Via Suburban Guerilla, I see that we have something very powerful and important happening on September 13th:
In Chain of Command, Hersh takes an unflinching look behind the public story of President Bush’s “war on terror” and into the lies and obsessions that led America into Iraq. He reveals the connections between early missteps in the hunt for Al Qaeda and disasters on the ground in Iraq. The book includes a new account of Hersh’s pursuit of the Abu Ghraib story and of where, he believes, responsibility for the scandal ultimately lies. Hersh draws on sources at the highest levels of the American government and intelligence community, in foreign capitals, and on the battlefield for an unparalleled view of a crucial chapter in America’s recent history. With an introduction by The New Yorker’s editor, David Remnick, Chain of Command is a devastating portrait of an Administration blinded by ideology and of a President whose decisions have made the world a more dangerous place for America.
Foes of the president are salivating over a description of Kitty Kelley’s forthcoming tell-all about George Bush and his kin. “The Family: the Real Story of the Bush Dynasty” goes on sale Sept. 14, and the description on Amazon.com promises that Kelley — who made international headlines with her scathing Nancy Reagan bio — will reveal “the matriarchs, the mistresses, the marriages, the divorces, the jealousies, the hypocrisies, the golden children, and the black sheep” of the first family.
I hope that operatives are preparing to milk this situation. Here we will have two book tours, one featuring a scathing indictment of the administration’s terrible (and immoral) decisions in fighting the war on islamic fundamentalism and the other a deliciously gossipy screed that will entice the tabloid appetite of the press corpse. In today’s media climate it isn’t about a specific fire, it’s the accumulating smoke that puts the other guys off his game. The timing here is no accident.
It’s gratifying to see that the aristocratic Lord Saletan has seen the light and is now in favor of democracy. This piece certainly hits the nail on the head:
The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.
In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn’t, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.
Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he’s making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you’re accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush’s critics.
Are you prepared to become one of those countries?
This is quite interesting (and gratifying) but I’m puzzled. At the beginning of the week Saletan wrote:
6:33 p.m. PT—This will be an interesting convention for me. Five years ago, when I moved out of the District of Columbia—a one-party state, minus the statehood—I had to think seriously about which party to register with. I was sick of the liberal dogmatism of my college and post-college friends. I’d come to the conclusion, through personal and political experience, that while Democrats had the right values, Republicans had a better operating theory of human nature: People behave more virtuously and wisely when they bear the consequences of their actions.
I also agreed fundamentally with something Newt Gingrich said a lot when he was speaker of the House: If we leave the money in Washington, the liberals will spend it. So, when George W. Bush got elected, I wasn’t terribly disturbed. I thought he was dumb and unqualified, but with a fat surplus accumulating in Washington, sending the money back to taxpayers before Congress spent it struck me as prudent.
I didn’t agree with the conservative urge to legislate on abortion, homosexuality, or other moral issues. But in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, I found a Republican who shared my libertarian instincts on those questions: Rep. Connie Morella. On many spending issues, Morella was to my left. But I was happy to find a sensible representative who didn’t have to follow the Democratic Party’s line of bribing approved constituencies and equating virtue with spending.
The Maryland Democratic Party refused to let me vote in its primaries if I registered as an independent. The Maryland Republican Party, in need of converts, demanded no such loyalty oath. So, I registered as an independent and voted in Maryland’s Republican presidential primary for John McCain, whom I admired even when I disagreed with him. Then I voted for Morella in a tight general election contest, and she won. I was beginning to feel comfortable thinking of myself as a liberal Republican, even if this was one of just a few pockets in the country where people like me could find a place in this party.
Four years later, I come to this convention stripped of that feeling. The past four years have alienated me from this party. I’m here, among other things, to find out why.
He seems to have figured it out in the last three days. The modern Republican party is hostile to democracy.
But, dear God, what on earth did he think was going on for the last fifteen years when Bob Dole went on the floor of the senate and declared that Clinton won with only a plurality so he wasn’t legitimate? What was Saletan thinking when the Republicans insistently employed their investigative power and relentlessly mau-maued the media into pressuring the admnistration to appoint special prosecutor after special prosecutor over insignificant issues? What in the world did he think was happening when they impeached a twice duly elected president over a trivial sexual matter?
