Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Lapdogs

by tristero

Salon has a nice, extended excerpt from what looks like a great book, Boehlert’s Lapdogs. This leaped out at me:

In truth, Bush never could have ordered the invasion of Iraq — never could have sold the idea at home — if it weren’t for the help he received from the MSM, and particularly the stamp of approval he received from so-called liberal media institutions such as the Washington Post, which in February of 2003 alone, editorialized in favor of war nine times. (Between September 2002 and February 2003, the paper editorialized twenty-six times in favor of the war.) The Post had plenty of company from the liberal East Coast media cabal, with high-profile columnists and editors — the newfound liberal hawks — at the New Yorker, Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, the New Republic and elsewhere all signing on for a war of preemption. By the time the invasion began, the de facto position among the Beltway chattering class was clearly one that backed Bush and favored war. Years later the New York Times Magazine wrote that most “journalists in Washington found it almost inconceivable, even during the period before a fiercely contested midterm election [in 2002], that the intelligence used to justify the war might simply be invented.” Hollywood peace activists could conceive it, but serious Beltway journalists could not? That’s hard to believe. More likely journalists could conceive it but, understanding the MSM unspoken guidelines — both social and political — were too timid to express it at the time of war. (Emphasis added.)

Let’s assume Boehlert is right, that without the press playing along, Bush couldn’t have gotten away with invading Iraq. That argues for leaving no stone unturned to make sure the press doesn’t roll over for Iran.

(Note to rightwingnuts and other cognitively defective types: I’m NOT suggesting that the press should suppress prowar voices. I’m advocating that the press simply should do its job, which is critically to report a wide spectrum of information and viewpoints about Iran, to analyze what’s reported, and to investigate on their own. Which, to be kind, they did not do in re Iraq.)

However, I’m not entirely sure that Boehlert is, in fact, right. I remember 2002 and early 2003 quite well. This country had gone insane with fear after 9/11. Friends of mine, lifelong liberals, believed every word Bush said and were perfectly happy to believe that Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11. Had the press reported the truth, Bush would have demonized the press and invaded anyway, imo. Had Congress objected, Bush would have ignored them and invaded anyway. He made it quite clear in the spring/summer of 2002 that he believed he had the legal right to invade Iraq without consulting Congress; the resolution in the fall of 2002 was, from Bush’s standpoint, simply redundant. And what the UN does is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, things are different now. The military is publicly dissenting from Iran. The CIA is unlikely to be the fall guy for fixed intelligence given how they were dealt with over Iraq. The Republican Party is interested in winning in the fall elections and they seem to be calculating that opposition to Bush is more likely to play well than signing on without reservations to an Iran bang bang. And Tony Blair isn’t doing very well, either, so the coalition of the willing dodge won’t work this time.

It is extremely important, if you want the US to avert another war, for the feet of American reporters to be held to the fire by the public to report Iran in a truthful But imo, the forceful opposition of the military, Republican candidates, and perhaps the intelligence services to Bush’s jones for war will be just as, if not more, decisive. Note that I truly don’t think Bush – meaning the Bush administration – cares what the country wants; therefore the low poll numbers don’t factor into the decision to initiate a first strike nuclear attack on Iran.* Bush is confident, and probably correctly so, that at least 50.1% of the country will support what he does when the bombs start to fall and that is all that matters.** Of course, Democrats can be safely ignored, as always. And since, to Bush, the press is merely an especially obnoxious species of Democrat, they don’t matter, either.

Remember: he’s The Decider. He decides what’s best. And it is what’s best because he decided it was. The rest of us are, like it or not, along for the ride. That’s the problem with living in an authoritarian state, even one that doesn’t resort – despite Volokh’s fervent desires – to the public torture of its criminals before killing them. You really cannot affect its politics or influence its behavior very much. And if it frightens you to think that the fate of your country, if not the world, rests on the outcome of a desperate power struggle between a goddammed malicious idiot, the Joint Chiefs, the calculations of corrupt Republican politicians and no one else in the world, then… Welcome to the 21st Century, my friends. This ain’t your father’s Missile Crisis.

