(Meanwhile, complaints about the long ballot seem overblown. Are citizens who routinely negotiate a typical cable TV guide or sushi menu really unable to find their candidate among 135 names, if the ballot is laid out clearly?) ….
It may come as something of a surprise to him that the 500 channel, digital cable menu that he negotiates everyday (as do I — with some difficulty, I might add) and long complicated sushi menus may be “routine” over here on the Westside of LA, but they are probably not that “typical” in other parts of Los Angeles, much less California. Certainly, ballots containing 135 names, in no discernable order, spread over many pages and attached to punch card ballots that are impossible to verify by looking at them is not commonplace even for all of Mickey’s salt of the earth pals in Brentwood and Beverly Hills.
Then, unbelievably, in the next post he says:
If Arianna would freely admit her shifting positions and joke about them, almost all would be forgiven. It’s bizarre that she hasn’t been displaying in public the self-deprecating humor that wins over dinner guests in private.
Don’t you just hate it when somebody you just adoooore at intimate dinner parties turns out to be such a bore when they’re running for office. I know I do.
I’m sure that if she didn’t have to appeal to the great cableless, sushilliterate hoi polloi, we’d get to see more of the charming Arianna that Mickey and I just love at those faaaabulous dinner parties.
(How many nights have we spent at Arianna’s salon, nibbling spicy yellowtail, watching pay-per-view, listening to her tinkling laughter as she gaily tells tales of her former days as Newties courtesan? Life can be so sweet sometimes.)
Now, she is dirtying her hands in the electoral process, having to explain her political evolution in a serious way and being forced to answer questions from the great unwashed…even about her (gasp!) finances. It’s so common, so tawdry.
It’s sad, really. She was once one of Us. You know — the people who are superior to Everyone, conservative and liberal alike?
ROLLINS: What is your definition of virility? Does it have a role in political leadership?
WALTER: It’s a nebulous quality for a political leader. Bill Clinton was virile—in a very sleazy way. There’s also the sex appeal of someone like Don Rumsfeld. President Bush possesses this intangible something—you really saw it on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Testosterone and camaraderie—many people responded to it. In George W. Bush, people see a contained, channeled virility. They see a man who does what he says, whose every speech and act is not calculated. Bill Clinton showed a lot of outward empathy and he was very articulate but I don’t think many of us would have trusted him with our daughters.
GAVORA: If virility equates with strength, then there is no question that Bill Clinton lacked it completely. Bush has shown that he has it. His willingness to go after terrorism root and branch despite the widespread opposition among our European allies and even some at home, and to withstand that pressure, is strength. Bill Clinton made surface gestures. He refused to go against the media, popular opinion, the pinstriped boys at the State Department, because he lacked that strength.
HAYS: The most masculine man I ever knew was my grandfather, who supported seven children and never failed to stand when a woman came into the room. Bill Clinton is virile, but he’s not masculine or mature. He never became a grown man.
O’BEIRNE: When I heard that he grew up jumping rope with the girls in his neighborhood, I knew everything I needed to know about Bill Clinton. There’s no contest between Clinton and Bush on masculinity. Bill Clinton couldn’t credibly wear jogging shorts, and look at George Bush in that flight suit.
ROLLINS: But why do so many American women love Bill Clinton?
SCHAEFER: You can learn a lot jumping rope with girls. It won’t make you sexually attractive, but it will make you a more effective, patient listener.
O’BEIRNE: Bill Clinton did understand, from the matriarchy he grew up in, how to appeal to women in that modern way.
HAYS: Clinton could feel your pain like one of your girlfriends. But he could never make a decision like Bush has had to make. He would still be trying to negotiate with the terrorists. The use of force, which until recently was passé, has come back. Clinton couldn’t use force except in a motel room.
My friend Gloria wrote in:
When I heard that he grew up abusing animals like Jeffrey Dahmer I knew all I needed to know about George W. Bush. No man over 30 can credibly wear jogging shorts and any man whose idea of comaraderie is to play dress up and show off his bulge to a bunch of sailors isn’t what I’d call masculine.
I can see their point, though. There’s nothing I hate more than a virile guy who is an effective patient listener. Give me a towel-snapping moron in a Halloween costume any day. Oooh yummy.
Dwight Meredith over on PLA has a very interesting post up about the contrary spin points being employed by the two parties regarding the recession. Democrats are saying that the recession started in March 2001 (which is correct) and Bush is saying that it started in January 2001.
As Dwight points out, however, it would be smarter for them to switch their talking points because:
The argument the Democrats should make is that Mr. Bush failed to fix the problem. The more time Mr. Bush had to fix the problem, the more traction the Democrats will gain.
The Democratic line should be, “Mr. Bush wasted four full years and $2 trillion and the American people still can’t get jobs.”
