“The Republican Congress has a problem. It is working without the presence of an elected conservative leader. George W. Bush is conservative but he is not a conservative. He’s Republican, but he’s not a conservative. He is not leading the conservative movement.” — Rush Limbaugh
Yes, if only George W. Bush had been a real conservative none of this would have happened. All hail the conservative movement which never, ever fails.
I’m telling you, if the GOP loses in November you are going to see a bloodbath that makes that little race in Connecticut look like a tea party.
Update: John Amato catches Limbaugh with another of his classy lines:
“One of the factors in his defeat was the fact that he’s just Jewish…”
I think it might be time to really hit journalists with some poll numbers. they clearly do not have a clue where the American people really stand and are reflexively reporting the tired, outmoded (and increasingly absurd) GOP narrative about the election.
Media matters caught CNN’s Dana Bash at it this morning, a segment that made my eyes roll when I saw it. It’s not just the words she mindlessly repeats, it’s an attitude and a tone. (You can see the video at the link too.)
Republicans, I can tell you, they’re already licking their chops. They are sending around this talking points memo to their supporters, to talk radio hosts. We’re going to hear from the Republican National Committee chairman later on. Essentially the headline of this is: “Defining the defeat-ocrats.” They think this plays right into their storyline this election year, that Democrats are being taken over by the left wing of their party. And from their perspective, that’s not good for the country.
Please. Every bit of that statement is GOP hype. They may be pretending to lick their chops but they are really dreading the coming election due to the fact that their president and their policies are extremely unpopular. They are way down in the generic polls, the country has lost faith in their leaders and the biggest issue in the election — the war — is an issue on which the Republicans are desperately out of sync with the country. They know very well the Democratic party is not being “taken over” by its left wing and that a large and growing majority in the country agree with the Democrats. Clearly, the events in Connecticut last night were not an endorsement of their policies. They don’t give a damn about what’s “good for the country” at this point because contrary to Bash’s very upbeat report, the GOP is focused solely on hanging on to its majority in an increasingly hostile environment. Jayzuz.
Update: It isn’t just Iraq. Again from Media Matters:
Greg Sargent first noted the Post’s omission in a post on TPM Café:
Deep in the guts of that big Washington Post poll today is a startling number that didn’t make it into the Post’s accompanying article. It reads: Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?
The answer: Democrats 46%, Republicans 38% That’s right: this poll’s respondents preferred Dems not just on Iraq, but on the broader war on terror. If this number accurately reflects the electorate’s mood, this may represent a watershed moment at which Americans have stopped reflexively believing the GOP is better on terrorism in general. Two questions: Will future polls show the same? And how much longer will media commentators keep saying that the GOP automatically has the advangage on national security issues?
Three of the last four Washington Post polls have found that a plurality of Americans trust Democrats rather than Republicans to handle the “campaign against terrorism.” Four consecutive Post polls — and seven of the last eight — have found that a plurality trust Democrats more when it comes to handling “the situation in Iraq.” The lone exception found the parties tied.
Yet the Post, like other news organizations, has routinely touted terrorism and other national security issues as political advantages for the GOP, both through its own assertions and through casual acceptance of Republican claims.
DETROIT (AP) — Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz lost his party’s nomination Tuesday, falling to a staunchly conservative challenger in a primary race dominated by a struggle over GOP principles that attracted more than $1 million in spending by outside groups.
Schwarz, a moderate who supported abortion rights, was defeated by former state lawmaker Tim Walberg. With 92 percent of precincts reporting, Walberg had 53 percent, or 31,869 votes, to 47 percent for Schwarz, or 28,168 votes.
Walberg, a former pastor, contended Schwarz’s views did not represent those of constituents in the rural southern Michigan district. He vowed to vote against pork-laden spending plans, tax increases and the expansion of abortion and gay marriage.
”We have to believe that we won because the mission was clear, the message was clear and the agenda was clear,” Walberg said.
Schwarz, who was backed by President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain, was forced to defend his views on social issues along with taxes, immigration and spending.
The first-term congressman accused outside groups of trying to buy a seat in Congress by helping Walberg pay for TV ads. He said the primary was ”probably a victory for right to life, anti-abortion, anti-embryonic stem cell groups but it’s a net loss for the Republican party because it just pushes the party farther to the right.”
Well, that’s just fine because it’s what Real Americans want. Everybody knows that.
This is a defining moment in some ways for the Democratic Party. I know a lot of people have tried to make it a referendum on the president. I would flip it. Indeed it is a defining moment for the Democratic party whose national leaders have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they’re going to come after you.
