Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Goon Show

I couldn’t help but notice the ages of the “goons” who tried to drown out Kerry with airhorns in Milwaukee yesterday:

About 30 Bush supporters chanted loudly during the speeches by Kerry and his wife, sometimes setting off air horns. The pro-Bush group was on the Kilbourn Ave. sidewalk overlooking Pere Marquette Park, almost a full block from the stage, but it could be heard throughout the park, including on stage.

Tom Lange, 18, of Waukesha said he was setting off an air horn during Kerry’s remarks because “we want them to hear us and not hear what he has to say.”

Lange said it’s “probably not nice, but it’s my beliefs.”

Michael Gaspar, 18, of Waukesha used a bullhorn frequently before and during the rally to welcome Kerry supporters “to Bush-Cheney country” and to spur on the Bush supporters.

Asked why he was leading the Bush volunteers in loud chants while Kerry was speaking, he said, “I’m doing this to show my support for President George W. Bush.”

“I have the right to speak also,” he said. “I’m just attempting to get my voice heard.”

It immediately reminded me of an article recently posted by David Niewert called “Hate Among the Young.”:

One of the most troubling aspects of the recent resurgence of white-supremacist ideology and its attendant hate crimes is the reality that young people — especially young males — are now the primary target of recruitment by hate groups.

Even if they never join such groups (which is most often the case), young men are targeted by white-supremacist ideologues specifically because they know they are likely to act out on the belief system spread by the rhetoric they engender, which is often picked up and used by non-members who are nonetheless sympathetic. Hate groups carefully tailor their messages to appeal to young men’s sensibilities, running the gamut from inflaming urban and suburban racial tensions in high schools to promoting so-called “racist rock.”

I’m not saying that these kids in Milwaukee are white supremecists. But, they are young politically aware right wingers who are using thuggish tactics. The bridge between those two points is shorter than anywhere else on the political spectrum.

This actually validates one of Niewert’s observations about how the tactics of the hate groups and militia’s are being adopted and absorbed into mainstream Republican culture. It stands to reason that young punks like these would be at the forefront.

Goon is exactly the right word for them and I would expect that we are only seeing the beginning. There is now an entire generation raised with Rush Limbaugh shouting in their ears. Eliminationist rhetoric is mother’s milk to these kids.

The Politics Of Image and Derision

White House and Bush campaign officials have long said that the details matter far less than the pictures and sounds of Mr. Bush talking in any way about his campaign against terrorism, which polls show is still his strongest card against Mr. Kerry.

This is the kind of thing that should be ground out by every single Democrat on radio, television and print. The White House believes that the details matter far less than the pictures and sounds of Junior “talking in any way” about terrorism. Pointing this out — and the loyalty oaths demanded of the crowds, the faux backdrops, the refusal to hold press conferences and explain their policies, could go a long way toward educating the public about what phonies they are.

We haven’t done this and as a result, Karl Rove’s dictum about politics being “TV with the sound turned off” remains absolutely true. Unless half the country has ingested so much lead that their IQ’s have been cut in half, there is no other explanation as to why people see this dancing monkey as a great leader. It’s the images.

The other side of this formula, of course, is their rapier attacks against the Democrats. The Bush campaign has said that its convention will use humor and derision to criticize John Kerry. Josh Marshall points out that this propensity for ridicule seems to be built into the right’s DNA.

Republicans are very good at this. And it can be a tool that is deceptively difficult to respond to or combat. Effective mockery is ‘sticky’, hard to shake off, hard to parry. And it appeals to people’s appetite for fun and humor.

Indeed, it’s not just contemporary Republicans who have a knack for this. There seems to be something intrinsic to the reactionary or right-leaning mentality that gravitates toward this method of political combat. Think of the Tory pamphleteers and essayists of the 18th century in Great Britain or others of a more recent vintage in the US.

I think this is because the right is essentially authoritarian

and group derision is one of the most powerful weapons in the bully’s arsenal. Frat boys, Heathers, street gangs, insider cliques of all kinds use it to terrorize the loners and coerce fealty from those who don’t want to be a target. Indeed, forcing others to join in the cruelty is the actual point. I’ve loathed and resisted this dynamic my whole life. It may be the single most important reason I am a Democrat. I just can’t stand those assholes.

But, it is a very powerful social force that asserts itself in various ways from childhood into old age. Right now, we seem to be in one of those periodic cultural eras in which these kinds of adolescent, anti-intellectual social types come to the fore. (There is no greater example than the president himself — “Fuck Saddam, we’re takin’ ‘im out.”) It’s hard to fight in this environment and while I am all for ridiculing them right back, I’m afraid that most liberals are never going to have quite the flair for it that they do. We have way more genuinely funny guys and gals deflating the hypocricies of our times, but the bullies have that nasty coercive streak that really gives this stuff its punch. “Laugh, you pussies, unless you want a piece of this.”

I spent a lot of time interacting with activist Republicans in years gone by and you’d be surprised at how lame we leftys generally are at this game. The bullies have spent their entire lives eating reasoned arguments and pleas for civility for breakfast. Still, I think it’s a good idea for us to keep at it. They really hate being made fun of. Even if most of us can’t strike that perfect, snarly bitchy tone in our mockery we can still bother them with it.