And what did he think was happening when they played an unprecedented form of hardball in seizing the presidency and then governing as if they had a huge mandate for radical change?
Did any of those actions speak of a party that gave a damn about the spirit of democracy?
It has been clear for quite some time to anyone who is paying attention that the modern Republican party is actively undermining the democratic process. Look at the Republican funded recall in California or the strong-arm redistricting all over the country, not to mention the more subtle forms of anti-democratic rule like bald-faced lying about government statistics and holding secret meetings and creating entirely new forms of executive privilege.
Yes, standing up before the nation and saying that speaking out against the president during a presidential campaign is putting our troops at risk is a very shocking charge. But, this is hardly the first time they’ve said that. I simply don’t understand how people who are paid money to watch politics for a living have missed what seems to me to be an obvious development over more than a decade. Every election since 1992 has been dicier and dicier. With each cycle, they have gotten more and more aggressive in breaking the rules and challenging accepted norms. The only real question at this point is if they have been successful in rigging enough voting machines to swing this election if it’s close enough. I’m hoping that they just haven’t had the time to get it done because if they have there is absolutely no reason to believe they won’t do it. They do not have any limits.
So yes, this election is a referendum on American democracy. At this point, they all are — and they have been for quite some time. I’m glad some members of the media are noticing. Maybe this time they won’t be so willing to smugly tell us to “get over it” if things go wrong.
But, I doubt it. Until elections are actually cancelled (which we — shockingly — even discussed openly for a while)or journalists are jailed for sedition or some other heinous suspension of the constitution (for ordinary white people, mind you) is employed, the media will continue to support the slow erosion of our political system until it will be too late to get it back.
After all, Lord Saletan still believed the Republicans held the abstract philosophy that “people behave more virtuously and wisely when they bear the consequences of their actions” in 1999, after the Republican congress had weakened the constitution and impeached Clinton over a blowjob. If he was that slow on the uptake, then I’m not anticipating that he will figure out the rest of the story until everything is already lost.
Does everyone remember when Jeff Jacoby got nailed for passing on that stupid chain letter about the heroes of the revolutionary war all ending up broke? Or when Pierre Salinger fell for a photo shopped picture on the internet of flight 800 being shot down?
After his speech last night, Zell was waving around a sheaf of papers claiming that it proved his claims about Kerry were true. I wonder if anybody actually got a look at it because both pandagon and Martini Republic have found some shocking similarities between Zell’s lies and a couple of bogus chain e-mails that have been going around for months.
You don’t suppose that Zell actually fell for that crap, do you?
On the other hand, baldfaced lying is no longer seen as political death, so why not? Perhaps we should have Kerry start doing speches about Bush’s long term affair with Osama bin Laden’s third wife. Somebody sent me an e-mail that said it was true so it must be.
I think the Miller speech was fantastic, as I said. But I do think that if it had been delivered by a Republican it would be seen as a major liability for Bush — largely because the press would but that spin. I think the Bush campaign believes that the counter-spin that Miller’s a Democrat will defuse that sort of thing; “the Republicans weren’t mean. Zell Miller’s a Democrat.”
I think the gamble will pay off. But expect a blizzard of spin from those who want to Buchananify the speech.
The speech made Buchanan sound like the other Jenna. But the problem, Jonah, is that you can pretend that the GOP has some distance from the speech all you want because Miller calls himself a Democrat. But, how are you going to explain the shrill, shrieking freaks in the audience whose eyes were veritably rolling back in their heads in ecstasy every time old Zell let fly. Are they Democrats too?
It’s kind of hard to distance yourself from your own convention delegates, know what I mean?
I can’t tell you how important it is to read Donkey Rising every day from now on if you want to know what’s going on with the horse race. Today, Ruy has a very informative piece on likely voters vs. registered voters — and reports that the doom and gloom about Pennsylvania is bullshit.