*Imo, I think it’s beyond serious doubt that if Bush is not stopped, the attack on Iran will be pre-emptive and include nuclear weapons. Both Hersh’s recent article and the response make that clear. Whatever they might be called – surgical, tactical, whatever – they are nuclear bombs, as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They may be a bit smaller, they’re still atomic bombs and atomic bombs do rather nasty things to lots of people. Furthermore, given what we know of his personality from his past behavior, it’s safe to say that Bush has no intention of letting anyone – let alone the head of an official Axis of Evil country – be the first person since Truman to order atomic bombs dropped on people.

** Bush’s advisers have almost certainly estimated how low his poll numbers can fall and still ensure that, once the bombs fall, a majority in the US will bounce back to support him. I suspect that number is considerably below the current 1/3 approval rating, so Bush sees no reason to take public opinion into account, at least right now, in his plans for nuclear war. The support of the Congress (for money) and the military leadership (for execution) is more critical and if they don’t play ball, they very well could derail the invasion.

.

Anonymous Putz

by digby

Joe Klein had an online chat at the Washington Post today. There are many amusing moments, but for me, this one took the cake:

Beeville, Tex: Without meaning offense, how responsible do you yourself feel for contributing to the political environment of canned political discourse? After all, you wrote Anonymous at a time when all political reporting seemed to center on undermining a sitting president.

Joe Klein: I always thought Primary Colors was a tribute to larger than life politicians. As for Bill Clinton, if I’ve been criticized for anything in my career, it’s being too favorable towards him. Primary Colors was a novel. No harm was intended. When Mike Nichols bought the film rights, he said: “There is no villain in this book.” Amen to that.

Oh really.

I’m tired and I can’t really write about this in the detail it deserves, but luckily Columbia Journalism review did a terrific post mortem on the “Primary Colors” fraud. Not only did santimonious prick Joe Klein personally help set the table for the asinine Monica Lewinsky scandal — he committed journalistic malpractice while doing it.

Here’s a highlight:

Once his Anonymous gambit took shape, Klein’s life, like Jekyll’s, became dangerously schizophrenic. Outwardly, he was the journalist-pundit, exuding moral rectitude, culling fact from rumor, reporting truth as he saw it – the man who once denounced as “despicable” those who were spreading charges about Clinton’s private life “to make money.” Yet secretly he worked to breathe life into the most scandalous suspicions about the Clintons in the course of making a pile. (Klein’s denial of any connection between the Clintons and his fictional “Stantons” is, of course, transparent nonsense.)

As the Newsweek pundit, he had written a scathing column (“The Politics of Promiscuity,” May 9, 1994) faulting Clinton for having a fragmented identity “composed of all sorts of persons”; for “always living on the edge, as if he were begging to get caught”; for “lawyering the truth . . . petty fudges, retreats, compromises, denials.” Sounds like a description of Klein himself.

He may have thought he could keep his professional duality concealed indefinitely. But ultimately he went the way of Jekyll, who lost control of his experiment and started turning into Hyde spontaneously, without warning, against his will, and was found out by suspicious colleagues. By the same token, Klein began wondering whether he was losing a grip on his original self (“I asked my agent: ‘Have I changed . . . ? Am I becoming Anonymous? Am I different now?’ ” he wrote in the Book Review piece.) Meanwhile, the relentless scorps closed in until, at last, The Washington Post hit pay dirt. The game was up.

Needless to say, in the frenzy that followed his unmasking (more than 500 articles and editorials, dozens of TV segments), Klein came under intense moralistic assault. The New York Times, for one, stung him in a lead editorial: “People interested in preserving the core of serious journalism have to view his actions and words as corrupt and – if they become an example to others – corrupting.” Meanwhile, Newsweek editor Maynard Parker was being lashed as well. He had known all along that Klein was Anonymous but allowed items to appear in the magazine which suggested that writers other than Klein were plausible suspects. The Dallas Morning News called this “a gross violation of journalistic ethics.”

Tell me again why Democrats are supposed to listen to insults about “inauthentic” politicians who listen to “self-serving” strategists from this man? I keep forgetting.

Hat tip to Tristram Shandy who has more here.

.

Suit Turns Voting Rights Act on Its Head

by digby

It’s good to see the Gonzales Justice department has its priorities straight.

