I know everybody loves a Nixonian Republican named Martha who cries, but would it be too much for the press to actually report the backround on this little kabuki today?
The always-alert Creative Response Concepts, a conservative public relations firm, sent this bulletin: “Former Alito clerk Gary Rubman witnessed Mrs. Alito leaving her husband’s confirmation in tears and is available for interviews, along with other former Alito clerks who know her personally and are very upset about this development.”
In case that was too much trouble for the journalists, the firm also e-mailed out a statement from the Judicial Confirmation Network calling “for the abuse to stop.”
This was all spontaneous, of course. Any resemblance to Clarence Thomas’ “high tech lynchings” or Lynn Cheney’s “this is not a gooood man” is purely coincidental.
I think it’s time for Ted Kennedy to haul some little girls who were strip searched in to testify. You wanna play? Bring it.
And it’s also time for Democrats to see this as the gift it is. For once the snivellers are the Republicans, playing against type. But that means we’re playing against type also. It’s not often that the country sees us as “too tough.” We should play like Pat Fitzgerald and say “we’re just doing our jobs, ma’am. This is important business.” Let Huckleberry and the boys whimper like little old ladies.
Via Talk Left’s fine analysis of yesterday’s hearings
Update: Rending his garments and speaking in tongues, Roger L. Simon hits a new low.
Update II: Uncomfortable with being seen as the delicate Ashley and Melanie’s they are, there’s this:
And I think Mrs. Alito was crying because she couldn’t jump out of her seat and beat the living hell out of those arrogant condescending bastards who were making those false and scurrilous implications about her husband.
David Neiwert’s got a must read piece up on immigration, the Minutemen and the Australian race riots. Nobody does this difficult subject better than he does. Get ready. it’s going to be one of the big topcis coming up in this next year whether we like it or not.
It’s happening everywhere — in the Northwest, in California, in the Midwest, in the South, even in pockets in the Northeast. What’s important to understand is that much of this agitation is taking place under the radar, by well-financed organizations who operate through focus groups and “think tanks.” Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Nick Coleman described just such an operation taking place recently in Minnesota under less-than-upfront circumstances:
The woman moderator, who said she was from Maryland, wanted very much to talk about immigrants. The participants already had discussed any issues they were concerned about, except the war in Iraq. There would be no talk about Iraq, the woman said. But up to that point, no one had mentioned immigration, much to the annoyance of the moderator. So she prodded the group to complain about immigrants.
“I haven’t heard anybody talk about immigration,” Peoples, an independent, recalls her saying. “Anybody have a problem with the illegal aliens coming in?”
The group’s response to the question was “a deafening silence,” Peoples says. But the woman pushed harder, listing some of the complaints she said she had heard in other states where she had conducted focus groups. Still, no one obliged her. Instead, Peoples mentioned the immigrant workers in a nearby town, praising them for how hard they seem to work.
Not the correct answer. Someone was paying money for this. They wanted problems.
“She shut me off,” Peoples recalls. “Then she said, ‘Aren’t you having problems here?’ “
The state Republican and DFL parties each deny having sponsored the mystery focus group, as does the Republican congressman for the area, Gil Gutknecht, and his DFL challenger, Tim Walz. Also in denial mode was the office of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who recently poured gasoline on the immigrant issue with the release of a crudely overstated report designed to inflame opinion and make immigration into a wedge issue.
That last bit was opinion. But this is fact: Anti-immigration forces are working hard to raise resentment and to exploit immigration for political gain, cozying up to politicians who will help them fence the borders.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the big picture: the anti-immigrant push really represents a significant incursion of right-wing extremism into mainstream conservatism. Each is busy empowering the other, with the end result being an American right pushed even farther to the right.
I’m not looking forward to fighting this battle. Some fair minded good people are getting caught up in it because they don’t understand that it is a manufactured political wedge issue. It’s going to be unpleasant.
If Democrats can muster the self discipline keep our poweder dry on this, it will work as a much deeper wedge into the GOP. If we don’t, we’ll be split by it too.
Bush said the war’s critics should stop questioning the motives that led him to launch the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
“The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it…. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right,” Bush said.
“I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy — not comfort to our adversaries,” Bush said.
[…]
Karen Finney, the Democratic National Committee’s communications director, said “the Bush administration’s attack, distract and distort tactics reflect a Nixonian paranoia that is un-American.”
Of course, saying things like this might make Laura cry and cause lil’ Huckleberry Graham to clutch his opera length pearls and purse his purdy lips together in a pout, but, you know, fuck it. This is not a goooood man.
Following up my post below, is there anyone besides me who thinks that Huckleberry Graham’s grandmotherly lecture and the teary Mrs Alito’s exit seemed just a bit too pat?
