Sorting Tea Leaves
Greetings from The Watergate where I will be through the weekend…
I have a very busy sked these days so will keep this short. Trying to extract the Big Lesson from Tuesday’s vote is now a mass sport. With advancing age I’ve learned (the hard way) to generally avoid making such sweeping conclusions. I’m willing to say the vote was a clear repudiation of Bush, a disenchantment with the war, and general rejection of current mal-government.
But I’m not sure what the vote was for. Kevin Drum, for one, thinks the big lesson to be extracted is that there is no lesson. Others, like my Nation colleague Bob Moser, think the vote endorses the ” economic populist…old fashioned” Democrat politics of McCaskill and Jim Webb. Bob also argues that Harold Ford Jr. was punished for essentially not being liberal enough. I don’t know. I think it might be excessive exuberance to call former Reagan cabinet secretary Webb an old-fashioned Dem. I think he’s likely a clever opportunist who saw an opening and (fortunately) fully exploited it. I, likewise, suspect that Ford was beaten not because he was too conservative but rather because he was too black.
But I’ve an open mind on all this. I just think it’s better to slowly and skeptically digest all this before jumping to hard conclusions.
Meanwhile…there are a couple of really sweet by-products of the elections: Rummy’s gone, Mehlman’s gone, and neither Allen nor Kerry are any longer viable presidential candidates. One sour note: the milquetoast, virtually unknown Governor of Iowa — Tom Vilsack– has found this an opportune moment to announce a presidential bid. He’s got to be kidding.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:22 am
Here’s a prediction: Watch for Cheney to resign the vice presidency on health grounds. You heard it here first.
November 10th, 2006 at 1:36 am
Giddy Marc is this:
“Webb stumped hard in Southwest Virginia… he did not thicken his accent to charm the folks down there; he did not excise the Marx and Engels references from his high-falutin speeches when he campaigned in the deepest, most conservative hollows.”
Anyone who knows anything about VA knows that the bulk of the population which gave the win is concentrated in the northern burbs and urban areas, not to mention %20 of VA is black.
Ford had a tough road and you’re on the money as to why he lost. I don’t know if all of the social initiatives that passed or loss in the various states where so much a reflection of personal values more so than a desire for less governmental interference.
To paraphrase Chuck D Ford was, “Too Black, Too Strong” and I’ll add single. You don’t see a lot of single candidates for Senate period let alone one who was so young and attractive. Obama on other hand has a photo op family. That combined with an incident where he showed up at a Corker press conference to defend his family honor. In a region where manners matter, the “stunt” as some called it, turned some people off as agressive. There are all sorts of snarky comments I could make right now, but then Woody might be too scared to comment.
RIP to Ed Bradley – classy till the end.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:05 am
“Here’s a prediction: Watch for Cheney to resign the vice presidency on health grounds.”
Interesting…his or ours ?
November 10th, 2006 at 6:14 am
“Interesting…his or ours ?”
The body politic’s.
November 10th, 2006 at 6:28 am
Cheney resign? Not likely. The House and Senate under Democratic control would never confirm a new Vice President acceptable to the Republican Party and main-stream America. Obstruction has been their game and now it has become gridlock.
—–
RecerX, how would you contrast referring to Ford as “too black and too strong” against Democrats refering to Michael Steele, black Republican candidate for Senator from Maryland, as token, Uncle Tom, and slavishly supportive of the Republicans. Such is the derisiveness of the Democrats against anyone who runs from the masters on the Democratic Plantation.
Despite your calling me “chicken,” I’m not Marty McFly and have work to do today, so you’ll just have to comment to your fellow lefties on this.
November 10th, 2006 at 7:19 am
Love the Chuck D reference RcerX… but I got the impression that Ford was, to employ another hip hop term, “fakin the funk” as far as being for God, Guns and against the gays… Maybe it was that he wasn’t great on the stump, but he seemed more like a panderer than the real deal. Yeah, and the black thing didn’t help him either, I’m sure.
November 10th, 2006 at 7:34 am
“acceptable to the Republican Party and main-stream America”
That’s funny Woody…as though the two are in lock-step. (“Lock-step” is a subtle reference to the Nazis, of course. Alert Ms. Malking that Some Guy On The Internet is calling GOPers “Nazis”. She might want to devote some blog space to that if she’s not busy explaining how it was okay to round up American citizens and put them in concentration camps solely on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds.)
Time to give it up and accept the fact that you’re part of a reviled minority…a dead-ender. Come to think of it, I think your whole mantle of paranoia, persecution and the snips and clips from certified crazies like Michelle Malkin will serve you well in the shifting political environment.
(With apologies to Buddy Holly) Rave On !
November 10th, 2006 at 7:35 am
“Malkin” not “Malking”
November 10th, 2006 at 7:49 am
The House and Senate under Democratic control would never confirm a new Vice President acceptable to the Republican Party and main-stream America.
They did twice: Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller
November 10th, 2006 at 7:53 am
“The House and Senate under Democratic control would never confirm a new Vice President acceptable to the Republican Party and main-stream America.”
reg, you forgot to mention Woody’s usual ignorance. Both Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller were confirmed as VP’s by overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, ie the vast majority of Democrats voted for them. Any reasonable VP candidate would get the same treatment Republican or not.
But true about dead-enders, they seem to be in the last throes…
November 10th, 2006 at 7:54 am
The fact that Randy Paul and I responded nearly simultaneously shows that we gridlockers are pretty quick on the draw.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Marc is right. Caution is probably the best call as to trying to define what Tuesday’s vote means. Best line I read so far was a WAPO article saying the voters dumped the smelly laundry and gave the Dems a line of credit.
Cheney resigning? Surely Maher, Colbert, and Stewart will have work a lot harder…
November 10th, 2006 at 8:35 am
What’s with you two…elevating a shouting match with Woody by bringing references to historical fact into the picture ?
