As I’m watching the mini frenzy over the trumped up “Mary Cheney” controversy, I am struck by how much the GOP is off its game.
Think about it. The morning after the final debate, they trotted out the wife of the vice president to attack John Kerry for being too mean —- about their gay daughter. What’s the plan? Are they trying to make a mad dash to the middle by portraying the “most liberal member of the senate” as being intolerant toward gays? Or is this supposed to enrage and energize the base — all of whom think that we should actually change the constitution to permanently discriminate against gay people. It’s weird and unfocused. It’s very hard for me to believe that they want to spend the day with the words “vice president’s gay daughter” being repeated over and over again on television.
Meanwhile, while Lynn Cheney is performing the role of rabid attack dog, the only sight we’ve seen of Commander Codpiece the Warrior King (looking even more dazed and confused than ever) was a brief uncomfortable interview on Air Force One where John McCain gave his best streetwalker impression and some woman (didn’t catch who she is) brought up Bush’s worst moment in the debate in which he said that the answer to those who had lost their jobs was to improve elementary school standards. “That’s just common sense” she said.
Lynn Cheney is all over the TV saying “as a mom” that Kerry used a “cheap and tawdry political trick” by mentioning her gay daughter. “He’s not a good man,” she says.
“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue that our family is very familiar with. … With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free — ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”
Remember Schieffer’s question?
Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
Shocking for Kerry to bring up Cheney’s daughter in that context, eh? As Andrew Sullivan says this morning:
I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry’s mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a “low blow”. Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president’s family. That’s a public fact. No one’s privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush’s wife or daughters, no one says it’s a “low blow.” The double standards are entirely a function of people’s lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It’s a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign. He deserves to be held to account for this – and how much more effective than showing a real person whose relationship and dignity he has attacked and minimized? Does this makes Bush’s base uncomfortable? Well, good. It’s about time they were made uncomfortable in their acquiescence to discrimination. Does it make Bush uncomfortable? Even better. His decision to bar gay couples from having any protections for their relationships in the constitution is not just a direct attack on the family member of the vice-president. It’s an attack on all families with gay members – and on the family as an institution. That’s a central issue in this campaign, a key indictment of Bush’s record and more than relevant to any debate. For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don’t exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him.
I don’t know if anyone saw Wes Clark “interviewed” by Sean Hannity just now, but it almost came to blows. Riveting exchange as Clark called Bush a cheerleader and Hannity said Kerry was a war criminal.
Hannity tried to say that Kerry voted against all the weapons systems and that Saddam would still be a threat if he had been president and all the usual blather and Clark was having none of it. Hannity was all red faced and stomping his tiny feet and on the verge of tears.
The control room had to step in and cut it off. Brilliant. I love Wes Clark.
Kos called Kerry that tonight and I think it’s true. The guy just has a sense of inner confidence and centeredness that is very reassuring. He is a mature, fully realized human being. I think that peopole had forgotten that this is something we can expect in our leaders. It’s with a strong sense of relief that I watch him in action and see him prevail.
I would bet that by Friday the conventional wisdom will be that Kerry won all three debates. And the CW, for once, will be right.
The next two weeks are going to be a wild ride, but the wind is at our backs.
I think it’s time for Democrats to start giving our man Kerry a little bit of credit. He’s a very impressive politician and a very impressive man. Cool under fire, smart as a whip and hard as nails. Some months back I wrote that Kerry has been fighting the right since he was a very young man and may be the best qualified man in America for these times. I think I was right. He’s the right man at the right time to set this country back on course. I’m proud to be voting for him.
For the first time since 9/11, I am feeling a little bit zenlike myself. We’re going to win.
Update: The soundbite and clip is Bush saying he doesn’t care about catching bin Laden. It couldn’t be better for us.
Paging William Bennett. Outrage Is Dyin’ Over Here
We stand for a culture of responsibility in America. This culture of our country is changing from one that has said, if it feels good do it, and if you’ve got a problem blame somebody else, to a culture in which each of understands we’re responsible for the decisions we make in life. George W. Bush August 10, 2004
A middle aged Democrat had a consensual affair with a young female employee.