This is not some “Pollyanna let’s all cross our fingers and hope as hard as we can that the poll numbers are wrong” nonsense. Polling is actually fairly accurate, particularly showing trend lines over time. And, we are not behind. In fact, as Ruy points out, when they poll registered voters we are quite a bit ahead. This is where the scenario of the new and motivated Democrats comes in. If it is true that we are more intense than the other side then these numbers reflect that if we get a good turnout, we win handily. When they all switch to a more reliable likely voter model closer to the election, we’ll have a little better idea if the Dems really are as motivated as we think. I’d bet we are.
Read his posts on the details of political polling and what it all means. You’ll feel better. We are doing fine.
Blitzer, Greenfield and Woodruff are interviewing Zell Miller directly after Cheney’s speech. (After Edwards, the very first words out of anybody’s mouth came from Ralph Reed.)
The good news is that they are challenging his lies. I’m beginning to think, watching him, that I was closer to the truth than I realized when I said he had a mental problem. He sounds ridiculous trying to defend his crazy talk.
Blitzer is accusing him of sounding so angry that “some are saying” his speech may have backfired. Now he’s babbling incoherently. I almost feel sorry for him.
Cheney’s speech was simultaneously dull and nasty, which isn’t an easy feat. Tad Devine is doing just fine framing the difference between the two parties as between hope and fear. After tonight that claim has even more salience. The whole thing was discordant and ugly — and the crowd was way over the top with the cheering at the Democrat bashing. It’s not a pretty picture.
Clearly, Rove has given up on tacking to the middle. He is totally playing to the base. This election is trench warfare — get out the vote.
BTW: Nice of them to make Mary stay off the stage, don’t you think? How do they sleep at night?
Update: Someone should have put a little drop of laudenum in Ziggy’s Starbucks this evening. He apparently challenged Chris Matthews to a duel. For real.
The GOPers in the hall are so excited by the blood dripping from Zell’s mouth that I think I fear they will soon be speaking in tongues. I’m getting worried for their health. This much hate can cause strokes and heart attacks if not controlled.
But don’t you think Zell’s speech and speaking style would be greatly enhanced by a little moustache and a snappy uniform? I mean, it goes so well with the Riefenstahlesque stage set.
I have to wonder if we might not have seen a Buchanan moment there.
On the heels of Marshall’s post from this morning, via Media Matters I see this exchange between Eleanor Clift and Charles Krauthammer:
KRAUTHAMMER: Of course people remember, as Eleanor [Clift] indicated, that Vietnam was a tragedy. But they have to also to be reminded of what people like John Kerry did at the time of that tragedy, and that is, they betrayed the comrades who they left behind. They betrayed them by telling the world that these soldiers left behind were committing atrocities, as Kerry has said on a daily basis. It was a disgraceful act on his part to indict the soldiers, the veterans whom he had served with, and I think that the people who served with him and who have run the ads have the perfect right to remind people of a true history, a history of what this man had done 30 years ago.
CLIFT: I think these ads have taken a toll, but a greater toll has been the fact that Senator Kerry has been so almost passive in responding. I mean, he [Kerry] should stand up and say, “Look, I served in Vietnam. I have medals. Have you no shame?”
[…]
KRAUTHAMMER: The question is, “Have you no shame?” People ought to ask Senator Kerry, “Have you no shame?” To pretend to be a hero of the veterans after how you treated them 30 years ago and disgraced them?
Does everybody see the problem here? No matter how you slice it, Kerry’s either an asshole or a sissy. Are those really the only two possibilities in this scenario, considering that the polls are dead even just as they have been for six frigging months? And who was the favorite to win this election big for the last three years? Hmmm?
Maybe Eleanor “I’ve got conventional wisdom tatooed on my ass” Clift is booked as the “liberal” on the show, but like so many liberals she reflexively call forth the tired and repetitive RNC talking point that Democrats are passive no matter what the actual circumstance. “Well, if there’s one thing we can all agree upon it’s that Democrats are losers. Let’s have lunch.”
She also seems to be laboring under a common and unfortunate illusion that if Kerry just screamed louder — maybe held his breath until he turned blue — that the country would wake up and he’d be heading for a landslide. It would be pretty to think so, but evidence suggests that just calling somebody a liar in a loud voice isn’t very effective.