Since Woody has left the building, I’m going to step in and argue his side of this: “Nice try, you Stalin-worshiping liberal nincompoops, but real Republicans wouldn’t consider a Gerald Ford or Nelson Rockefeller acceptable in the current political climate where Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin speak for mainstream Americans.” (That of course, shouild be “presume to speak”, but I’m trying to channel Woody.)
And, with some retort like that, Woody would be right about the attitude of extremist factions who dominate today’s GOP toward old Gerry or, god forbid, Nelson Rockefeller. You might as well suggest they rally around Lincoln Chaffee. And of course Woody comprehends actually existing “mainstream America” only a tad better than Borat with his “cultural learnings”.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Dick Cheney today
broke his silence vis a vis recent events, stating during a Fox News interview that “Democratic control of Congress was certainly in its last throes…”
November 10th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Woodster, linking an asian American who defends the internment camps isn’t exactly the smart stratigy on
tokenism or Uncle Tomism.
I would point to examples of faliure in Afirmative
Action; like Condy Rice. By the way, her flip flop on
campaining was another degradation of your side’s
dishonerable loss for which She was given her typical
pass in the “left wing” media.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Check it out, Chafee says he is going to block Bolton’s nomination. Lincoln may be a Republican dead-ender, but he’s my kind of dead-ender. Too bad he had to go.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:38 am
RecerX, how would you contrast referring to Ford as “too black and too strong†against Democrats refering to Michael Steele, black Republican candidate for Senator from Maryland, as token, Uncle Tom, and slavishly supportive of the Republicans.
Let’s see, Malkin is defending someone who exploited homeless people from out of town to pass out patently dishonest flyers. The wingnuttery is just too funny.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:12 am
I checked in to see how stupid you guys could get, and I wasn’t disappointed. Naturally, I considered Ford and Rockefeller as I wrote my comment, but I didn’t think that I had to reference them or the 25th Amendment to show how smart I am, like you felt the need to do.
But, wasn’t that a Congress from 1974 who voted on Ford and Rockefeller, and I don’t think that a lot of people in the upcoming Congress of the year 2007 were in that one. Of course there is the ever popular Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd.
But, there is another Democratic senator from that period, retired, who is coming to the forefront to advise this Democratically controlled Congress on how to lose wars with style and negate American influence across the globe; thus, exposing them for they cut-and-run, America last, leftists that they are: McGovern to Meet With Congress on War How pathetic. Nixon beat him–badly. McGovern was born thirty years too soon, but fits in today–even if he is a little more conservative than today’s “new” Democrats.
There are a lot of people who voted for the Democrats, main-stream Americans, who are due for a rude awakening when they see and understand what they really got.
Okay, that really is it. GM has orders to shoot me if I waste my time in long discussions with you.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:26 am
More goal post moving. Figures.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:27 am
One makes terrible whine [sic] from sour grapes.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Woody -
I thought you had to get to work. Thanks anyway for taking time from your busy day and giving us the heads-up about trouble ahead; it’s much appreciated. If it’s any consolation I’ve stopped in on Hewitt’s blog just to see “how stupid you guys could get” in responding to the election. I wasn’t disappointed.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Hey, can someone tell me how to do that bit so that when you click on the boldface words you go to the link? I have avoided html programming like the plague but want to be cool like everyone else here and if Woody can figure it out so can I.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Here’s some great patriotic post-election music for your ears – Colbert and newly-elected congressman John Hall (of “Dance With Me” fame):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er0EsSGt5bs
Yeah, Woody…McGovern was born thirty years too soon. ‘Cuz then he wouldn’t have had to pilot a B-24 on 35 missions over Nazi Germany. George McGovern has given more to his country – risked more and served more courageously in wartime and in Washington than all these BushCo crackpots and incompetents put together – an increasingly notorious cabal who history will record as the hubristic architects of a multitude of gross failures and, ultimately, a debacle for the U.S. in Iraq.
I can, however, sympathize with your desperate efforts to pin the disastrous outcome of a reckless, clueless war strategy on the Democrats. I wouldn’t want to be on the side of this BushCo crew who will be increasingly reviled as the country reaps the negative fallout from their mendacity, stupidity and dishonesty. Chickenshit from chickenhawks…certainly not much of a stretch.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Woody, I’m glad that Randy Paul mentioned Michael Steele’s nice trick of hiring homeless to pass out lit saying he was endorsed by Dems – who of course didn’t – and then not paying them and not picking rhem up either. I hear he wants to run for RNC Chairman. Looks like he’s got the props.
Chaney won’t resign but if he did would Bush appoint his “girlfriend”? Condi?
I see that Marc doesn’t skip a beat. He knows that Webb is being an opportunist when he cites his economic populist views and says that it was the Dem’s position on national security and Jimmy Carter’s amnesty to Vietnam era draft dodgers that made him shift to the GOP. Glad you can read minds so well as Webb’s career just reeks of insincerity doesn’t it?
And I know little of Tom Vilsack, But he’s a Dem so he’s got to be a schlub right? And Kerry? Yeah, he went to Vietnam and gave a memorable speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but that was then and aren’t we lucky that, like George Allen, he won’t be President!
(So much better to have Shrub!)
I’ll grant you Ford. He made the critical mistake of being born Black. Well that ought to show them!
And, finally, Woody, George Mcgovern flew B-24s over Europe in WWII, one of the more dangerous missions of that conflict. Got a DFC Too. Tell me again of the wartime exploits of Bush, Chaney, Maccaca . . .
November 10th, 2006 at 11:23 am
“(McGovern) is a little more conservative than today’s ‘new’ Democrats.”