Ike Brown is a legend in Mississippi politics, a fast-talking operative both loved and hated for his ability to turn out black voters and get his candidates into office.

That success has also landed him at the heart of a federal lawsuit that’s about to turn the Voting Rights Act on its end.

For the first time, the U.S. Justice Department is using the 1965 law to allege racial discrimination against whites.

Brown, head of the Democratic Party in Mississippi’s rural Noxubee County, is accused of waging a campaign to defeat white voters and candidates with tactics including intimidation and coercion. Also named in the lawsuit is Circuit Clerk Carl Mickens, who has agreed to refrain from rejecting white voters’ absentee ballots considered defective while accepting similar ballots from black voters.

[…]

The Justice Department complaint says Brown and those working with him “participated in numerous racial appeals during primary and general campaigns and have criticized black citizens for supporting white candidates and for forming biracial political coalitions with white candidates.”

Can you believe it? Racial Appeals? And in Alabama Mississippi, too!

Noxubee County a rural area along the Alabama line named for a Choctaw word meaning “stinking water” has a population of 12,500, 69 percent black and 30 percent white.

Whites once dominated county politics here, but now only one white person holds countywide office, and he says Brown tried to recruit an out-of-county black candidate to run against him three years ago.

The federal case against Brown, scheduled for trial this fall, represents a change in direction in the use of the Voting Rights Act, says Jon Greenbaum, director of the voting rights project for the Washington-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The law was written to protect racial minorities in the 1960s when Mississippi and other Southern states strictly enforced segregation.

“The main concern we have in the civil rights community isn’t necessarily that that DOJ brought this case,” Greenbaum says. “It’s that the department is not bringing meritorious cases on behalf of African-American and Native American voters.”

Justice Department records show the department’s last voting-rights case alleging discrimination against black voters was filed in 2001. Since then, six cases have been brought on behalf of voters of Hispanic or Asian descent in five states plus the case involving white voters in Mississippi.

Well now, that’s how it ought to be, in my book. For too long this country has suffered under the yoke of the African American political power brokers. You can certainly understand why they have chosen to investigate this particular complaint as opposed to say, the voting irregularities in Duvall County in the 2000 election, or the oddly long lines in black precincts in Ohio in 2000. This one county with 12,500 votes is where the real action is.

“This case is real simple,” Brown says, stretching back in a maroon chair during an interview in Mickens’ office, where voter-registration records are kept. “Find me one white person that was discriminated against.”

The main white person who makes the claim is Ricky Walker, the county prosecuting attorney who believes Brown recruited an opponent for him simply because he’s white, an action Walker called “racist.”

Ah yes, the cursed legacy of the discriminated against white male in Alabama Mississippi. It’s a good thing the white citizens of Alabama supported that voting rights act. Where would they be now?

Walker says that when he qualified to run again in 2003, Brown brought in a black lawyer from another part of the state to run against him. A circuit judge found that the lawyer, Winston James Thompson III, had not established residency, and Thompson was not allowed on the ballot.

“I think he just wanted to have a person in that office that he had some control over, a black person,” Walker says.

Thank God racism against African Americans is solved in this country, eh? But gawd help us, we’d better get a handle on this scourge of black discrimination against whites if we ever hope to have a color blind society.

“I think Ike does play race politics,” Colom says. “He is a black political leader who fights the fight like we were still in the 1970s. He doesn’t recognize the progress that we have made.”

But Colom criticizes the Justice Department for filing a complaint against a black political consultant while ignoring similar behavior by white political operatives in Mississippi.

“It has overtones of politics and that’s the wrong road for Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department,” the attorney says. “It’s going to destroy their credibility the next time they ask black people to listen to them.”

No need to worry about that. The Justice Department is just evening the score for the little guy. The African American power structure is just going to have to get used to it.

Hat Tip to Eugene Akers
.

Lost In Translation

by tristero

There are those (heh heh) who think I’m picking on poor Ken Pollack ’cause he never bothered actually to become a Middle East expert before marketing himself as one. They think that fluency in a country’s language is optional in order to demonstrate expertise in a country’s culture.

Okay, my friends, try translating this into Farsi. Hell, I can’t even translate it into recognizable English:

President Bush said Wednesday the verdict rejecting the death penalty for al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui ‘represents the end of this case but not an end to the fight against terror.’

