even because we are paranoid. It’s because we already know they have been spying on people who oppose the Iraq war:
Internal military documents released Thursday provided new details about the Defense Department’s collection of information on demonstrations nationwide last year by students, Quakers and others opposed to the Iraq war.
The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show, for instance, that military officials labeled as “potential terrorist activity” events like a “Stop the War Now” rally in Akron, Ohio, in March 2005.
I can’t believe we even have to have this argument or even need this kind of proof. There was never a good reason for the administration to be so stubborn about this issue unless they were doing something nefarious. The FISA court is a notoriously rubber stamp court — it’s designed to be. They always had the ability to spy first and get warrants later and the congress would no doubt have willingly extended the period in between or even enhanced the meaning of probable cause if they’d been asked. They didn’t ask and they have resisted any kind of rational accomodation ever since the program was revealed.
The only logical reason they have adamantly insisted on maintaining this power to freely spy on Americans without any oversight is because they know that even the most rubber stamp court in the land would object to them spying on their political opponents. It’s the only thing that ever made any sense.
This battle is going to come back after the election. Whether they try to do it in the lame duck session or afterwards, there will be tremendous pressure in the press for the Democrats to prove their national security bona fides and Democrats may very well feel that this is one they can punt on to neutralize the GOP trash talk before moving on to other issues. I don’t think winning the congress is going to take this off the table — we still have Bush for two more years trying desperately to save his agenda and his legacy. I predict he will go to the mattresses on this.
Abdul Rahim Al Ginco thought he was saved when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and overthrew the Taliban regime.
Mr. Ginco, a college student living in the United Arab Emirates, had gone to Afghanistan in 2000 after running away from his strict Muslim father. He was soon imprisoned by the Taliban, and tortured by operatives of Al Qaeda until, he said, he falsely confessed to being a spy for Israel and the United States.
But rather than help Mr. Ginco return home, American soldiers detained him again. Nearly five years later, he remains in the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — in part, it appears, on the strength of a propaganda videotape made by his torturers.
“This was a 22-year-old kid who was brutally tortured,” one of Mr. Ginco’s American lawyers, Stephen R. Sady, said. “And instead of being liberated, he has endured four and a half years of additional confinement.”
It’s something out of Kafka, so surreal and horrifying that I honestly can’t wrap my mind around the fact that an allegedly civilized country would think this was ok.
But it gets worse:
A bill signed into law by President Bush last December requires the Pentagon to determine if information being used to hold a detainee has been obtained by coercion and “the probative value (if any)” of such information. Another law passed by Congress last month would ban the use of statements made under torture from the military tribunals that are to be used to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees.
But that second law, which awaits the president’s signature, would also sweep away most federal court challenges to the detention of Guantánamo prisoners, including perhaps the one filed by American lawyers for Mr. Ginco, who is now 28.
Well yes. To give this man the right to file a writ of habeas corpus would clog the courts and the terrorists will have won. Much better to leave his life hanging on the whim of the president or some faceless military bureaucrat, either of whom might wake up one morning feeling good about himself and decide to set this poor bastard free.
Really, when you think about it, we could totally unclog the courts by doing away with this archaic writ altogether and just count on the President’s pardon to take care of government errors and injustices. (Like Jack Abramoff, for instance.) This would be more in keeping with the traditional values that so many Americans would like to go back to — the traditional values of feudal England. This whole “rule ‘o law” thing is way overrated anyway.
Riffing on Digby’s post earlier, I agree that Bush et al are too sanguine. And it’s very spooky. But rather than speculate on why they are so apparently clueless about reality (yet again), let’s speculate on something else. And if I’m shown wrong, I’m wrong (and I’ll say so). But I don’t think it’s frivolous to explore the possible implications of what the November vote could bring. It might help us better deal with it and understand the potential and limitations.
Ok, let’s first speculate that it really will be a rout. I, like you, will thank God, Thor, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster that it happened. And like you, I’ll give myself a little pat on the back for voting for Democrats and helping make it happen.* But what are the first things the Republicans are gonna do the day after?
That’s right, goopers gonna demand recounts of as many races as they dare to. Lets not forget that many of the national races are major-league gerrymandered. The Republicans will scream something that boils down to, “Hey! No fair! We *#&*@$ rigged these races within an inch of our lives. We made sure those districts would be slamdunk GOP wins. Democrats simply had to be cheating!”