The more time Mr. Bush had to turn the economy around, the better that argument will sound.
The converse is true for Mr. Bush. The later the recession started, the less time his policies have had to work. If the economy remains sluggish, Mr. Bush will argue that his prescription is right, but the medicine has not yet had time to work. That argument works better if it is made closer to the time the symptoms appeared.
This is correct. And, it plays into what I think is a strangely stupid tactic on Rove’s part — Junior’s defensive and whiny tone and a pattern of unwillingness to take responsibility for anything that has happened since he assumed the office. (It’s always possible that this is one of those unfortunate things that Rove can’t control — Bush himself may be believing his own hype about having been chosen by God or maybe he is just congenitally incapable of admitting fault.)
Bush and his boys are beating their breasts about all the things that have happened on his watch that he just couldn’t help. And, he’s right as far as it goes. The downturn in the economy and 9/11 were beyond the control of any politician. But, the man has been in office now for almost 3 years. At this point, the questions must go way beyond the problems (and surpluses) he inherited and unanticipated crises. It’s about what he did about them.
This constant refrain of “it isn’t my fault” is very unattractive coming from a supposed manly-man, “responsiblity era”, straight shooter like Bush particularly one who has had a GOP congress (in practice if not in fact for the first year and a half) and has not issued even one veto. It’s not like he had any institutional roadblocks preventing him from doing everything he possibly could.
The 2nd term is a referendum on the incumbent. He has almost nothing positive to show for his tenure. His reactions to economic conditions and 9/11 have been unsuccessful. He has failed to turn around the economy and he has failed to make America safer. In fact, it can be argued that 3 years after the advent of the recession and 2 years after 9/11 we are substantially worse off than we were before.
The Democrats need to emphasise Junior’s response to problems (or lack thereof) rather than trying to defend the Clinton era by implying that the recession wouldn’t have happened had Bill (or Al) been in office. Clinton’s legacy will take care of itself. What they need to point out is that every president is confronted with unanticipated crises and that Bush has mishandled every single one that came his way, from the lack of stimulus in excessive tax cuts for the rich to botched homeland security to post war planning in Afghanistan and Iraq.
He’s got a record and it isn’t very impressive. It’s a mistake to let him get away with framing the argument as if he inherited a bunch of huge problems that nobody could have dealt with, when the truth is that it’s his job to deal with whatever problems present themselves.
Real Men don’t whine and they don’t put on cute costumes and pretend that they did something when they didn’t. They solve the problem and move on to the next one.
… Writers of all biases have been sent back to further develop the plot—we’ve gotten to the cliff-hanger without being sure of the outcome.
Or it’s like an interactive narrative—we can pick from opposite scenarios:
•This postwar (or post-postwar) querulousness is just a blip for the president, and, as so often before, the Bush political and communications experts will make the necessary adjustments (or do the requisite bullying) and, with relative media quiescence, charge on.
•The war and its aftermath—which is unfolding pretty much exactly as the antiwar forces said it would—have created a situation of great vulnerability for the president, which the media, goaded by the Democrats, will poke and prod with mounting pleasure. The president and his men will become more and more defensive and, as the bullying becomes more brazen, prone to greater and greater mistakes. Hence the stage is set for political calamity.
But which is it? It can’t be both.
It’s slightly surreal and unnerving to be caught without a clear story line—to be in such an unscripted moment. It’s highly uncommercial to have the story meander like this without narrative momentum. Everybody looks foolish and unprofessional. Certainly it’s rare for this White House and its consummate script doctors. And the media, which has grown so dependent on the White House writers, is now uncertain where to go on its own (it’s part of the problem—the media expects that the Bushies will come up with some great new plot twist).
Thank gawd Ahnuld has provided a sideshow intermission. Executive Producer Rove will whip those pansy ass writers into shape by October 11th, you just wait and see.
Somebody needs to inform Democrats everywhere that it is … ahem … counterproductive for us to use Gingrichian propaganda language when speaking about other Democrats.
You can criticize primary rivals all you want, but when you start using patented GOP talking points, you have crossed a line. I think that John Kerry can come up with some pithy put downs that don’t involve the use of manufactured LIES put forth to destroy the reputation of the man who actually WON the last election.
I’ve always thought Kerry was a good guy. I voted for him in his first election for the US Senate. But, I did not like the way he handled the Iraq war resolution and I’m not much impressed with his campaign so far.
It is not just that he’s validating Republican bullshit in order to entertain the press corps, it’s that it is criminally stupid to openly reward the GOP and the press for their corruption. As Atrios notes, it seems as though he has failed to notice how the Mighty Wurlitzer and the corporate media work in this country. That’s scary.
“[Clinton] degraded virtually everything he touched: the White House, the Oval Office, the staff, the cabinet, the country, the legal process…. He is a symbol of decadence.” — William Bennett
Ain’t it the truth.