I thought the Right-Blowhardsphere’s latest talking point was that the “new” Democrats won these mid-terms because they fielded a bunch of conservative candidates (according to the WSJ today, even Hillary is a “centrist” and possibly a “conservative”)…you guys need to get your stories straight.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:24 am
I got so riled I didn’t answer the question of what the election meant. It meant that our long national nightmare is ending. And it means a more progressive congress. Herold Meyerson pointed out that the new Dems are much more concerned about Fair Trade as opposed to “Free Trade” and outsourcing. And the new Congress will be much less obesssed with God, Guns, and Gays. I really don’t think Nancy Pelosi will be bringing up flag burning ammendments do you?
November 10th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Marc, you are a great guy, notwithstanding an occasional disagreement, but I can assure you that James Webb is no opportunist.
If you follow what he has been saying and writing, both non-fiction and fiction, his final switch from the Republicans makes absolutely perfect sense.
And without him, the Republicans would still hold the U.S. Senate.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Actually, Woody, you wrote the following:
The House and Senate under Democratic control would never confirm a new Vice President acceptable to the Republican Party and main-stream America. [my emphasis]
You did not write, for example “this House and Senate” or otherwise qualify your statement. Accordingly, you should not call us stupid for your deficient writing skills.
Michael Balter: the syntax is as follows: less than bracket () text to highlight less than bracket /a greater than bracket.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Well that didn’t work well,. My suggestion is to go the view source ona browser and you’ll see.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I like Webb a lot, although I have some differences with him on particular issues – he strikes me as about as authentic a politician as they come.
I’m completely turned off – outraged even – by any crap that strikes me as nostalgia for the Confederacy – which is why Son of SoCal George Allen’s frat-rat antics with the confederate flag seem so disgusting and a hallmark of what’s offensive about him. In contrast, I happen to have read southerner Allen’s comments regarding the memorial to Confederate dead recently, and they were a moving and thoughtful reflection on the tragic fate of some of his own not-so-distant relatives. I was surprised that Webb, who’s an extremely eloquent and thoughtful guy, was able to cut through my own deep biases as regards this history. I didn’t agree with all of his comments, but I could respect them and I could understand why he believes some matters of personal integrity and courage should be held in memory of the Confederate dead and others should be consigned to the dustbin of lost causes. Though spoken 16 years ago, his final words are a key to knowing something of who James Webb is as a man – and as a politician – and why he stands where he does in opposition to Bush and his apologists.
Webb closed noting that a primary lesson, in reflecting on both the courage and the tragedy of men on both sides who sacrificed themselves in a brutal civil war, “is one our leaders should carry next to their breasts, and contemplate every time they face a crisis, however small, which puts our military at risk. it should echo in their consciences, from the power of a million graves . It is simply this: You hold our soldiers’ lives in sacred trust. When a citizen has sworn to obey you, and follow your judgment, and walk onto a battlefield to defend the interests you define as worthy of his blood, do not abuse that awesome power through careless policy, unclear objectives, or inflexible leadership.”
Amen.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Sorry sorry – that should have read “SOUTHERNER JAMES WEBB’S COMMENTS REGARDING, ETC. ETC. …” not “southerner Allen’s”
Really screwed that one up.
November 10th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I want to say something else about the meaning of this past election. Some time ago I wrote here that the Republicans were good at campaigning but lousy at governing. I think that is what really bit them in the ass this time.
Karl Rove’s “50 per cent plus one” strategy was premised on the idea that so-called independents really weren’t and usually split around 50-50 so the side that activated their base most effectively would win. That worked fine in 2002 and 2004 and in 2000 Rove was convinced that Bush would have won the popular vote save for three million missing evangelicals. He got them to show up in 2004. So Rove’s a genius, right?
Wrong. Because he forgot that competence matters. This time around independents went for the Dems by nearly 20 points. Iraq, Katrina, and (I believe) Terry Schaivo turned off these people that finally saw Bush as the loser that he is. And the other big story was the collapse of the “Minority Outreach” program as hispanics and asians dramatically shifted to the Dems. Guess immigrant bashing was a loser!
(though, to be fair, the GOP did get a majority of whites – both male and female – and not just in the South. But, unless they can really suppress the vote that won’t work so well anymore as demography is inexorable. Still you have to wonder what it will take for palefaces to get the message that they are being screwed!)
And “Values” didn’t work either. Catholics came home this time – a 16 point shift. Even 29 per cent of evangelicals! Guess all those preditor Congressmen didn’t help.
So there is a lesson here. Good government can be good politics. Now Imagine that!
November 10th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
And I was interested in Bill Bradley’s comment on his blog that, here in CA, Arnold was pleased that the GOP was shut out of state offices, except for Insurance Commissioner. Seems he can work better with the Dems. And I see he is not going to be happy7 with the new Assembly GOP leader who is quite conservative. Sounds to me like the State Republican party is moving into a cul-de-sac.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
One more thing on Arnold. I see that he told reporters that it was a “good thing” that the Dem,s took over Congress. Boy that really has to make state GOP leaders happy!
November 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Concerning the possibility of Cheney resigning…this is something I have been wondering about as well. It occurs to me that right now we are approaching 2008 in a unique political environment: neither party has a president or vice-president in the running. Ticking back in my mind, it seems like it would have been 1928, unless Hoover was Coolidge’s VP, and I’m not sure about that.
This means a unique election–each party selecting among “free agents”–unless Cheney should either run or resign, and allow Bush to annoint a successor. As for whether Congress would endorse his choice, well, history would indicate yes, but there are some names that would surely draw some fire…”Brownie for VP!”
This is all speculation, of course, but you wonder if Cheney has not served his purpose and even worn out his welcome. It is almost certain that he does not have the power he did in, say, 2003, when he was pretty surely operational chief executive of the US. That was back when Bush was tanned, with dark hair and the glow of health in his face. Seen him recently? It’s a hell of a job, even when you are a front man like Bush 43. He may be dumb in relative terms, but he’s not so dumb that he doesn’t know the pressures of the job. If he didn’t understand the significance of his actions and omissions before, I think Katrina brought it home to him. I still think he doesn’t fully grasp the impact of the decision to invade Iraq and follow thru with Operation Enduring Operation.