A middle aged Republican crudely groped and humiliated numerous women for over twenty years on movie sets.
A middle aged radio superstar Republican bought hard drugs on the black market and threatened his housekeeper if she fails to help him score.
A middle aged TV gasbag Republican grossly sexually harrassed an employee and theatened her with terrible retaliation if she spoke up.
Which of these middle aged men was vilified, derided and degraded as an immoral misogynist who had soiled the very fabric of America?
Man, is this a great country to be a Republican or what? Par-tay down, Dough Boyz! Anything Goes!!! IOKYAR, baby!!!
I thought what was most interesting, however, is that Lemann seems to have concluded that Bush himself was a radical who persuaded Cheney and the other “grown-ups” that he was serious about governing in the most ideological way possible:
Clay Johnson … [said] Bush had begun the Vice-Presidential selection process by offering the nomination to Cheney. “The now Vice-President declined the option, but did agree to head up the search committee,” Johnson said. “And then came back some months later and said that in fact he’d changed his mind and he would be willing to run — to be the President’s running mate.” Johnson said he had a hunch about what had changed: “Lynne Cheney told some mutual friends of ours that she and Dick decided that in fact they did want to join the Bush ticket, because they came to really like George and Laura, and the Vice-President came to realize that the President wanted to come up here to really make a difference. He was not going to try to play it safe. Not try to extend an easy, moderately successful four years into an easy, moderately successful eight years. He was going to try to come up here and make dramatic changes to the issues he thought needed to be addressed. And the Vice-President got very, very energized and excited about doing that. And so now we have Dick Cheney as Vice-President.”
In other words, the team that most people thought of as being made up of a moderate, conciliatory, relatively unambitious Presidential candidate and his bland, self-effacing, government technician of a running mate had thrown in together on the basis of a mutual decision to govern in pursuit of radical change. And they have done that.
Lemann goes on to predict that if Bush wins there is absolutely no reason to believe that he will be cowed by his failures or the impending disasters that await at every turn, but rather will use his power to enact the most sweeping revolutionary agenda in modern history — including the privatization of social security. He shows that in this way, Bush is predictable. When it comes to the most radical elements of the conservative agenda — creating a permanent GOP powerbase, foreign policy neoconservatism, tax cuts for the wealthy and starving the entitlement programs out of existence, he is perfectly serious. Bush has moved to the middle only as a feint to either buy time, appease certain constituencies or to placate a powerful insider like Powell (or maybe his father’s inner circle.) But, at heart, he is as rigidly ideological as a Norquist or Gingrich and even more determined to follow through.
Lemann knows all these people and has met Bush, so it’s probably wrong to second guess his interpretation. However, I find it very hard to believe that anecdote Clay Johnson tells about Lynn and Dick joining up to aid the cause, at least with respect to one important detail. I don’t doubt that Cheney didn’t particularly want to be involved in Bush II. Bush I was an ignominious failure for the true believers and he had no reason to believe that the sequel would be any better. But, I can’t help but be a little bit skeptical that the Cheneys were so impressed by Junior’s grand strategic vision and ideological committment to the cause that they couldn’t help but sign on.
What they realized was that Junior was easily manipulated with flattery and appeals to his manly prowess in contrast to his father and they could successfully push him to enact their grand strategic vision. Seriously, George W. Bush was barely a fully formed adult in 2000 — it is simply not believable that he was merely pretending to be this amiable doofus while hiding his secret plans to change American politics and the world.
None of that makes any difference in the results, however. They were able to persuade Bush to adopt their radical agenda without missing even a beat. Their most difficult challenge was dealing with institutional resistence from much of the governement (and even the GOP establishment) which was weak and ineffectual but still managed to muddy Bush’s image as a CEO manager over time. And, of course, the abject failure of policies that have Bush in a perilous re-election fight that should have been easy after the gift (a trifecta!) of 9/11.
Like Atrios, I believe that there is absolutely no reason to buy the nonsense that the “good” Republicans are going to step up in the next term and make sure that Junior’s little cabal is stripped of its power. They couldn’t if they wanted to and I’m not sure they do. Junior has never shown even the slightest indication that he’s displeased with his radical “achievments.” Indeed, if he wins, he will perceive it as a sweeping mandate and validation of all he’s done. That’s how he thinks.