There is simply no excuse for degrading, decadent behavior and politicians should have zero tolerance for it wherever they find it.
Some might think that Bennett could have found a more productive way to spend 8 million bucks — some might even call betting hundreds of thousands of dollars in one week-end “decadent” — but never let it be said that Ole Bill did anything that a Concerned Woman For America would find sexually icky. That would be completely unacceptable.
Which is why its so puzzling that our born again President would have called on a man like Roger Stone to help him “persuade” the Florida canvassing board to reject counting previously uncounted votes:
What the world watched was a G.O.P. melee. When Geller walked out of the room with a sample ballot, the crowd accused him of stealing a real one and responded as if he had just nabbed a baby for its organs. Geller says he was pushed by two dozen protesters screaming, “I’m gonna take you down!” Luis Rosero, a Democratic observer, claims he was punched and kicked. Republicans dispute the charges, but video cameras caught scenes of activism that had morphed into menace. The organizers in the RV outside, who G.O.P. protesters have told Time were led by hardball Washington strategist Roger Stone, had phone banks churning out calls to Miami Republicans, urging them to storm downtown. (Stone could not be reached for comment.)
And now it turns out that Roger seems also to have been running some kind of secret slush fund to pay for a “citizens” revolt against the Florida Supreme Court. (This should not be surprising, seeing as Roger was weaned on Nixonian Dirty Tricks.)
Now, I know that George W. Bush is a fine, upstanding, moral man because he has told us many times that he is one.
When he said:
“I’ll bring in a group of men and women who are focused on what’s best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house.”
Des Moines Register Jan. 15, 2000
you’ll notice he specifically spoke of “women” who “will not stain the house.”
Roger Stone is not a woman and he is very careful about stains, so the President can in no way be criticized for saying that and then hiring someone who was fired from the Dole campaign after this story hit the stands:
Big time political strategist Roger Stone and his wife Nikki: The former Bob Dole adviser and his wife were swingers and The Vault was a favorite haunt.
“Roger and Nikki were our customers for a long time,” Marini says. “They were heavy duty swingers and ran ads on the Internet and in many sex publications. They were heavy players.”
Roger was one of the top advisers who urged Dole and other Republican politicians to emphasize family values and integrity.
“Regardless of his status in politics, Roger never came to the club in disguise,” Marini recalls. “He looked like a Ken doll. He was tall, blond, handsome and muscular and his wife was curvaceous and very sexy. She would wear leather bras and tantalizing outfits and he would wear collars, chaps and a leather vest with no shirt underneath.”
Then in 1996, an ENQUIRER investigation revealed that Roger and his wife frequented group sex clubs and engaged in group sex orgies. In two blockbuster articles, we published evidence, including a shocking ad the couple had placed in a swingers’ magazine soliciting lovers for group sex, a handwritten note arranging a sexual encounter, and revealing photos from sex magazines of Roger and Nikki barechested.
Hours after The ENQUIRER story hit the stands, it was picked up by dailies around the country — and Dole’s campaign ended its association with Roger Stone.
Dana Milbank wrote about it in The New Republic:
“There were photos of her in a black negligee and him bare-chested, and there was an enumeration of her personal measurements. Stone said he had been set up, but he was forced to step down as an adviser to the Dole campaign.”
Roger, being ahead of his time as always, immediately went on the Today Show and declared himself the victim of a dirty tricks campaign, thereby predating Graydon Carter’s famous line about the end of the age of irony by more than 5 years.
One of Roger’s close business associates is none other than the toe sucking Dick Morris. It seems that corrupt, decadent, GOP operatives are in great demand worldwide.
At least all of this role-playing sexual adventurism explains the Republican obsession with Village People style costumes. Some days it makes me wish I could be a fly on the wall at the Fox News, Fair and Balanced company picnic. And then I think of Mort Kondracke in chaps…
The worst thing Arnold can do is act like a politician. And bringing a far-left billionaire in as an economic adviser is the kind of move a politician would do,” said Scott Jordan, chair of the California Republican Liberty Caucus, which announced its support for McClintock today.
It’s sooo typical for politicians to trot out one of those far-left billionaires. How dull.
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean — viewed as liberal here — is also paying uncommon attention to the state, quickly following Lieberman’s lead in bringing paid staff here. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and Edwards plan to open Oklahoma offices in the next few weeks.
“Whoever comes out of here victorious will emerge as a strong general election candidate because — more than some of the early liberal states — we are more representative of the general electorate,” said Rep. Brad Carson (Okla.), a Lieberman supporter and the only Democrat in Oklahoma’s congressional delegation.