I was kind of disappointed that the Dems didn’t win more House seats and governors’ mansions. Most of the close ones seem to be going in favor of the Republicans. I guess that was the effect of the last-week rollback toward the Repubs [which, according to most of the pollsters I've heard on CSPAN was real]. But I couldn’t quite believe that the Dems could pick up 6 seats given the math they were facing. And the word I hear is that Brown, Klobuchar (SP?), particularly, are first-rate progressive leaders.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Speaking of the Guv, did anyone else hear Ted Kennedy’s “Arnold” imitation in his acceptance speech, noting that his sister Eunice was out of state for some damn reason, out in COWLEEFAWNYA. As for his comments about the Dems in legislature and Congress, you gotta imagine that the dinner table political talk is not typically Repub….Maria is among the most conservative of her generation of Kennedys, but still, I can’t imagine that she hasn’t expressed herself pretty sharply about the conduct and character of Repubs, both locally and nationally.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Woody, I’ve actually posted quite a bit about Steele on this blog, I found him to be a much stronger and more legitimate candidate than raving ideologue and token carpetbagger Alan Keyes or if you want to go way back in MD Republican Affirmative Action history Linda Chavez. Another thing I’ve been saying is that African-Americans are more socially conservative on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and are more religious (church attendance) than whites, which was a big selling point for Ford. However, I believe that this year those issues took a back seat for everyone.
I liked Steele in theory, a successful businessman from the richest black county in the US. Charming, telegenic and savvy – he arguably ran one of the most populist campaigns this year (education, home and business ownership, crime). He convinced big black Democratic donors, Russell Simmons (the richest man in Hip-Hop) and Cathy Hughes of Media Empire Radio One and 5 prominent PG county board Dems to cross lines to support him. He scared the pants off of the Dems, rightly, which have been taking the black vote for granted, especially post Clinton.
When it came down to it he was weak on paper compared to Cardin, the only political post he had held prior to the race is his current job as Lt Gov. While berating Cardin for being just another DC insider, he avoided explaining that until Melhman handpicked him, he had never thought of running for Senate. He also offered no substantial positions on the war, healthcare, social security, environment or Katrina. When asked by Tim Russert about what he would do if there were a constitutional amendment to end abortion, Steele exposed that he did not understand the difference between the judicial and legislative branches of government. With all that said it feels at times that neither party feels it needs to work to get the respect of the black vote. If Steele had been allowed to marinate longer as Lt. Gov, Erlich probably would’ve kept the governorship and Steele could have grown into a much more of a grassroots candidate blacks could identify with naturally. Instead Melhman thought he knew what was better for blacks and tried to foist Steele on us like Brussels sprouts on top of a wedding cake.
As for Uncle Toms, if you look at the exit polls and you’ll see that blacks ignored that silliness and focused on who had the most experience, the economy, health care and Iraq. We do not live in a meritocracy, GW is a prime example, he was “grandfathered’ into Yale (which is AA for white folks) and “grandfathered” into the presidency. This a man who said “To those of you who’ve received honors, awards and distinctions, I say well done, and to the C students, I say you can be president of the United States.” Come again Woody about individuals? His BFF Condi because at least her credentials are impressive gets a lefty and a righty pass, too bad her cold war bilateral brain power comes two decades too late. Too bad she’s not fluent in Farsi. Too bad she didn’t read up on the Ottoman Empire. The one person of color, who had the experience and the credentials, Colin Powell, Bush et al, kicked out of crew because he didn’t like what he was telling them m, even though he was on their side. I know how he feels.
Ford will be back and so will Steele, they’re both young enough and ran tight campaigns. If the Reps are smart enough they’ll make Steele a strategist and if Ford is smart enough, the next time he runs, he’ll be married.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Ok, on the subject of ‘tea leaves’ I think this might be a very good measuring stick as how serious the Democrats — or at least Nancy Pelosi — is going to be in terms putting the interests of the nation ahead of partisianship: Who is will Nancy Pelosi name as the chair to the House intellegence committee?
Ruth Marcus put this excellent question into play in the WAPO on Nov. 1. Yesterday the NYT editorialized the exact same matter and came to the same conclusion. Both Marcus and the NYT essentially pleaded with Pelosi to name Jane Harman (D-CA) over Alcee Hastings (D-FL). Apparently Pelosi has a very cool relationship with Harman and there’s whispers amongst Democrats that Harman isn’t always partisian enough. This will not be a comfortable decision for Pelosi because Hastings, who’s next after Harman in senority, is viewed as a very rigorous party-line player and is almost surely going to be strongly endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus. But there’s this nagging concern about Hastings: although he was acquitted in a criminal trial, he was impeached as a federal judge by the House and convicted by the Senate of conspiring to extort a $150,000 bribe in case before him.
Not exactly the best bullet point on a resume for this position. So there’s some leaves to sort out, something to chew on…I don’t know about you, but I dug out my ACLU membership card with the number to the House switchboard (it’s 202-225-3121 if you need the number) and lobbied Pelosi’s office to pick Jane.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Woody: “But, there is another Democratic senator from that period, retired, who is coming to the forefront to advise this Democratically controlled Congress on how to lose wars with style and negate American influence across the globe; thus, exposing them for they cut-and-run, America last, leftists that they are: McGovern to Meet With Congress on War How pathetic.”
That’s because the Democrats are completely out of touch. If they had any clue whatsoever they would’ve realised the Republicans have already negated American influence for them. How pathetic.
Michael Balter: “Hey, can someone tell me how to do that bit so that when you click on the boldface words you go to the link?”
Click me!