Without commenting directly on the jury’s decision, Bush declared, ‘Evil will not have the final say. This great nation will prevail.’

I have absolutely no idea what Bush is talking about.

Who ever implied that the “fight against terror” would “end” with the sentencing of Moussaoui? And what does a man receiving life imprisonment have to do with “evil” having the final say, or not having the final say? And how did evil have the penultimate say here? And what’s this about prevailing? Prevail against what? A man spending the rest of his life behind bars? The future of the United States is somehow called into question by the verdict? What on earth is Bush talking about?

Okay, I’m exaggerating. I do think I understand the remarks. Bush is saying to his fans – one of out three Americans, even now, can you fucking believe it? – that he thinks the jury was infested with liberals and they let him off the hook; Zac should be whacked.

But really, that interpretation doesn’t begin to do justice to the extremely weird way in which he said it – a fusion of mealy-mouthed Biz Speak, government double-talk, and American fundamentalist claptrap. And it’s just as important that Bush left things out, like, for example, a mention of the actual decision – life imprisonment. I’m sure you guys can find numerous other subtleties, but these will do for starters. Read more of the Bush remarks in the article to get a sense of how peculiar they all are.

There simply is no way in hell – none – that the uniquely bizarre nature of these comments – and their implications- can be crisply translated into, say, Arabic. You’ll inevitably lose the sense of vertigo Bush’s perversion of the English language induces, not to mention the cynical manipulation hidden within the remarks. The important cultural context is lost without access to the original language. Bottom line:

You need to understand Bush and explain him to the leaders of your country? You’ll personally need to read his remarks in the original. Need to understand Ahmadinejad to explain to the leaders of our country? Ditto.

QED.

[UPDATE: Correspondent WBC writes, ‘Okay, I translated it to Farsi and then back into English just to measure any loss in the translation. I think you’ll agree, nothing was lost. It translates to:

“We will continue our crusade with or without this death.” ‘]

I Can’t Hear You

by digby

Via Atrios, I see that the timorous press is calling for the smelling salts again. In the comments of the post in question, we see the following exchange:

Mr. Ververs,

I noticed you gave four examples of lack of civility by the blogosphere:

1. Michelle Malkin complaining about those evil liberals.
2. Joe Klein complaining about those evil liberals.
3. Nathan Gardels complaining about those evil liberals.
4. Deborah Howell complaining about those evil liberals.

Bo234
————————————————————————————
Bo234,

I just went with the most recent examples I was aware of to talk about it in general terms. I welcome your additions of other examples. I certainly don’t believe this is an issue either side has a monopoly on but it does seem to be louder on one side than the other at the moment. Again, feel free to correct me.

Ok. Let’s go over this again, shall we? Let us stipulate that the left blogosphere is a bunch of shrieking freaks who have completely lost our marbles. We are rude, crude and out of control. But louder than the other side? Because of some blogswarms? If only.

For the last twenty years we have had your rightwing radio, your rightwing TV, your rightwing publishing, your rightwing speakers bureaus and your rightwing magazines and your rightwing pulpits. Then you have your imbalanced panels on news shows, your intermarried politicos and journalists and your faux liberal punditocrisy. Yet, our little blogswarms have the entire journalistic establishment all atwitter, wondering what has happened to the discourse?

The entire DC establishment went stark raving bonkers for eight years, followed by nearly five years of a kind of courtier sycophancy we haven’t seen since Louis XVI. I do not know the explanation for why this happened, although I have my suspicions. (The question brings out almost as many possibilities as “why did we invade Iraq?”) But it happened. I saw it with my own eyes. Now they decide that something’s gone wrong?

Are we “louder” now? Certainly. We were veritably silent before. But the entire rightwing media infrastructure still spews out its disgusting bile on a daily basis. perhaps the sound of it has become so familiar to those who live and work in Washington that they no longer hear it. To those of us in the “fever swamp” it is a little alarming. On 6/6/06, Ann Coulter will release her new book about liberals called “Godless.” This is on the heels of Ramesh Ponnuru’s new one called “The Party of Death.” Hannity’s last book was called “Deliver us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism”.