And so there will be recount demands. Lots. And here’s the kicker: Some of those recounts could take a very long time. A very long time, indeed. And cost a lot more money than the Democratic party has. (BTW, a question for legal people out there: Can GOP incumbents be stopped from casting their votes if their seat is up for dispute, the vote is being recounted, and a new term has started?)
Okay, but let’s put the concern about recounts aside. Let’s speculate that regardless of election disputes, a newly Democratic Congress is finally seated. Now what? Well, William Greider sez we should “insinuate” ourselves as “friendly critics” and push progressive, meaning liberal, ideas. And he rounds up some delicious sounding promises if the Dems win the House, such as investigations into waste and constitutionality. I agree (but geez, Bill, “insinuate?” couldn’t you have picked a better word? ) and I promise to help push.
But while we’re trying to bring some commonsense back to national politics, let’s try to anticipate what might plausibly happen. I think it’s a safe bet that a Democratic House that starts genuine investigations will be charged with revenge, payback and fomenting destructive vendettas “during wartime!” by everyone on the right and the mainstream media will let them. And, btw, you haven’t seen hysterical yet from the right. It will be ugly: Remember the “White Collar Riot” in Palm Beach, 2000? But all in all, that doesn’t concern me too much. Those kinds of charges and fights are par for the course, even if they become exceptionally vitriolic this time around.
No. Here’s what concerns me. What if Congress passes laws Bush don’t like?
Well, he may just go along with some of them. And for some he will surely release a signing statement or just quietly ignore them. But for certain laws that he thinks his actively opposing them will play well to other rightwing extremists – say bills that roll back the “Patriot” Act to something more befitting a free society – I think the odds are good that Bush may actually publicly refuse to follow them, citing the “overriding principle of the unitary executive.”
In short, Bush will say, “Try ‘n make me.” And the amen choir at Fox and elsewhere will stand up for him, deploring a fascist Democrat [sic] Congress trying to Subvert the will of the People.
Actually, I don’t think this dramatic – no, melodramatic – scenario is likely for a very simple reason. Congress wouldn’t dare to substantively repeal the “Patriot” Act or the Torture Act or anything else that central to Bushism. I believe that Bush will, as he has done since the beginning, continue to play chicken with the US Constitution, daring Congress to force the constitutional crisis he’s created, which has been going on since before he took office, into a full-blown public meltdown. And I believe, just as they did with the filibuster, that Congress will back down to prevent a public meltdown from happening. Congress, either Dem-controlled or not, will prefer to avoid a very frightening confrontation with a rogue presidency – that could lead who knows where – in the hopes that Bush’s insane challenge to the very structure of the US government simply will end when Bush leaves office in 2009.**
I’m not saying I like this or that I think it’s a good (or bad) idea. All I’m suggesting is that even if there is a rout, don’t expect much. With Bush in office, the serious danger to the country’s kind of government persists. He will do whatever he wants to do. The Congress, like it or not, will be very anxious to do nothing to exacerbate the crisis, hoping to wait him out.
Yes, indeed, a Democratic House/Congress may raise quite a stink over Bush’s desire for the big Iran Bang Bang he’s planning. But even so, Congress will do all it can not to confront Bush but avoid the confrontation.
That’s right: Even a Democratically controlled Congress may very well go along with Bush’s war plans in order to avoid a catastrophic showdown over who really has the true power in America these days.*** It may mean that the confrontation over Bush/Iran could devolve into an open clash between Bush and very reluctant generals, with Congress stuck, badly, in the middle. (And I can clearly see the headlines on Fox declaring a ” military coup d ‘etat” and “mutiny.”) But frankly, I doubt it. I suspect that there will be no major dramatic confrontations and, barring the totally unforeseen, that Bush could get away with starting another war. Possibly even a nuclear war – and then watch the fur fly as the world condemns the US and Congress tries to figure out what to do while the bodies of radiated children are displayed on television and Bush demands “loyalty in a time of active war.”
Don’t get me wrong. A Democratic Congress is a Very Good Thing and we should all be working to see that it happens. But we should be realistic about how much even a Democratic Congress will feel it can do, given a president who has the unchecked power, the corrupt will, and the truly perverse desire to be a cheap dictator instead of an American leader.
——–
*As for those of you who vote your conscience and vote for a Republican-funded third party candidate, may your music collection vanish in a puff of Green, except for the Yanni and Vangelis compilations your well-meaning and trying-to-be-hip aunt bought for you once and that you couldn’t bring yourself to touch, let alone, toss.