November 10th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Damn…great week and then Jack Palance up and dies.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
“Iraq mattered…but it was more frustration than it was an explicit call for withdrawal”
-Karl Rove
Just imagine the electoral results if there was an opposition party that:
> called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq instead of increduluosly whining about being ‘duped’ into voting for the war,
> clearly stated that, if Iraq’s main resource was bauxite, Bush never would have instigated the war,
> demanded an end to the MSM’s self-censorship of photos of the 100 body bags per month returning from Iraq and an honest account of the 500 vets per month returning with life-shattering disabilities.
Rumsfeld is talking about how ‘misunderstood’ the Iraq war is by the American public. He’s goddamn lucky it is misunderstood or he’d be facing the same fate as Saddam – the hangman’s noose for mass-murder!
November 10th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Jeeziskryst, I hate these hyperventilating, lying scum. Are they completely delusional or just the most shameless, self-serving degenerates on our part of the planet ????
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/10/conservative-heads-explode/
November 10th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
http://tinyurl.com/ygddra
Interesting link – the endgame Iraq battlefield is already shifting – from Fallujah and Baghdad to the long war that is already beginning to be fought by its architects and enablers in the aisles of Barnes & Noble and the rankings on Amazon.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:20 am
“This is all speculation, of course, but you wonder if Cheney has not served his purpose and even worn out his welcome.”–Michael Crosby
I think that Cheney now becomes a serious liability for the Republicans in all the ways you suggest. And Cheney is not likely to have either the stamina nor the will to fight for his “principles” over the next two years, which means he may well have “other priorities” very soon. Watch this space.
DC Sniper, thanks much for the tutorial.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:56 am
“… we are approaching 2008 in a unique political environment: neither party has a president or vice-president in the running…. This means a unique election–each party selecting among “free agentsâ€â€“unless Cheney should either run or resign, and allow Bush to annoint a successor.”
Which, after this “thumpin’”, might amount to a great deal of pressure on Cheney to resign and make way for a VP who gives the GOP some kind of shot at the White House in 2008, or at least someone who most moderate GOP congressmembers wouldn’t feel embarrassed standing next to. That would be Guliani unless I miss my guess. Cheney is by all reports wildly popular in the reddest of Red States, but he’s basically a major co-architect of the Iraq disaster, and that’s not gonna go away.
A lot depends on what the Baker-Hamilton group comes up with after Thanksgiving. It would be quite telling if it’s just 300-page shrug, an announcement of options that are militarily plausible but politically impossible, or politically plausible but militarily impossible. That would be saying that Gates is now basically on his own. And that might make the White House a death-zone for anyone with presidential ambitions.
One problem for my Kurdistan Petrostate Quasi-Exit Strategy has been that it has to somehow appear to happen by default–at this point, it actually requires at least the appearance of incompetence. Well, Rummy’s resignation is exactly that, isn’t it? So I notch up another one for my theory–we’re gettin’ there. What this administration can get out of it now, having been waylaid, will only happen if they are “reduced” to crying “Whatever you do, PLEASE don’t throw me into that briar patch!” But they might get tossed–if they can get the Dems to do the tossing. After which they can say, “we *tried* to save all of Iraq and build a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, but all we got was access to a crummy one trillion dollars worth of Kirkuk oil.” Thus they’ll be fathers to something not quite like victory (but close enough for certain people), and will also be slapping the Dems with a paternity suit for defeat.
November 11th, 2006 at 8:07 am
A key aspect of Nancy Pelosi’s tough, principled world-view that rarely gets any attention because it runs counter to the dishonest, cartoonish attempts to denigrate and smear her by right-wing idiots.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/11/09/china.uselections.ap/index.html
November 11th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Molly Ivans this week called for immediate withdrawl, now. While She has a lot more credibility than say, Marc Cooper (She noted grandstanding Chris Matthews lazily spent the last couple of weeks droning out the talking points from the Republican get Pelosi playbook), I think writers like Ivans are responsable for stating what they think the effects on the region thier plain will have. it worrys me that Thomas E. Ricks, author of what may go down as the definative study of the Invasion disaster; opposes withdrawl on both moral and stratigic grounds.
The posisition is not illogical: Iraq IS a tinderbox now (thanks to Bush), and Iran asserting it’s authority there seems one of the BETTER possible outcomes of withdrawl. There was a hope, under Saddam, that a secular middle class might gradually lead to something better. What’s the best we can hope for by leaving Iraq now?
Yes, Media hot dogs like Chris Matthews made himself a fortune doing everything but lick the bathroom floor, making sure we had the worst possible national goverment. So I don’t think the Democrates have to answer to boobs like him. But all sides do have to elaborate on what can be expected to result
from their choice from the various terrible senerios we have to choose from.
November 11th, 2006 at 9:24 am
“the various terrible senerios we have to choose from.”
This is reality: “various terrible scenarios” – I’m still not sure exactly what or how we will choose among them, but this is what we are choosing from. Most Americans know this. It’s a hell of a situation. It exists because George W. Bush, captive to his own manifest weaknesses/insecurities and the wiles of certain more experienced cronies who seemed “strong”, made a series of decisions regarding Iraq – all bad and mostly out of a fairly profound ignorance. And the best that the cretins of the Right Blowhardshpere can come up with at this late date – be they hack operatives, paid pundits or the assortment of amateurs and oddballs easily accessed by clicking on the “Pajamas Media” link over at the left of this column – is a cowardly, supremely dishonest attempt to try to hang the fallout and blowback of their stupidity and mendacity on “Democrats”, “anti-war leftists” and/or “liberal media”. This is easily one of the creepiest, sleaziest operations – supreme self-serving fraud, desperate denial and shameless ass-covering – I’ve ever witnessed, and like most of us, I’ve seen some pretty sorry shit in my time.
November 11th, 2006 at 9:45 am
“is a cowardly, supremely dishonest attempt to try to hang the fallout and blowback of their stupidity and mendacity on “Democratsâ€, “anti-war leftists†and/or “liberal mediaâ€.”