Let’s hope that John Kerry will be able to penetrate Bush’s folksy facade one more time tonight and reveal the abstruse radicalism of his powerful advisory cabal’s true agenda. On these domestic issues, if people knew what they were truly planning, Bush would drop in the polls like a stone.
I don’t know if everybody has seen this ad, but it’s devastating. I was with a group of people when it came on a few minutes ago and it silenced the room.
It’s the obvious political ad that has just been waiting to be made — a young Iraq war veteran, missing a body part, talking simply and directly to the camera about the sacrifice he made in the service of official lies. The idea didn’t come from the Democratic Party, or MoveOn.org, or the Kerry campaign.
The new ad is the creation of a group of Iraq war veterans, most in their 20s, operating on a shoestring budget. Their organization, Operation Truth, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group of 150 members, is dedicated to elevating the perspective of soldiers and holding elected officials accountable for their policy decisions.
“I was called to serve in Iraq because the government said there were weapons of mass destruction — but they weren’t there,” Spc. Robert Acosta, 21, who was an ammunitions specialist with the 1st Armored Division in Iraq, says in the thought-provoking ad. “They said Iraq had something to do with 9/11 — but the connection wasn’t there … So when people ask me where my arm went, I try to find the words, but they’re not there.” The ad ends with a shot of Acosta removing his prosthesis, revealing a stub where his right hand should be.
If you have any left, send these guys some money. They are the bravest group of young people in America — for what they are facing physically and for having the cojones to speak out politically. It’s never easy for soldiers to face the truth when their government lies to them.
Kevin at Catch the earliest muckraker on the “Stolen Honor” ratfuck way last summer, notes a delicious little tid-bit on Carlton Sherwood, the king of protester-porno.
Everyone knows by now that he was tapped to run the government web-site firstresponder.com. What’s interesting is that it is now seven months behind schedule. Maybe Carlton needs to concentrate on his day job for a while and put a hold on his dirty tricks fantasy life. Millions are being wasted. As Kevin says:
Apologies to the first responders (read: heros) for the delay (homeland security can wait, you whiners)
I know it’s not as important as “travelgate,” when Brit Hume and his pals fell into the vapors for months proclaiming that cronyism in the white house travel office was just short of satanic, but this still might deserve a tiny bit of attention.
Take a look at the web site. These are your tax dollars at work, folks.
According to Wolf Blitzer, that bastard John Kerry was “really, really nasty” to poor little Junior in last week’s debate which is why he was so “anxious to respond.”
Media Matters reports that Blitzer asked Schieffer what he planned to do if Kerry pulled such a stunt again.
Here’s the really, really nasty debate exchange:
KERRY: Now, I’m going to add 40,000 active-duty forces to the military, and I’m going to make people feel good about being safe in our military, and not overextended, because I’m going to run a foreign policy that actually does what President Reagan did, President Eisenhower did, and others. We’re going to build alliances. We’re not going to go unilaterally. We’re not going to go alone like this president did.
GIBSON: Mr. President, let’s extend for a minute —
BUSH: Let me just — I’ve got to answer this.
GIBSON: Exactly. And with reservists being held on duty —
[crosstalk]
BUSH: Let me answer what he just said, about around the world.
GIBSON: Well, I want to get into the issue of the back-door draft —
BUSH: You tell Tony Blair we’re going alone. Tell Tony Blair we’re going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we’re going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we’re going alone. There are 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we’re going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you know, you’re going alone. And people listen. They’re sacrificing with us.
My goodness, the Cheerleader in Chief is awfully sensitive if he thinks that saying he “went it alone” is “really, really nasty.” This, from John Edwards on The Tonight Show last night ought to send him into a complete tizzy:
“I run, I played a little football when I was in school. And the president, I think, was there at those football games too. He was, I think, on the side, maybe with his pompoms? Can you run fast with those cheerleading outfits on?”
Bada Bing.
As this piece in Rolling Stone pointed out, somebody has a very thin skin and somebody else is fully aware of it.