I think it’s worthwhile to trace through the implications of that position because it is clearly going to be one of the central issues…One of the positions is that we leave Iraq on a timetable and we need to do it soon…
[blah, blah, blah, democracy, terrorists, blah blah, Taliban, war on terror, blah blah, Iran, North Korea, democracy…]
Some of the leadership of the Democratic Party believe that the proper way to address this is to point a finger at the United States and counsel walking away. The view of the president is that this is a challenge but it is also an opportunity and let me outline that part.
Democracies operate on different principles than totalitarian states. In a Democracy you have to respond to the will of the people. In a democracy within the United States whether it be Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont competing for votes in Connecticut or on the local level dealing with the needs for people to have safe streets, good schools and services they can depend upon. Those are the things you respond to — the stated desires of the people.
That’s was a nice little lesson, Tony. Thank you very much.
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; Posted: 6:00 a.m. EDT (10:00 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.
And a majority of poll respondents said they would support the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops by the end of the year, according to results from the Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week on behalf of CNN. The corporation polled 1,047 adult Americans by telephone.
According to trends, the number of poll respondents who said they did not support the Iraq war has steadily risen as the war stretched into a second and then a third year. In the most recent poll, 36 percent said they were in favor of the war — half of the peak of 72 percent who said they were in favor of the war as it began.
Sixty-one percent, however, said they believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. Of those, 26 percent said they would favor the withdrawal of all troops, while 35 percent said not all troops should be withdrawn. Another 34 percent said they believed the current level of troops in Iraq should be maintained.
It would appear that the people stated their desires quite clearly — both in polls and in elections. I suppose they can keep claiming that 60% of the country is “extreme left” but I don’t think anyone will believe them.
Snow was virtually incoherent this morning. If I didn’t know better, I’d say the white house is rattled. As well they should be.
It feels great to win one and I’m very enthusiastic about the fall. But let’s keep one thing in mind: the Republicans aren’t Joe Lieberman even if Joe Lieberman is a Republican. They run really good campaigns. Indeed, it’s the only thing they do well. It is not going to be easy.
As for Joe, it looks like he might be getting some of that very special help:
Can Karl help Joe?
According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President’s political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: “The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.”
But in a year where even some Republican candidates are running away from the President on the campaign trail, does this offer have any value to Lieberman? Still smarting from all that coverage of “the kiss” at last year’s State of the Union, the Lieberman camp isn’t looking for an explicit endorsement. That could create more problems than it solves.
The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate.
And it might be able to convince Schlesinger to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman in the final week or two, when it’s too late for another candidate to fill the GOP slot. A quiet White House effort to steer some money in Lieberman’s direction is another possibility.
This is a tricky dance for Lieberman. He needs to figure out a way to get the benefits of Bush support — some votes from loyal Republicans — without turning off the independents and moderate Democrats he needs to win. The safest course may be a polite “thanks but no thanks” to the White House offer.
I think it’s quite likely that Joe will publicly “reject” this “offer” as a way to prove his independent bonafides. But as far as I’m concerned, as long as Joe Lieberman remains in the race he is doing Karl Rove’s bidding anyway.
I also wouldn’t be surprised to see the Republicans try to help get Joe elected, either as a Republican outright or as an independent who will caucus with them. I don’t know how far gone Lieberman actually is but I think it’s at least possible he’d think about it. Last night he was more defiant than I’ve ever seen him. (Where, oh where was all that energy in 2000, I wonder? Of course, Joe kept his senate seat as a back-up so maybe he didn’t feel quite so passionately about fighting to the bitter end and he does now.)
But Lieberman is actually old news whatever he does from here on in. He’s left the Party and in a two party system that really means he’s jumped. As of today we are no longer waging a painful civil war, brother against brother. We are once again fighting the Republican Borg. Get ready for swift boating and race baiting and charges of being traitors and crazed, smelly “piewagons.” We’re back to dealing with the ruthless, feral GOP again. And they are dangerous, wounded beasts…
Congratulations to Ned Lamont. And let’s not forget: Every sentence written and read about Lieberman’s general election challenge is a distraction from the real issue
A U.S. Army helicopter crashed in Iraq’s western Anbar province, leaving two crew members missing and four injured, while hundreds of Iraqi and U.S. troops poured into the capital in a desperate bid to stem sectarian violence that is threatening to ignite a civil war.
In Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, four people were killed and 16 wounded in a U.S. airstrike late Tuesday, police said. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials, but a mosque and nearby houses in the city were heavily damaged in the blast.
Four U.S. service members were injured when the UH60 Blackhawk helicopter crashed Tuesday with six people on board during a routine flight to survey the area, the U.S. command said in a statement Wednesday. The four injured troops were in stable condition, and it did not appear the crash was due to hostile fire, the U.S. said.