**Congress has no reason to doubt Bush will leave at the end of his term, nor do I: Bush is anxious to become Commissioner of Baseball, after all. That’s the job he’s really wanted all along.
*** Yes, I know the situation and his support is not Fall, 2002 even though Congress did cave in back then to avoid exactly such a showdown. However, I don’t think Bush cares about public opinion (or the rule of law). He does what he wants. He’s the decider, not the American people. He has the power and he will exercise it. And how, exactly, does a Congress stop a president who believes that he, not the Supreme Court, is the ultimate arbiter of all legislation? And “during wartime,” as he will surely claim? And if they succeed, what kind of potentially dangerous precedent does that set? I think Congress will try to avoid gettting into a position where those questions have to be answered.
So, the religious right now claims they are all upset about the gay Republicans in their midst.
“It’s time for what we call a ‘Come to Jesus Meeting,'” said Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. “Homosexuality is a dysfunctional lifestyle, and it must be addressed.”
“Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members and/or staffers?” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote in an e-mail to activists. “Does the party want to represent values voters or Mark Foley and friends?”
Excuse me, can I just inquire where in the hell they were when this little kabuki took place during the last campaign?
Mary Cheney, one of two Cheney daughters, is openly gay and an official in the Bush-Cheney campaign. The vice president has spoken at length about his daughter’s sexuality and his view of gay relationships, even disagreeing with the president about the need for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages.
Asked Wednesday night by debate moderator Bob Schieffer whether homosexuality is a choice, Kerry said: “We’re all God’s children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was. She’s being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not a choice.”
Kerry issued a statement Thursday after the Cheneys had expressed anger over his remarks: “I love my daughters. They love their daughter. I was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with this issue.”
Cheney told supporters at a rally Thursday in Fort Myers, “You saw a man who will do and say anything to get elected, and I am not just speaking as a father here, although I am a pretty angry father.” He made no other reference to Kerry’s remarks about his daughter.
Mrs. Cheney, introducing her husband in a post-debate appearance Wednesday night in Coraopolis, Pa., also avoided a specific reference to her daughter’s sexuality when she made clear she thought Kerry had crossed a line into family privacy.
“Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man,” Mrs. Cheney said. “Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”
That was one of the most frustrating moments of the campaign. Here they were with an openly gay daughter, working on their campaign, but they had the chutzpah to claim righteous parental indignation at Kerry for mentioning it when asked about gay marriage — a campaign issue stoked by Bush and Cheney to turn out their religious right base to vote against it. I’ll never forget how the crowd cheered wildly when Lynn Cheney made her nonsensical statement.
The only thing I could conclude from that episode is that the religious right is phony or stupid. This recent Claude Rainsing about the “gay cabal” has not changed my mind on that.
Roy reads the Crazy Jesus Lady’s latest so you don’t have to. She’s impressed by how all the Republicans are doing an honest reassessment of their values in light of the party’s “problems” while the Democrats are just being so rude about everything, as usual. She says we don’t have “grace.”
Here’s a little advice for her, from her, to think about while she ponders how to deal with the social embarrassment of being a high profile member of the party of criminals, screw-ups and sexual deviants:
A lot of you–you need to stop, sit down, think, question yourself, look at your actions and ponder what you’ve become. And how somehow love for your side in the fight became hatred for the other.
Let me be very candidly specific. Some of you need to get a good psychologist and a good holy man or woman, a priest or rabbi or minister–or how about all three–and figure out why you’re turning everything in your life into politics. Because I have to tell you what I know: Politics is the biggest, easiest way in all of America to avoid looking at yourself, and who you are, and what fence needs fixing on your own homestead.
A lot of you are in politics not because you want to lead, but because you want to run. From yourselves.
When you’re in politics not to live life but avoid it, you become especially susceptible to a kind of polar thinking. You become convinced you’re with the good team and the good people over here. You become convinced anyone who doesn’t want the same policies you want must be bad. After all, you’re good, so if they disagree they must be bad. When you’re polar like that you dehumanize the people on the other side. And when you dehumanize them–well, then you wind up … starting wars on lies, excusing sexual predation of teen-agers, stealing billions from taxpayers and legalizing torture.
Think about it Peggy. You and your little friends really ought to spend some time with your holy men — if they can pull themselves away from the porn and the spread sheets — and think about how you all managed to pick a group of leaders whose colossal incompetence is only exceeded by their titanic avarice.