Huckleberry, after all, served as Stripsearch Sammy’s coach for the hearings. I’m just saying…
Does anybody but me get tired of listeing to Huckleberry Graham constantly lecture the senators about their manners? Every damned time he gets in one of these situations he pulls his Andy Taylor talking to Opie voice and drones on and on about good people not wanting to be in government because Democrats are so rude.
Wring your little lace hankie someplace else, Lindsay. This is important shit. Give a little weekly lecture to your thuggish Republican colleagues why don’t you? They could use a little Miss Manners.
Jayzuz. This cornpone sanctimony makes me want to hurl.
There is some discussion about whether the Democrats should concentrate on accusing the Republicans of criminal behavior or putting forth a competing reform plan, which might imply that the system itself is at fault for the Republican abuses. I’m not sure that we have to choose so starkly, but I do think that tactically we need to make sure that this scandal is clearly framed as a Republican scandal before we produce any larger reforms. Right now the public is just starting to get a sense of what this scandal is about and we have an opportunity to exploit some existing images and archetypes to paint the Republicans as the criminals they are before we launch a national campaign to clean up the mess.
It pays to keep in mind that the 1994 Republicans didn’t put out their “Contract On America” until six weeks before the election. They’ve pretended that it won them the election but that’s a joke. (They did use bogus polling to give that impression.) What won that election was relentless criticism over the course of many months leading up to it. They built upon a reserve of discontent about a slow economic recovery by placing the blame for everything squarely on the “liberals” and the Democratic party. Their “positive” agenda was just gilding the lilly.
Whatever 10 point reform plans we produce, and we should produce them, the message has to be simple and straightforward: “The Republicans are crooks and we have to clean house to make sure they can’t do it again”
Newtie and Noonan and others have been out there furiously trying to convince the media that the problem is big government (and we know who loves Big Govmint, don’t we?) This is no accident. They use every opportunity, even when they are under the gun, to advance negative images against the other side and boldly use that negativitity to advance themselves. They are positioning themselves for a reform message that blames a Democratic value (government) for the Republicans’ problems in Washington. “Don’t blame us, the Big Government made us do it.”
They are saying this because they know very well that the most dangerous negative meme that haunts Republicans is the image of abuse of power and criminal behavior: there are words and phrases that bring this right to the surface like “slush funds,” “illegal wiretapping” and “bribery.” It’s all connected to a certain type of governance —- that we happen to be witnessing in real time. Again. Nixonian Republicanism.
The GOP has understood for years that they can gain great traction by piggybacking every criticism on existing negative images of Democrats (usually some version of effeminate, undisciplined cowards.) Here we have one of the most vivid negative examples of the Republican archetypes. The greedy little man on the Monopoly Box. We are fools if we don’t come at them with everything we have, focusing our fire on the corrupt political machine and the arrogant imperial presidency. In the wake of the faux GOP outrage at the trivial Clinton scandals, which are even fresher in people’s memories than Nixon, this could cripple them for a good long while if we handle it correctly.
I realize that some Democrats are feeding at the trough. We need to deal with that. But first things first. This is about a complex criminal political enterprise and there is simply no comparison between it and the rather workaday corruption of politicians generally, including Democrats. Their purpose was to build a permanent majority using whatever illegal and legal means at their disposal. And they planned to create an executive branch that operates entirely independently and is answerable only to an “accountability moment” every four years.
I think it’s a big mistake to treat this as just another in a long line of reforms that become necessary every few years. It simply was not business as usual.
Here’s a rather amusing example of GOP think on this from a commenter, who offered it up apparently without irony:
allow me to explain why the Abramoff scandal, like so many others before it, will prove to be more devestating to the Dems then it could possibly be to the GOP, much less conservatives.
The Dems bleat daily that they are the “minority” party. That they are the “loyal opposition.” Yet who actually does something when a scandal arises? Who opened the investigation into the Plame non-leak? Who is pursuing the leak of an NSA program that threatens national security and possibly civil liberties? Who addressed possible torture at Abu Ghraib? Who is set to clean house over the Abramoff tempest in a teapot that threatens to implicate some of the biggest names in the Republican Party, perhaps the very culture of Republican politics?
Not the “loyal opposition” … but rather the Bush Administration.
Teh public knows this. Or is growing to know this with each passing day. They, the voting public, will be left to wonder, if the “loyal opposition” cannot even muster the courage to bring such scandals to the light of day, then for what are they good for?
Americans are already starting to realize that if a “loyal opposition” cannot even do its job of defeating the party in powers’ corruption and misgovernance (examples of which are legion, apparently), then how can we possibly entrust them with the real job of governing the nation?