Of course not. It was just an accident. Who would be cynical enough to suggest the Pentagon would classify a shoot-down as an accident in order to keep the combat deaths stats artificially low? Not me.
A series of bombings and shootings killed at least 33 people Tuesday, most in the Baghdad area, as more American soldiers patrolled the streets of the capital in a make-or-break bid to quell sectarian violence.
Nearly 60 people were wounded in the blasts, police said. The explosions began when three bombs went off simultaneously near the Interior Ministry in central Baghdad, killing 10 people and wounding eight, police Lt. Bilal Ali Majid said.
Two more bombs ripped through the main Shurja market, also in central Baghdad, killing 10 more civilians and wounding 50, police Lt. Mohammed Kheyoun said.
At least 13 other people were killed or found dead Tuesday, most in the Baghdad area, where tension between Sunnis and Shiites runs the highest.
The violence underscores the security crisis facing Baghdad, which prompted American commanders to send more U.S. soldiers to the capital in a renewed bid to curb sectarian killings and kidnappings.
“Sectarian killings and kidnappings” is just Newspeak for “civil war,” of course.
Well, you can’t fault Iraq for disobeying Crawford’s Own Churchill. As His Eminence commanded, they’re bringing it on. Big time.
Following up: A senior Republican official in Washington confirms that the party might encourage Republicans and others to support Sen. Lieberman if he runs as an independent. There’s no sense, just yet, about what those signs and signals might look like. Says the GOP official: “I just think there will be folks who want to support – regardless of what we think. And, we don’t think that’s a bad thing.” And Kevin F. Rennie reports that some GOPers in CT are thinking about ways to financially support Lieberman’s independent bid…
Fine with me. Take Marty Peretz and Lanny Davis with you, Joe.
I’m kind of excited about taking on the Republicans, aren’t you? Bring it on.
84% 87% of precincts reporting, Lamont ahead 52-48. Keep tabs if you wish at tigre’s place. Her first link does the job. Lieberman’s fate should be known about ninety minutes from now, if not sooner.(Note: FDL seems to be down; I’m sure Jane’s corner of the ever-expanding blog Universe came to visit her all at once.)UPDATE: Turn out the lights, the party’s over!
“Who Fucking Cares?” by poputonian “Who fucking cares?” better describes the President, because “What, me worry?” is just too playful and harmless.Froomkin today:
A vacationing President Bush briefly suited up and faced the media hordes yesterday morning to outline his administration’s vision for an eventual cessation of hostilities in Lebanon. Then he high-tailed it back to his sprawling country home, leaving Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to do the heavy lifting.
Bush was generous with the familiar talking points (see yesterday’s column ), but didn’t exactly give the impression of someone who feels any sense of personal urgency to stop the killing.
A few weeks ago I wrote about the Bush administration’s foreign policy of culture conquest. This passage from Norman Mailer’s Why Are We At War? threads nicely with that notion, but says it much more eloquently than I did, and perhaps even allows for some benefit of the doubt with regard to the administration’s intent. Mailer delivered these comments in a speech to The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, just days before the Bush Tribe launched its invasion of Iraq.
Because democracy is noble, it is always endangered. Nobility, indeed, is always in danger. Democracy is perishable. I think the natural government for most people, given the uglier depths of human nature, is fascism. Fascism is more of a natural state than democracy. To assume blithely that we can export democracy into any country we choose can serve paradoxically to encourage more fascism at home and abroad. Democracy is a state of grace attained only by those countries that have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom but to undergo the heavy labor of maintaining it.
The need for powerful theory can fall into many an abyss of error. One could, for example, be wrong about the unspoken motives of the administration. Perhaps they are not interested in Empire so much as trying in good faith to save the world. We can be certain at least that Bush and his Bushites believe this. By the time they are in church each Sunday, they believe it so powerfully, tears come to their eyes. Of course, it is the actions of men and not their sentiments that make history. Our sentiments can be flooded with love within, but our actions can produce the opposite. Perversity is always looking to consort with the best motives in human nature.
David Frum, who was a speechwriter for Bush (he coined the phrase “axis of evil”), recounts in The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush what happened at a meeting in the Oval Office last September [2002]. The President, when talking to a group of reverends from the major denominations, told them,
You know, I had a drinking problem. Right now, I should be in a bar in Texas, not the Oval Office. There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar: I found faith. I found God. I am here because of the power of prayer.
That is a dangerous remark. As Kierkegaard was the first to suggest, we can never know where our prayers are likely to go nor from whom the answers will come. When we think we are nearest to God, we could be assisting the Devil.
“Our war with terror,” says Bush, “begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end … until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” But, asks Eric Alterman in The Nation, what if America ends up alienating the whole world in the process?