Well, the majority of Americans just rejected these tactics, so let’s have just a little bit of faith in them and assume that having lifted the wool from their eyes at last they won’t let anyone pull it back down again right away. At least, not immediately right away.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:18 am
I’ve got faith in short memories and the ability of people to become confused…partly based on my own weakness for lazy, semi-informed thinking when not much seems directly at stake. But, yeah, the trending on this issue right now is in the direction of sanity and disgust with what’s been served up so far.
The exit strategy in Iraq appears to be the sorry spectacle of a 60-year old man finding himself in such FUBARed straits that he’s gotta go to Daddy and his circle of friends for help in cleaning up after himself. W’s inner “screwed up little asshole” must be in even more turmoil than usual these days.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:08 am
I think that some face saving “Decent Interval” with a “redeployment” to Kurdistan and Kuwait may be in the Baker-Hamilton Commission cards but, frankly, a lot will depend on daddy laying down the law to junior. And I’m not encouraged at the start. Shrub may wine and dine Nancy and Harry but he just resubmitted John Bolten’s name and wants the lame duck Congress to confirm. And he wants other goodies too before those nasty Dems take over. Sounds like he’s still a spoiled brat who believes God made him President.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:11 am
I was looking at Drum’s site where he links to exit polls from the 2004 and 2006 House races and looking for swings towards the Democrats significantly larger than 5%. The percentage of Latinos voting for Democrats went from 55% to 69%. That’s a big jump. I’m sure others have talked about this, but it seems of special significance on this blog.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:28 am
After the 2004 election, a lot of liberals spoke of alienation, of no longer feeling connected to America. Over the past week, I’ve seen liberals talking about they now feel more a part of their country. That can only be a good thing.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:52 am
“Most Americans know this.”
One would like to think so. But if it comes to having to say to the American people “you’ve got to pick your posion. This isn’t a commecial and it’s not a movie.” Who’s going to do it?
“I have seen the price you pay for retreat…”
-George W. Bush
Q: What do you think of news that your bete noir, Henry Kissinger is advising the White House?
HITCHENS: Well, I’ve just filed an article on that for Slate. The Kurds were horrified when Bremer was appointed in Iraq, because the name Kissinger made them pee green. Bush did ask Kissinger to be made head of the 9/11 Commission, for which I can claim to have made him not do that- for the simple reason that he is a war criminal, terrorist, couldn’t travel to all other countries because he is under indictment in many of them; which would have been a significant impairment in his ability to do the job, and he couldn’t declair his intrests. I know he hates me because I had an impact on his life.”
Out, out damned spot.
Reg, you are certainly on the right track; but don’t imagine these people are going to give up. They will be back again, and, more often than not, getting a slap on the back from this blog.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
What’s really interesting about who voted was the grand total. In Senate races the Dems outvoted the GOP by TEN points (55 – 45). That is huge.
And now for something completely different.
We’ve had enough time to digest 2006 so lets speculate on the Big One in 2008.
John McCain wants it. I think he may find his time is past. With yahoos like Dobson saying the GOP lost because they are not conservative enough I think McCain will have real trouble from the activists in the base who really don’t trust him. And is a pro-war stance a winner?
George Allen is a dead duck. So who is the Religious Right candidate? Sam Brownbeck? And will the evangelicals swallow a Mormon like Mitt Romney? Hell, next to Catholics, Mormons are the anti-Christ to lot of the loons over there. And they can can point to the fact that his state is more Dem than ever.
As to the Dems Hillary spent 29 million to run up big numbers against an unknown but her party didn’t capture the state senate in a Blue State in a blue year. Great coattails there! She is now running neck and neck with McCain though.
Barack Obama for VP
And finally, after the midterms Al Gore ought to reconsider. “I told you so!” for a campaign mantra!
Let the games begin!
November 11th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Hillary Clinton – She won’t run. All things considered, she is realistic and has way too much pride to enter a contest in which she knows that she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance to win come general election time. Ironically, although nearly all of the mainstream media concedes to lazy punditry by pegging her as a “liberal Democract,” her credentials as one are in fact so lacking that I can’t imagine the left not pressuring a third party challenge. Republican and swing voters are needed to win a general election, and she doesn’t have the charisma or the centrist credentials to attract those voters.
Barak Obama- A few years in the Senate is not long enough. The knock on him is that he is not experienced enough, and that is a fair piece of criticism.
My pick? You heard it here first….Al Gore. All things considered, Gore has managed not to embarrass himself too much in the past six years. In fact, in hindsight, I believe that to many Americans who actually voted for Bush in 2000, Gore represents a time in which America was safe, the environment was a priority, budgets were balanced, the debt was going down, the government was less corrupt, and so on. I can name whole lists of people I know who wish that they had voted for Gore instead of Bush in 2000.
Gore endorsed Howard Dean over his friends Joe Lieberman and John Kerry for the 2004 Democratic Nomination, and….look at how pathetic Kerry and Lieberman have turned out to be since that time. Dean, meanwhile, has been vindicated as the DNC Chairman because his 50 state strategy worked despite opposition from people in his own party. Furthermore, Gore’s documentary was a hit and, I have to admit, a pretty good film.
Given the breadth of the GOP’s scandals of the past six years, is anyone really going to care about or remember these supposed fund raisers that Gore supposedly operated in Buddhist temples? Next to the Republican Party’s list of unpunished abuses over the past several years, it is hard to believe that Gore’s little shenanigans ever even made it to the front pages.
Relatively speaking, Gore is smelling like a rose right now. I believe that given his fund raising ability, his lack of smell, and his new found credibility with progressives; Gore could have the nomination in 08 if he wanted it.