Unfortunately, however, in the long run the Democratic party really can’t indulge very much in these high school games because the fate of the world depends upon somebody rising above this immaturity. For all of our fractiousness and various feints left, right and center, we are the grown up party. Gawdhelpus.

Update: Sommerby has more on this topic in today’s column. And for the record, I agree with him about Garofolo on Hannity. I love her, but she was unprepared. The “biggest liberal in the senate” line is entirely predictable and she should have had the facts at hand, a ready diversionary feint or some kind of a snarky takedown. This isn’t really a complaint just about her. The Democrats often don’t seem as armed for combat as the Republicans even when they know very well what the RNC talking points are going to be. Garofolo is a very sharp cookie but she needs some help. Gawd knows the GOP helps its talking heads with staff and oppo researchers and clip services up to here. If Janeane and others are going to be voices for the Democrats in the media they need some back-up.

Downhome With The Family

Tristero says that the American delegation to the Olympics, headed by Bush Sr, Barbara and the twins, will be staying on the family yacht — “all 300 feet of it.”

Yep, that “Heart and Soul” of America, good ole boy Texas shit-kicker preznit of ours ain’t no Frenchman.

Whoops

Angry Bear catches me being much too generous to the Bush administraton. (I’m as shocked as you are.)

In my post below I said that Bush hadn’t technically lied when he claimed that “some must think that you can negotiate with them, you can talk sense with them, you can hope that they change.” I said he could claim that he was referring to Phillippine president Arroyo or the Egyptians or even Reagan.

It turns out that he was responding to a specific question about Kerry:

Q Mr. President, thank you. All of this as you know is coming in the context of the presidential election campaign. Your opponent has made a couple of charges that I would like your response to. One, essentially saying that three years after the 9/11 attacks, to go about the business of rehauling the intelligence community is too long. Second, there’s been a suggestion from the Kerry camp today that this administration is actually responsible for fueling the recruitment of al Qaeda through some of its policies, particularly — they didn’t say this directly — but the war in Iraq. Your response?

So, the president was referring directly to Kerry, who has never said anything about negotiating or appeasing terrorists, quite the opposite.

The president of the United States is a lying sack of shit. I knew that. My bad.

All Hail The King

Once again, my friends, thank your deity of choice for Paul Krugman.

He’s the one mainstream columnist who gets the zeitgeist of the blogpsphere. We owe him a great deal. He inhabits a very important piece of journalistic real estate and he’s singing our song.

Following Orders

This is a depressing story. I grew up in a Navy family and this sounds about right. Takes me back to 1972 it does:

“The problem is, a lot of the chiefs don’t make any secret of the fact that Bush is their man,” said Wendy Layton, program director at the USO center just outside the Mayport Naval Station here. “A lot of these young people feel pressured to register a certain way and vote a certain way.”

The officers may not say so while on registration duty, she added, but enlistees say they usually don’t have to.

“I knew they wanted me to register Republican, and when I came out of the NEX, I just sort of avoided the [registration] table,” said Navy Seaman Charles Gillis, 22, who was invited by officers to register a few weeks ago but declined. He is undecided and still not registered.

[…]

In the Navy’s part of this town, it is fair to say that no non-Republican would feel welcome. Walk into American Legion Post 316 any night and it is crowded with retired Navy enlistees and their wives who for the most part revere Bush. They not only revere him, they take umbrage at any perceived suggestion of disloyalty, a standard met in the eyes of the group one recent night by the mere presence of a reporter.

“Out! Take your notebook and get out of here!” said a battery of voices when I entered, though they relented when others at the bar spoke up for the rights of the free press – a value held as dearly, apparently, as fealty.

Their general rap on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a decorated Navy veteran of Vietnam, was that Kerry didn’t deserve his Silver Star, or his Bronze Star, or his three Purple Hearts; that these decorations were somehow obtained by political calculation. “He was just planning to run for president, right from the beginning, that’s what I think,” said Margaret Leonie Dent, the wife of a Navy retiree. “They say his wounds were paper cuts. Just look at the man. He looks French for God’s sake.”

Tell it to Mark Racicot and Tom DeLay, you pathetic ignoramus.

I’m getting awfully tired of the Borg.

Glad You Brought That Up

Here’s what the paper of record has on its front page right now:

Polls Show Some Gains for Kerry, but Race Is Tight

By ADAM NAGOURNEY 11:58 PM ET

Polls showed the smallest postconvention bounce for a challenger since George McGovern was nominated in 1972.

Frank Luntz himself couldn’t have spun it better.

September Surprise?

Robert Kuttner outlines Kerry’s challenges going into the election and I agree with him when he says:

The country has grave doubts about Bush’s leadership. But everything I know about politics tells me that Election Night 2004 will be another nail-biter.