Can someone please remind this gentleman (and a whole bunch of other blinkered Democrats) that Al Gore ran to the left of the “leave-no-child-behind, middle-of-the-road, compassionate-conservative-uniter-not-divider” George W. Bush in 2000 and WON? And, between Al Gore and Ralph Nader, the hated and despised “liberals” beat George W. Bush by almost 3 MILLION votes?
This is not to say that the country is ready to blindly endorse the fondest wishes of the liberal wing of the Democratic party but, it does indicate that the “vital center” of this country is not personified by Oklahoma politics.
(I realize that being a hated “liberal” or even “Democrat” is totally uncool in 2003. When I read about the perfidy of the Democratic party as it behaves like a bitchy clique of shallow stupid Heathers here in California, I can understand why so many eschew the label — we appear to have no honor, no loyalty and no guts. If you were going to pick a party based upon its winning game plan — and for many Americans that is the only question that counts — you sure wouldn’t pick the Democrats. But, that is for another post.)
To assume that the country is more like Oklahoma than Iowa or New Hampshire, however, is just plain absurd. That would mean that James Inhofe and Don Nickles are representative of the nation at large, even though they are as far right as it is possible to be without being actual card-carrying fascists. And it would mean that the congressional delegation of 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat is representative of the country’s preferences.
Democrats are so cowed by the in-your-face ballsiness of the Republicans that they are conceding to Rove’s bandwagon strategy. The truth is that the Congress is in Republican hands by the smallest of margins and Bush’s re-elect numbers reflect absolutely no gain from 2000. We are still at parity.
If the last presidential election hadn’t been manipulated by the political machine of the president’s brother and decided by a partisan Supreme Court, the Executive branch would be in the hands of the Democrats, thereby requiring the government to compromise on legislation that would fairly reflect a centrist position.
If the system had not been compromised in 2000, we would have a pretty good picture of where the center really is in a closely divided electorate. Instead, with a combination of spin, institutional strong-arming and a will to power unlike anything we’ve seen before in this country, we are now dealing in a form of fantasy in which the Republicans are selling their far right philosophy as the center despite all evidence to the contrary.
I understand why the lone elected Democrat from Oklahoma feels that he has to portray himself as a reflection of “real America.” I just hope that the Democratic presidential candidates don’t decide after the primaries that they need to adopt his logic.
Because we have hit the wall, folks. The Nader vote should have been a clue — not that we need to move left, but that we’d gone as far to the right as we could. Any further and we lose the base, either to a third party or apathy. In a closely divided electorate this is suicide.
Karl Rove knows this which is why he’s working so hard to exacerbate the differences between the “electable” centrists and the “radical” leftists within the Democratic party whhile papering over the divisions within his own GOP.
It’s all about turn-out.
Demosthenes wrote a very provocative and interesting post about this next election that seems pretty much on target to me — and that is if things go well:
So we get a war. The Republican base against the Democrat[ic] base. The Wurlitzer against Dean’s army. (I would not be overly surprised if we hear that term first being used in the mainstream media before the year is out.) The immovable object against the irresistable force, with no concept of civility, fairness, or restraint accepted, let alone followed. All of this, too, against a backdrop of an American populace that is newly re-engaged with politics, which understands how important this is, and which will likely be as evenly divided as it was in the past. I have a vision of the most brutal election campaign that the Republic has ever seen, and I don’t think I like it, and even less like that it may be necessary.
I find it just as likely that Dean’s Army will be portrayed as a radical out-of-the-mainstram group of scary 5th columnists (when they’re not flaky ineffectual over-educated hippies) while the Democratic Party establishment ties itself in knots trying to distance itself from them in the mistaken idea that the great middle (or “silent majority”) will see them as the way to avoid a distasteful confrontation.
I don’t think such a middle exists and I don’t think that there is any hope of avoiding such a confrontation if we hope to survive as a political party. The country is divided and the result is a huge political struggle with enormous consequences.
The Republicans are governing far to the right without a mandate from the people. They are unresponsive to reasonable calls for bipartisanship. They are using undemocratic tactics to solidify a majority they have obtained dishonestly. The Democrats are on the defensive everywhere.
I don’t see how you can avoid a political war under these circumstances. The Republicans are demanding unconditional surrender.
Dean’s angry and motivated Democrats are being seen as the left’s version of the Conservative Movementarians. I can only hope that we have even half the staying power and dsicipline they have.
“… Frum added,[w]ith conservatives, I suspect there is much more of a loyalty to people.” And how: The Journal supported Bush on non-policy matters 95 percent of the time, whereas the Times supported Clinton on non-policy matters only 28 percent of the time. Raines’ anti-Clinton pathology may exaggerate this last statistic, but there’s no denying that compared to liberal editorialists, the conservatives march in lock step.
You tell me who produces better journalism.
Apples and oranges. Editorialists marching in lockstep are not journalists. They are propagandists.