Rather, American voters will know they would be wiser to turn to the REpublican Party, which has made some partisan, ideological and hubristic missteps, yes – even engaged in a pattern of criminal behavior it would seem. All those sins, yes, but still the GOP is not so grossly incompetent or lacking in power that it would allow what it has done over the past few years to pass, if it had been the Democrats who had done it.
Truly, the Dems attack the Abramoff scandal at their peril.
William G. Henders |
It’s hard to know if he’s serious. But he could be. It’s a twisted Rovian view in the extreme. No matter what, attack the Dems for being chickenshit. Works like a charm.
I think that we can all agree that ten point plans don’t win elections. We have to bring to the surface people’s almost palpable discomfort with Republican governance, as measured in the president’s approval rating, the right track/wrong track numbers and everything else. We have to make people willing to admit to themselves what they already know and we need to do it in clear no nonsense terms — or that fellow’s mind boggling strategy might just work.
Bush needs to cut down on the coffee. He’s so wound up this morning he looks like he’s going to spin off the stage. There is something wrong with this man.
I appears that he is taking Rove’s advice over his “younger staffers.” He’s adopted the super aggressive swagger attitude favored by his guru:
President Bush warned Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Tuesday to watch what they say or risk giving “comfort to our adversaries” and suffering at the ballot box in November. Democrats said Bush should take his own advice.
[…]
Tuesday’s … sharp message represented an attempt by the president to neutralize Democrats’ ability to use Iraq — where violence is surging in the wake of December parliamentary elections and messy negotiations to form a new coalition government — as an election-year cudgel against Republicans.
Bush acknowledged deep differences over Iraq among casualty-weary Americans, just 39 percent of whom approve of his handling of the war, according to AP-Ipsos. Without specifically mentioning Democrats, the president urged campaigning politicians to “conduct this debate responsibly.”
I’m always touched when Republicans show such concern for Democratic electoral prosepcts. I know they only have our best interests at heart.
I think the simplest story that reveals the difference between what people perceive as ‘big-business influence through lobbying” (which they relate to both parties) and the Culture of Corruption swirling around the Republicans is the one involving the Magazine Publishers of America.
Back in 2000 the magazine industry hired Abramoff as a lobbyist (he was then at Preston Gates Ellis) to help stem a proposed rise in postal rates. Now, most people can understand why the magazine industry would not want higher postal rates: it affects the bottom line of their business. Aside from printing, postage is one of their biggest costs. No one, of course, likes higher postal rates (and no one particularly wants magazine subscription rates to rise). But sometimes they are necessary to keep the postal system running. Nonetheless, it would seem perfectly legitimate for the MPA to hire a lobbyist to try to put their case before congressional members. One would assume the USPS would similarly be trying to jawbone legislators to present their side of the story, arguing FOR the need to raise postal rates. Senators and representatives should then duly consider the arguments from both sides and come to a decision about whether rates should rise or not.
This is not what happened. Mr. Abramoff was paid $525,000 by the MPA to seek a postal rate reduction in Congress. Did he make a heckuva case for them? Not exactly: he asked the MPA to give an additional $25,000 to a Seattle-based charity (slush fund) he’d helped found–and then he used that money (as well as another $25K from elottery) to help pay the salary for the wife of Tom Delay staff member Tony Rudy. It’s called money laundering and bribery.
It’s okay for lobbyists to collect money from clients to argue their cases before legislators. It’s even okay (though problematic) for businesses or interests who have a stake in congressional legislation to try to elect the people they think can help them by donating to their campaigns, within the law. (Though I’d like to see changes in those laws.) What’s not okay is money laundering and bribery. That is what a number of Republican Congressmen and their staffers are involved in here …. but no Democrats, to our knowledge.
The Democrats may be too tied to corporate contributions, and it’s a problem that needs to be addressed. But we have thus far not seen any widespread shakedown, extortion, bribery, money-laundering schemes to which high-level Democrats or their staffers were party.
It’s an easier story to understand than the baroque Indian tribe one (though smaller in scale). But it’s been going on a long time, and DeLay and his staffers were at the very heart of it.
And yeah…. the Republicans are famous for defending their own until the fire gets too hot. The Democrats let go of Trafficante the moment his shenanigans hit the fan (it might even have been before), disavowing him. The Republicans have been trying to defend DeLay even AFTER his indictment. They got him to relinquish his leadership role, but they have in no way repudiated him formally.
George W. Bush’s latest thoughtful speech was, as usual, boldly audacious. With his demand that responsible debate over Iraq must be limited entirely to arguments over exactly how much praise he deserves, The President’s speech will go down in history as among the most remarkable utterances ever.