He discusses certain well-trod issues like the damning electoral math, the increasingly obstructive nature of the press and this month’s money disadvantage. But, he brings up something I, at least, hadn’t heard before and it’s something that Bush can easily arrange:

Well placed sources say that Bush’s client government in Baghdad will put Saddam Hussein on trial, conveniently, in September. (It took years to prepare the Milosevic trial, but the efficient Iraqis will display Saddam in time for the US election.)

Saddam’s outrages will be paraded on live American TV, reinforcing the idea that the Iraq war, no matter what the misrepresentations and blunders, was justified. Of course, nobody is debating whether Saddam was a vicious tyrant. The issue is whether America should have rushed to war on false information, without allies, and without a competent plan for the aftermath. Still, a September show trial will be a Bush propaganda coup.

It could be enough of a pageant to get the whores all excited and wearing their little flag pins again. It puts Iraq into play in a positive way — here’s our victory for freedom and democracy. His little puppet Allawi will be happy to comply, I have no doubt.

The best we could hope for in this scenario would be for Saddam’s prostate to act up. Dear gawd.

Outrage!

Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way.

[…]

“You could say that the bulk of this information is old, but we know that Al Qaeda collects, collects, collects until they’re comfortable,” said one senior government official. “Only then do they carry out an operation. And there are signs that some of this may have been updated or may be more recent.”

Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said on Monday in an interview on PBS that surveillance reports, apparently collected by Qaeda operatives had been “gathered in 2000 and 2001.” But she added that information may have been updated as recently as January.

The comments of government officials on Monday seemed softer in tone than the warning issued the day before. On Sunday, officials were circumspect in discussing when the surveillance of the financial institutions had occurred, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge cited the quantity of intelligence from “multiple reporting streams” that he said was “alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information.”

That tears it. The drama of that announcement yesterday was just short of “Run for your lives!” Ridge gave a Bush campaign speech in the middle of it. And, the information was gathered before 9/11, fergawdsake. Al Qaeda doesn’t have to attack, Bush is getting the same results all by himself.

I can’t believe that I still had some faith in the integrity of this government. Jesus H. Christ, you really cannot believe anything these people say. Nada.

Update: Atrios has Judy Botox reading the RNC talking points about Howard Dean’s totally off the wall suggestion that Ridge’s announcement was, shall we say, politically convenient. Maybe the hair-do just takes so long that she doesn’t have time to do anything but regurgitate Republican talking points. They make it so convenient, faxing it right to her in easy to read format and all. (And they’re so wickedly delicious.)

On the other hand, she’s been doing exactly the same thing for at least six years. But no matter how much she tries to be as “edgy” (read: wingnutty) as FOXNews they still beat her in the ratings. She’s a trooper, though. She won’t give up until she’s Neil Cavuto’s bitch.

Straw Man For President

Salon’s War Room notes that Junior and Uncle Dick are going around saying that the Democrats want to negotiate with al-Qaeda.

“See, evidently some must think that you can negotiate with them, you can talk sense with them, you can hope that they change,” President Bush said during his Rose Garden appearance Monday morning. Vice President Cheney, speaking at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, warned that al Qaida “is not a foe we can reason with, or negotiate with, or appease. This is . . . an enemy that we must vanquish.”

[…]

Where did the Bush-Cheney machine get the idea that Kerry would negotiate with or appease terrorists? CNN’s Judy Woodruff put that question to White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett Monday. He responded by changing the subject to the “explaining” Kerry must do about his votes on the Iraq war.

In the old days presidents were forced to face the press once in a while and the press would ask them questions like this and demand specific answers until they got something resembling an explanation. Today, we have “press availabilities” with functionaries who answer questions that haven’t been asked and the press just nods and moves on.

The president and vice president are not outright lying, of course. They said “some must think.” They didn’t name John Kerry. Indeed, they could very well be talking about their coalition of the willing friend and colleague Phillippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who negotiated with “terrorists” in Iraq against the United States’s wishes just a week or so ago. Or they could be referring to our allies the Jordanian and Egyptian governments who’ve both been accused of negotiating with Iraqi insurgents in recent cases. And as the Salon article pointed out, they could even be talking about Ronald Reagan who also negotiated with terrorists and even sold them weapons (not that he recalled doing it.)

So they can say that it is not fair to condemn them for accusing John Kerry when there are so many other possible ways to interpret their words. They can’t help it if Americans automatically assume that they are talking about that Democrat pussy. That’s his problem.

To tell you the truth, I don’t know quite what to make of this. They have always operated as the “you can believe me or you can believe your lyin’ eyes” administration, but I think they are relying a little bit too much here on hate radio and outmoded stereotypes to carry swing voters. Nobody who saw Kerry’s speech the other night could possibly believe that he said anything about negotiating with terrorists. I’m not sure anyone who hasn’t been totally brainwashed by Limbaugh would believe this. This is right wing red meat politics and it’s a bit strange to see them shoring up their base this blatantly from the Rose Garden, especially as they try to make their run to the middle.

I’m really beginning to wonder if they haven’t arranged to manipulate the voting machines in a couple of the battleground states. It’s hard to see how they win with only their committed firebreathers and that really seems to be their strategy.