You see, the real difference between the Right blogoshpere and the Left is that the Left blogosphere is angry at the ideology and governance of the Republican party and the media who report on it. We believe the political press has been complicit where it has not been weak and we are taking our complaint directly to them, loudly and in no uncertain terms. It’s angry and vitriolic, but it’s political.

The right blogosphere, on the other hand, is no longer outraged at the Democratic party. They think they are clowns — they can barely get off a good Teddy Kennedy joke before nodding off. And except for the war correspondents whom they believe are cowardly and are refusing to report the good news in Iraq, the energy has gone out of their liberal media critique. But, make no mistake, they are still very, very angry — at rank and file Americans like me.

The gripe on the right side is that “liberals” literally shouldn’t exist. We are Godless, death-loving traitors whose very existence is a blight on the American way of life. They don’t hate our leadership. They hate us personally.

This post by Thomas Crown at RedState sums it up nicely, I think:

I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.

As the t-shirts say

The media sees only the Left these days because the Right has moved on to greener pastures.

.

Hitch on The Spit

by digby

Juan Cole takes Christopher Hitchens downtown and simultaneously writes the most stirring anti-Iran war polemic I’ve read. Hitchens, as usual these days, being both incoherent and dishonest, is evidently itching for another bite of the apple. Cole is having none of it.

.

It’s Not Rocket Science. Just Brain Surgery.

by tristero

Five years or so ago, I published an introductory textbook on intestinal tumors. Entitled “The Threatening Mass: The Case For Invasive GI Surgery, ” I came to the conclusion that only surgical removal of the tumor (no matter how small) stands a chance of working. A less “extreme” treatment – years of pointless, agonizing chemo – will only prolong the danger.

Furthermore, and this was a somewhat controversial assertion back then, I claimed that in all cases of GI cancer, not only must the malignancy be excised, but much of the colon must go as well. In other words, in many more situations than one might think, a colostomy – the notorious “Bag” – was a requirement to ensure long-term stability and health.

“The Threatening Mass” was a medical bestseller and I confess I made good money from it. I’ve spent the last few years making even better money guest-lecturing at medical schools. Even more gratifying – money isn’t everything, of course – surgeons throughout the country adopted my procedure and colostomies have proliferated.

True, there’s been a lot of recent apparent evidence that chemo often appears to work and that extensive GI surgery is counterindicated in many cases – in fact, there appeared to some readers that there was a lot of evidence before I published my book. As for colostomies, despite the fact that removal of most of the colon proved unnecessary in many cases (and psychologically devastating), I still feel confident that in the long run, this seeemingly “radical” expansion of the surgeon’s role in treating GI cancer will result in a preponderance of decisive cures. In truth, I can’t be held responsible for those who misunderstood what I wrote and perform operations hastily or without the specific preparations I prescribe.

In any event, flush from the success of “The Threatening Mass”, I’ve now decided to write an introductory textbook about brain surgery. It will be called “The Pondering Puzzle: The Conflict Between Cancer And Cerebellum.”

I’ll be describing the various kinds of malignant execrescences that can grow in the brain. I’ll discuss how they affect different areas, and what it means in terms of behavior – useful for emergency room diagnoses, to be sure. I’ll also be analysing the various surgical techniques involved and the latest research, both in considerable detail. I’ll talk with brain surgeons, study the advanced textbooks, and read the medical journals. I’ll make specific suggestions as to which surgery is best under specific conditions, complete with a chapter on all the different surgical instruments involved. And I’ll describe the various operations – the advantages and pitfalls – and lay out the possible outcomes.

At the end of my new textbook, I’ve decided to get a little personal for a change. I’m going to drop in a brief author’s note that’ll talk about how I did my research. Readers like to know that sort of thing, even if they’re slogging through a medical text.

I’ll explain that while I’ve been as scrupulous as possible in studying brain surgery, in fact I don’t have a background in oncology, let alone surgery. Not only have I never been in an operating room, I haven’t even tried to stitch up a bad cut. But not to worry: I have looked at dozens of videos of brain surgery and studied some with care. You see, while I have a rudimentary knowledge of medicine – of course, I know where the temporal lobe is, and how to find the hippocampus – I really can’t understand even the most general medical journals because I’ve never been to medical school. However, I assure you, I had well-trained doctors carefully explain to me the meaning of every article I discuss. Just as I did with my text on GI surgery.