November 11th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Gore-Obama. Obama would fill whatever charisma gap still exists with Gore and give the Dems a perfect, experienced candidate for ’16. Gore, if he were smart and having been Veep himself, would craft an active role for Barack in his administration – perhaps developing an agenda addressing youth-related and urban issues, with which Obama has considerable personal experience as a community organizer. I think they’re politically very compatible. Liberal use of the photo of McCain giving Bush a servile hug, paired with great moments from McCain’s right-wing and largely pro-Bush voting record would be about all they would need to put that sorry hack in his place.
November 11th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
“In Senate races the Dems outvoted the GOP by TEN points (55 – 45). That is huge.”
Bush got just 51% of the popular vote in 2004 and his post-election message was “Mandate!” The Dems should follow suit.
As for Gore… He raked in $23 million at the box office for a documentary without any cute penguins or Michael Moore. He couldn’t POSSIBLY run a 2008 presidential campaign any worse than he did in 2000, and I think the Republicans are going to be on the defensive this time around. I think he should run.
November 11th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
reg: “the endgame Iraq battlefield is already shifting – from Fallujah and Baghdad to the long war that is already beginning to be fought by its architects and enablers in the aisles of Barnes & Noble and the rankings on Amazon.”
Interesting story. It makes me think of the book Daily News, Eternal Stories that I never quite got around to reading.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Happy Veteran’s Day to all who have served, and all who have kids, nieces, nephews who are serving now.
With heartfelt appreciation and respect.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
On Gore: “supposedly” we be the operative word. One aspect of a Gore run would be listening to the same pundits who gave us Bush in 2000 try to reserect their puffed up assaults again. Or might they posses, dare I suggested… an OUNCE of shame?
We can say, after this month, what with Bush finally copping to going to Iraq for Oil and running an option play with Rummy, it’s going to be a might harder to say the Dems aren’t “authentic.”
November 11th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
“Bob also argues that Harold Ford Jr. was punished for essentially not being liberal enough.”
Try white enough.
November 12th, 2006 at 2:04 am
David:
“…given (Gore’s) new found credibility with progressives…”
You’ve GOT to be kidding! Any progressive that falls for Gore’s ‘I got religion…its the environment stupid’ new ploy probably has forgotten how quickly Clinton caved in to ‘political realities’ in ’92 on one of his central platforms: universal healthcare (He folded quicker than a drycleaner from Des Moines sittin’ next to Cooper at a a Vegas poker table).
I wish that making a hit film would prove to be a reliable predictor of what a pol is going to do once in office but I can’t come up with any precedents (maybe my fellow bloggers can help me out). I wracked my brains for a few minutes trying to come up with any Gore- the- Veep did with regard to the environment (bloggers, throw me a bone since this is a much more reliable prognostic tool).
A pres candidate can’t swim wth the energy/manufacturing sharks while crying save the dolphins (unless, of course Gore assures the sharks the he feels that programs such as the ludicris ‘pollution credits” are ok with Mr. Gore etc, etc… )
How’s Gore going to compete for campaign funds from the energy/manufacturing sectors etc.
Gore has a history of caving and being a team-player (the ‘team’ being the gov’t-business nexus, as in Fla 2000 when, despite massive evidence of voter intimidation, voting irregularities etc he decided that for the ‘good of the Country’ he would, well, cave…
Listen, I had a friend once named Chris Hooten that preidicted that politicians would never make any significant, meaningful attemts to address the environment unless there was a significant manifestation of environmental collapse.
Let’s hope that:
1. my friend Chris was wrong
2. that we, as a species, survive the initial environmental collapse
3. progressives, and everybody else for that matter, have longer memories than David…
November 12th, 2006 at 4:47 am
Yes Watters, I hope they remember voting for Nader, because their isn’t a dime’s worth of diference, blah blah blah….
I also remember the progressive Counterpunch page making fun
of Gore because Global Warming IS “junk science”, thou I haven’t heard that from them lately….
November 12th, 2006 at 7:31 am
“I wish that making a hit film would prove to be a reliable predictor of what a pol is going to do once in office”
I wonder who would get more votes, Al Gore or George Clooney.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Wall:
Are you saying that there isn’t a “…dime’s worth of difference…” between Nader and Gore?
Let’s see, one has spent his life compiling an incredibly effective record championing causes such as consumer safety, health and the environment, fearlessly taking on very wealthy and powerful interests.
The other has spent his life shamelessly ‘sucking up’ to many of those wealthy and powerful interests and now wants us to believe that he’s ready to ‘stand up’ to them.
Wall, I spent about 20 minutes searching the CounterPunch archives and couldn’t find any ‘junk science’ reference. I think that possibly you misread what was a facetious use of the pejorative term or are you just makin’ shit up…
November 12th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Leave it to Dems to debate the reasons for the outcome of an election they won. Plus, well it’s just fun I guess to talk and debate endlessly. Bring your knitting girls…….oh guys too of course.
Let me help, in order of priority, so we can conclude the talk and get back to real work:
1. Rahm Emanuel fielded centrist candidates that stood a chance of actually winning. Duh.
2. Americas disatisfaction with a three year old war of attrition, as predicted by the suicide crazies.
3. The Reps failure to follow the principles they were elected on…..speaking of suicide.
4. The historic trend of the ruling party to lose- seats at the mid-term of a second term presidency.
5. Last but not least, in my unbiased opinion. Dean and Emanuel reads Marc’s Blog and took my winning advice to drop the loser socially devisive issues of late term baby killing, boy-boy and girl-girl marriages, attacking the word ‘God’
on the face of America, and talk like you really do have spines. In short, keep your crazies rocking on the back porch until after the elections.
Now if you want to keep winning, continue following Rahm, Bill and me.
. If you really want to fuck-up what we and the hapless Reps just helped you win, pursue the agenda the rocking chair crowd here are suggesting for Congress. ie, begin to act like your old selves again.