The game is much more subtle and much more tactical than this “at long last sir have you no shame” fantasy. This is a presidential campaign and unless we want Kerry to turn into Adlai Stevenson Redux, any prosey calls for decency will not be on the menu. And there are also smarter and more effective ways to fight than flailing in all directions screaming your head off.
Kerry has done just fine so far, (although I think his weakness is his press operation and they’re bringing in an All Star to remedy that — Joe Lockhart.) But, this overwrought reaction (without evidence, I might add) on the part of the liberal pundits is really unappealing and counterproductive to our cause. I can see why people don’t want to identify with us if this is who they have to associate themselves with. What a bunch of nervous nellies. No wonder half the country thinks we’re too soft to handle national security. Liberal pundits are the first to agree with the Republicans that we are “passive” and “refuse to fight” even though it isn’t true.
I suppose they don’t want anyone to think they aren’t being fair and balanced. And as we all know, being fair and balanced means agreeing with Republican talking points. Frankly, I wish they’d just shut up. We’d do better without them. Right now we need some strong, faithbased, political loyalty to show the country that we are behind our guy, not second guess him to death. It’s hurting the ballclub.
Update: August 19, 2004:
Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam…
Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: “Bring it on.”
Is that macho enough for Eleanor or should Kerry have whipped it out and peed all over the stage to mark his territory?
Clift made her comment on August 30th. As Sommerby says, these people are simply unprepared. It’s so much easier to simply spout the conventional wisdom you heard at a party last night, but it’s not journalism or even punditry to continuously spread RNC propaganda rather than than do your homework and figure out what is really going on.
Thanks to commenter Here’s Kitty for the reminder.
The Howler features a small passage from Ziggy Zell’s Dem bashing tome. Holy Moley:
[M]y conscience travels with me everywhere I go, like some unwelcome inner companion. I cannot escape him and is he tough. He is on steroids, has a Black Belt and long fingernails, and stomps around inside of me, sometimes in hobnailed boots. He’s been there as long as I can remember. Although it’s getting tougher and tougher for me to blow out all the candles on my birthday cake, he just grows stronger—and louder.
Keep it in mind tonight that Zell is really talking to the voice in his head — like the guy who hangs out in front of Starbucks screaming at invisible enemies.
They have medication for this problem and unlike most of his constituents, whom he purports to love, he has health insurance to pay for it. Maybe Dr. Feelfrist can write him a scrip. I hear Rush has some contacts too.
Via Susie, I see that Republicans are taking this “girly-man” thing to a new level:
ALBANY NY – Government cutbacks are hitting a continental soldier below the belt.
The statue of Copper John, a continental soldier that sits atop the state’s Auburn Correctional Facility, was removed earlier this summer for renovation.
The beloved figure is set to return to his perch this fall, albeit a lesser man.
Workers sprucing up the 156-year-old statue were told to reduce the size of Copper John’s crotch.
They may have called them minutemen, but they didn’t wear codpieces. Republicans don’t like to be reminded of that, what with their Chippendales dancer prez and his puritan AG. It’s all very confusing.
Susie also points out in another post, “one of the classic side effects of steroid abuse is… underdeveloped testes.” This is especially interesting in the context of Sidney Blumenthal’s very interesting and highly entertaining deconstruction of the Arnold-GOP love affair:
Schwarzenegger has an aesthetic sense that passes above the heads of the Republicans. To them, it seems he’s appealing to simplicity, strength and old-fashioned patriotism.
But he puts a strange emphasis on the body politic Kultur. The puritanical delegates responded to him with an emotional intensity to themes they can’t fully grasp. No matter how scripted Schwarzenegger may be, he remains pure in his underlying message. He makes the case for the narcissism of power through the power of narcissism.
No one is more narcissistic than a bodybuilder. He builds his reputation standing before mirrors and panels of older men, flexing his muscles to see who has the largest.
Schwarzenegger offered the Republican Convention totemic worship of virility borne out of fear of its fading. It was an act he has been perfecting for decades. In its essence, he offered a sexual identity panic speech.
Bulging muscles on a Hollywood caricature is reassuring. Bulging manhood on the statue of an American patriot is scary.
It’s going to take a boatload of shrinks to sort this shit out.