Now, given the fact that I never troubled to learn to read the basic language of medicine -or wasted a perfectly fine afternoon by getting my hands bloody in an operating theater – you might think that I have no business writing two words about surgery, let alone two entire books on the subject. Books, I hasten to add, that are thought classics, cited constantly as justification for current protocols. But with all due respect, I disagree.

After all, if Kenneth Pollack is thought a scholar on the Middle East, then I must be considered an expert on brain surgery (and colostomies). At the very least, given how hard I’ve worked to make my knowledge of medicine appear credible, it’s only fitting that my opinion of what constitutes a proper approach to the elimination of cancerous tissue from the body be considered carefully by responsible leaders in the medical community.

And if you like, I’ll be happy to diagnose your own brain tumor. And, what the hell, I might as well do the operation myself. Y’gotta start somewhere, after all. And to make an omelet, you do have to break a few eggs.

(Hat tip to Atrios for the link.)

Convenient Conservatism

by digby

Both David Neiwert and Glenn Greenwald have written blockbuster posts about the foolish Shelby Steele’s stunning call today to divest ourselves of “white guilt” and bomb the hell out of the wogs.

Greenwald looks at the implications of the argument for the GWOT and checks in with the bigotsphere while Neiwert examines this idea in the context of the right’s new assumption the racism is dead — nothing to see here, move along citizen — even while a fairly large faction of Americans are fulminating daily about how the Mexican vermin are defecating in the streets.

The only thing I can add is that I’m not surprised, by either the racism or the embrace of all out war against the the newly “liberated” Iraqis. The conservative experiment is melting down. William F Buckley got what he always wanted and it turned out to be bullshit. We are finally seeing the facade of civilization crumble, leaving only the conservative id.

The argument here is that racism is dead so we needn’t worry about killing, deporting, marginalizing or demonizing “the other.” How convenient for the party that has been exploiting the southern strategy for forty years and finds itself nearly as unpopular as the disgraced president who first embraced it.

.

I Gotcher Bad Taste For Ya Rite-chia

by digby

I’m listening to Scarborough dissect Colbert’s performance with Ana Marie Cox and Michael Sherer from Salon and I can’t believe how vapid it is. They all agree that Colbert is usually hilarious but he wasn’t entirely successful at the white house correspondent’s dinner because well … they’re not quite sure. Apparently, they don’t know that comedians often fail to get laughs in a room full of uncomfortable, angry people who are being skewered by a master satirist who is pulling no punches. Have they ever seen any footage of Lenny Bruce?

And some Democrats, bless their hearts, agree that it got a little rough:

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) took on a rare role yesterday as a defender of President Bush.

Hoyer came to the defense of the commander in chief after Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, where the president took a drubbing from comedian Stephen Colbert.

“I thought some of it was funny, but I think it got a little rough,” Hoyer said. “He is the president of the United States, and he deserves some respect.”

“I’m certainly not a defender of the administration,” Hoyer reassured stunned observers, but Colbert “crossed the line” with many jokes that were “in bad taste.”

Colbert needled Bush, often prompting only an expressionless stare from the president, who appeared not to be amused.

Bad taste? I’ve got your bad taste for you:

Don Imus was the featured speaker at the Radio Television White House Correspondents Association Annual Dinner 1996:

“Dan has these utterly incomprehensible bucolic expressions he punctuates the conversation with. Several times after talking with him, he would say to me ‘Tamp ’em up solid.’ Having something to do, I later learned, with fortifying underground tunnels his father dug, for reasons that remain unclear. Now I’m hearing impaired a little bit from wearing headphones for a long time. I thought he was saying ‘tampons up solid’ and I’m, ‘Why would he say that?’ I mean, I know he’s nuts, but what does that mean? Anyway, I’d laugh and I’d say uh huh, and I would hang up.

[…]

And then there’s Peter Jennings, who we are told more Americans get their news from than anyone else — and a man who freely admits that he cannot resist women. So I’m thinking, here’s Peter Jennings sitting there each evening, elegant, erudite, refined. And I’m thinking, what’s under his desk? I mean , besides an intern. The first place the telecommunications bill should have mandated that a v-chip be placed is in Mr. Jennings shorts.