The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see [sic] it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
In other words:
Is the Bush administration doing (1) a heckuva job; (2) a heckuva great job; or (3) a totally heckuva great job? And how can we help The President be more right?
Before we can answer that second question, we need to understand exactly why The President refuses to consider the topics he mentions as worthy of responsible discussion.
Of course, we didn’t invade Iraq because of oil. Why this isn’t obvious to everyone is one of the mind-boggling mysteries of our epoch. Briefly, all we’re trying to do is grow the Iraq economy. Now, everyone knows the world is in a post-industrial phase, where it’s high tech that rules, not Big oil-gobbling Iron. Therefore, it’s vital to Iraq’s infrastructure that they make use as soon as possible of their most abundant resource – sand – and become the major player they deserve to be in the international chip market.
All we’re doing is expediting that process by purifying the sand. We’re simply eliminating all that putrid-smelling retro petro-pollution from their valuable natural mineral resource and shipping the smelly sludge – at our own companies’ expense, mind you – back to the US. This is not about oil but about transforming a volatile region into a Land Of Milk and Honey. And Sand. Because of The President’s actions, I can predict with near certainty that within five years Iraq will become the pre-eminent Silicon Desert of the Middle East.
As for Israel, it simply must be recognized that any critic who mentions Israel in the same sentence with Iraq is not only thoroughly irresponsible but clearly an out and out anti-Semite. Now I admit, Pat Robertson may have been overstretching a bit, but only those who refuse to acknowledge cause and effect fail to see the connection between Sharon’s recent stroke and the unremitting criticism he received in the past few months by all those here in the US who refused to support the Iraq war.
Now regarding the alleged misleading of the American people, I submit that The President never did such a thing. The proof, as if any is needed (he is after, all The President, and doesn’t need proof), can be found in this very speech of 10 January, 2006. Notice how carefully and repeatedly The President distinguishes between “Saddamists” and “foreign terrorists.” He’s telling us he’s known all along that there’s a difference and that he’s never confused them. Furthermore, notice how he fearlessly deplores the utterly unprecedented abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi security forces. This also subtly alludes to the moral axis of The President’s actions in Iraq. After all, where else could those murderous Iraqi security police possibly have learned to perpetrate such horrors if not while suffering under the obscene guidance of the monstrous Sons of Saddam – Uday and what’shisname?
But The President goes even further in clearing our mind of dangerous clutter. Little noticed by the punditocracy – at least so far – The President makes it very clear he has secret evidence American troops never blew up innocent wedding parties. Those were suicide bombers disguised as American planes and Blackhawks.*
But we digress. Back to that second question: How can The President be more right? Okay. I’ll tell you and I’m not going to mince words. And I don’t care who wants to turn me in for saying them!
I think the Big Problem is that everyone thinks The President is wrong and they won’t trust his judgment. I think it’s wrong that these people are wasting The President’s time by making him worry that he’s only doing a heckuva job. I think responsible debate should be limited to whether The President is doing a heckuva great job or better. If this proposal is adopted, The President by definition would immediately be more right! And that’s what we, and he, want.
I think if irresponsible opponents weren’t clogging The President’s time with so many questions and empty scandals that his presidency has begun to resemble a New Orleans sewer, The President would have been able to sign the necessary emergency orders for more upper body armor for our troops. Now, let me be crystal clear about this: Because The President couldn’t find time to sign that order, the critics of the The President’s performance are responsible for much more – way much more – than aiding and comforting our enemies. The irresponsible critics of The President are systematically killing our soldiers. And I don’t care who knows it.
Now, the Doomsayer Democrats object to certain wiretaps made without authorization. I say if they don’t like them, here’s a plan that will end the “illegal” wiretaps debate immediately. Disconnect the critics’ telephones! And while we’re at it, deny ’em ADSL. Let them rant over a 28.8k AOL connection and see how well they like it.
Bottom line: The President couldn’t be more right. After all, he wouldn’t be The President if that wasn’t so. That’s self-evident, just like it says in the Constitution. Or somewhere.
*Don’t let yourself be misled by the irresponsible rantings of mere eyewitnesses who swore they were American planes. They weren’t and I have a reason why they were mistaken.
Now, of course I have only the greatest sympathy for a bride whose husband was turned into viscous red goo in the middle of their vows, but, to be perfectly blunt, such an hysterical woman does not a reliable witness make. Indeed, probably very few men would either, in her position (not as the bride of another man, of course, nor did I mean to imply by “her position” anything smutty, it’s just that I meant…oh, you get it, I don’t need to explain).