Mailer continues with the money quote from Bush and notes the very special conservative tool who vouched for its accuracy:
“At some point, we may be the only ones left,” Bush told his closest advisers, according to an administration member who leaked the story to Bob Woodward. “That’s okay with me. We are American.”
Yeah, who fucking cares? We’re Americans. May the best men win. Heh-heh-heh-heh … Now, watch me bike!
Lanny Davis, the latest “Democrat” to take to op-ed swamp of the Wall Street Journal quotes a handful of obscure anti-semitic blog commenters and indicts the whole blogosphere for McCarthyism. Par for the course. But this is beyond ironic:
A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had spoken on several occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be a liberal antiwar Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me that within a day of a Lamont event–where he asked the candidate some critical questions–some of his clients were blitzed with emails attacking him and threatening boycotts of their products if they did not drop him as their attorney. He has actually decided not to return to Connecticut for the primary today; he is fearful for his physical safety.
First of all, poor little Richard Goodstein (who this obviously is) has no reason to be in fear for his physical safety but I guess portraying him on the pages of the macho WSJ editorial page as a whimpering little baby is something his friend thought was useful. Hey, if Dick doesn’t mind, then I guess I shouldn’t. But really, he should be a man and go back to Connecticut. Republicans are laughing at him.
But that’s not what’s astonishing about this piece. It’s that Richard Goodstein came to the attention of journalists and observers in Connecticut during the Ted’s Burger joint stunt where a bunch of Lieberman supporters ambushed Lamont in a small restaurant. What made Goodstein stand out was that he was screaming “Are you a Sharpton Democrat or a Clinton Democrat” over and over again. That’s called race baiting, folks.
But he wasn’t alone. This was a campaign talking point.Lieberman himself said it. You have rich white guys from Washington in white Connecticut neighborhoods saying there’s a difference between an “Al Sharpton Democrat and a Bill Clinton Democrat” and demanding to know which side Lamont was on. There’s only one reason to use Sharpton rather than, say — Michael Moore, and we know what that is, don’t we? (Lamont, to his credit, said “I’m both.”)
This was cheap racial politics especially after Lieberman played such a martyr over the blackface graphic that called him out for being two-faced on race — a fact which he then had his pal Richard Goodstein go out and demonstrate with no sense of self-awareness at all.
The blogs later found out that Goodstein was a DC lobbyist, but they weren’t the ones who made him famous. It was the local press who happened to be at the event and quoted Goodstein on the front page the next morning.
“It was supposed to be a laid-back event and (they) ruined it.” “We’re just using our right. We’re just exercising our rights to enjoy a burger,” said Lieberman supporter Alex Hoffman of Boston. Supporters of each candidate debated outside on the sidewalk while many Lieberman supporters continued to badger Lamont, who acknowledged most questions. Richard Goodstein, one of the most vocal Lieberman supporters, repeatedly shouted, “Are you a Bill Clinton Democrat or an Al Sharpton Democrat?” Lamont calmly said he supported both.
This particular line seemed to be Goodstein’s specialty, since he showed up at a rally the next day with a sign that said “Lieberman = Clinton, Lamont Weicker = Sharpton.” He was taped giving an interview to the local press in which he said “Lieberman has the support of Bill Clinton who speaks for inclusion and Ned Lamont has the support of Al Sharpton who speaks for divisiveness.”
You’ll notice there was not a bit of irony in his voice, by the way. Nor did it seem to occur to him that Joe’s black constituents might just find such a statement a tad provocative since it was given to an all white crowd. It would seem that at this point, Lieberman either must have given up the african american vote or he assumed that no black person would see this white middle aged jerk publicly dissing Sharpton like he was Willie Horton. Either way, the man was playing a low-down game.
As for Lanny, well, nobody takes him seriously. He was the single most inept Clinton defender ever. When he would show up on Fox or MSNBC back in the Lewinsky days I would cringe knowing that whatever blond former prosecutor harpy they had on would rip him to shreds. (I swear, he must have uttered the words “deplorable” and “reprehensible” at least 15,000 times.) I knew they hired him for just that purpose and I have heard that there is no love lost between him and the Clintonistas, which doesn’t surprise me. He’s still at it. In the course of his usual ineffectual non-defense he’s managed to make both his friends Joe and Dick look like hanky wringing losers which is fine by me.
And, make no mistake, Lanny Davis is a Bush fan, just like Joe. He’s a frat brother who, just days after the recount was settled, wrote an opportunistic brown nosing op-ed in the NY Times attesting to Bush’s good character. (Talk about rubbing salt in the wound. I’ll never forgive him for that.)
I, for one, am thrilled to finally have him pitching for a different team than mine. I hope the WSJ gives him a regular spot in the rotation. He only hurts the ball club.