[…]

By the way, and this is really awful, if you’re Peter Jennings and you’re telling more Americans than anyone else what’s going on in the world, shouldn’t you at least have had a clue that your wife was over at Richard Cohen’s house? She wasn’t at my house! Bernard Shaw and Peter couldn’t be here tonight — he went to the movies with Alanis Morissette — Bernard Shaw and Judy Woodruff round out our network news anchors and deserve mention only to recognize that Bernie has greater nut potential than even Dan Rather. If not for CNN, Bernard Shaw is at the post office marching somebody around at the end of a wire coat hanger and a shotgun.

[…]

Mort Saul made the original observation that people who talk most about family values are all on their second and third wives. And I would point out they all have families you could rope off and charge admission to view. You throw up a tent, put Pat Buchanan, his brother Bay, Newt, Mom, Candace, Hugh Rodham in it, and you’re lookin at a theme park.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Saying the president is rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg doesn’t even come close to that low-life rap. Here’s the whole thing. I’m not saying it doesn’t have its funny moments — but it’s almost entirely inappropriate by anybody’s standards.

Colbert’s routine is a satirical take on the bloviating wingnut (and covert wingnut) gasbags who support the Republicans no matter what they do. That’s not in bad taste. It’s a public service. He stood up there and mirrored what we see them do every day of the week. They didn’t find it funny because it was a little too real.

Apparently Steny Hoyer is a stereotypical Democratic wuss who can’t tell the difference between raunchy bad taste and political satire. I honestly can’t figure who these guys actually appeal to.

And the press — well, we know how they reacted to being insulted as ugly, deranged adulterers. Imus became a huge star and the press corps immediately lined up to go on his show and get under his desk themselves. That’s why we called them mediawhores.

.

Woodpile Full Of Wedges

by digby

This is exactly the kind of thing the mainstream media should be interested in playing.

Bush’s highly-scripted 2001 inaugural ceremony actually featured a rendition of the national anthem sung in Spanish by Jon Secada. From Cox News Service, 1/18/01:

From Cox News Service, 1/18/01:

The opening ceremony reflected that sentiment. A racially diverse string of famous and once famous performers entertained Bush, soon-to-be First Lady Laura Bush, Vice President-elect Richard B. Cheney and his wife, Lynne, who watched on stage from a special viewing area.

Pop star Jon Secada sang the national anthem in English and Spanish.

Apparently, Secada singing the anthem in Spanish was a regular feature of the Bush campaign. From the 8/3/00 Miami Herald:

The nominee, his wife Laura, erstwhile rival John McCain and his wife Cindy joined Bush on a platform where children sang the national anthem – in “Spanglish,” Secada explained.

I have sent this Think Progress link to every reporter I can think of. If they could run the tape of Monica in trhe beret on a loop for two years, they can show Bush sitting there smiling at Jon Secada singing the national anthem in Spanglish a time or two.

This, my friend, are what sharp political wedges are made of.

By the way, Bush supporter Jon Secada appeared at the 2000 GOP convention and even sang in Spanish (although not the Star Spangled banner.)

If you recall, the whole 2000 GOP convention had an strong Hispanic theme to it:

They brought plenty of props and a sea of signs. The signs read: ”Our Final Answer” and ”Giddyup” and ”un nuevo dia.” They gave the place a homey, grass-rootsy feel. But they weren’t really homemade.

Each afternoon, convention workers came by and dropped the hand-painted placards on the seats. They were all made in the same place and, judging by the lettering, by the same small group of people.

I seem to recall the hunky George P Bush wowing the wingnuts with his totally awesome bi-lingual speech, too:

George P. called George W., “a good man, un hombre de grande sentimientos, who loves his family and his country.”

As he concluded his brief remarks, he exhorted the cheering delegates with a message that combined family and country: “Now is the time to restore a sense of honor and decency to the White House. We can do that by electing my uncle the next president of the United States. Que viva W! Que viva Bush! Que viva los Estados Unidos.”

Oh my goodness. Who let the “illegal alien” into the Bush family?

.