I’ve done all I can. Ann and I are off to church……to confess our sins of course. You guys should try to find a nice Christian girl for yourselves.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Thank you Rosedog. RA 1964-67 for me.
November 12th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
“Bob also argues that Harold Ford Jr. was punished for essentially not being liberal enough.â€
“Try white enough.”
Bob is partially correct, Elijah is way off. Besides patronizing voters with his constant name dropping of Jesus, Ford positioned himself to the jingoist right of even his own challenger Bob Corker on a whole host of issues, most particularly immigration. As Richard Kim points out in an article on the Nation website, Ford used some of the same kinds of race baiting against what he called “illegals” that were used against him in RNC and Corker sponsored ads. Similarly, Ford uses his opposition to gay marriage and gay civil unions as a kind of business card disclaimer – it is one of his bragging points at the beginning of any of his debates or campaign stops.
Yet, since he’s a black man, we as Democrats are just supposed to run right out there and vote for him. Sorry to disappoint you, but Ford never even came close to passing the smell test.
November 12th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Well, the 2008 Presidential Race just became less interesting.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=139759
November 12th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
J.R. – Here’s the deal with the current crop of Dems…
http://tinyurl.com/uhgpo
Get used to it.
November 12th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I hate to be a spoilsport, but isn’t it a distraction to be focusing on the 2008 presidential election right now? Our country is in a real mess, we’ve got a disaster in Iraq that should be our most pressing issue, not to mention health care and a host of other things. Why don’t we wait and see which Democrats end up taking real constructive leadership on these issues and then decide who should be the best candidate for 2008? Not to be pissy, but seriously, don’t you want a competent candidate who has proven him or herself? Or do you just want a pretty face or fast talker?
November 12th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
“Or do you just want a pretty face or fast talker?”
My primary concern is that the candidate be someone I’d like to have a beer with. Which is why I could never support a teetotaler like Bush.
November 12th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
I think the only thing holding Gore back is the memory of the trashing he got from the media in 2000, But the prospects are so good and his speechs so prescient that I think he’ll change his mind. Gore – Obama would be a tough ticket.
Wesley Clark should not be forgotten either and Edwards will do well early although his advantage in Iowa might be diluted by Vilsack.
But what the hell. I like our bench a lot!
November 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Watters, could be my memory is wrong but it could also damn well be the piece was purged a long time ago. It was run along the time Bush pulled out of Kyoto, when the Counterpunch line was still that Ralph did us a favor because clearly Bush was better than Gore would have been. Surely you remember THAT, don’t you?
What Gore does not have on his record is enabling the worst, most retro President in Modern history to take power. The damage said has done, alas, cancels a lot of good to great works. When could we have seen Ralph was losing his way?
I’d site his endorcment of the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, a call which negated everything he’s ever put forward consern legal fair play and basic common sense. Unless you know about another case were he took a posistion that someone, after years of harrasment by a politicaly motivated prosacutor, should have been stripped of his job on “purgery” ; which seen in context was barely a legal technicality.
Florida was just down the road…..
November 12th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Wall:
There is also a pretty decent argument that’s been made that the folks who voted for Nader would have just stayed home if the only options in ’00 were Gore and Bush.
And there is also good reason to believe that Gore himself deserves most of the credit for enabling Bush’s victory (great choice of running mate, Al).
It seems a bit extreme to say that supporting Clinton’s impeachment negated all the impressive work that Nader performed but there were plenty of reasons to impeach Clinton that didn’t involve Monica Lewinsky or Whitewater:
> for the first seven years of his presidency he
allowed the Indonesian generals to continue thier destruction of East Timor,
> bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory (people are stiil perishing as a result of that war-crime)
> ended the meager welfare and food subsidies to the poor without putting anything in its place such as childcare provisions for single parents.
And no, I can’t remember CounterPunch expressing a preference for Bush over Gore – no doubt they’ve ‘purged’ that one from thier archives also.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Ed Watters,
I share your disappointment with the milquetoast war opposition the Democrats came out with for the first two years, but I’m still not sure what the proper political move was. Certainly for an individual (especially one running for President) to have been able to say that he opposed the war would have been beneficial. But I’m not sure the Democratic Party didn’t benefit from riding the same public opinion path as the rest of the country. I just don’t know. And I also wonder what the party elders think. Do they feel they rode the wave well and were victims of circumstance and a bad candidate in 2004? Or do they wish they had taken a stronger stance on Iraq earlier? I want very much to believe that principled stands can pay off politically (not that they always will, but that they can), but sometime it feels very much like the evidence points in a different direction.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Had the Dems, before elections in 2002, came out against giving Bush war power to invade Iraq — they would have been creamed even more than they were.
Even 2004, Kerry wasn’t able to say he was against the war and would leave. Even in 2006, few Dems, and I think no new Dems, were in favor of immediate, unconditional surrender, er, relocation out of Iraq.
Mavis, the problem of principals is this: most voters are moderate on most issues, but extreme on a few (pro-life/ anti-war/ pro or anti- guns/ etc.) Taking a stand on any issue means those against that stand will be against you; but those for that stand might be against on some other issue.
Reagan, like Bush, had tax cuts and a huge deficit — but along with tax cuts Regan actually did cut some gov’t programs, and cut the growth rate of many programs. Bush hasn’t cut much of any gov’t program, but only increased gov’t spending.
Even in Iraq, Bush & Rumsfeld sent in too few troops, according to many of the generals against Rummy.
Oh well, Dem anti-war Left will see much less Iraq change than they want.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Well Ed I’m sure the Gingerich-Delay Congress just forgot to impeach Clinton for those reasons. And FYI the data on 2000 show that, roughly 50% of Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Ralph hadn’t won. In fact, a sizable percentage would have voted for Gore anyway if they thought the election was as close as it was. So look in the mirror to see who “elected” GWB.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I don’t think you read Counterpunch much or very carefully. After 9-11, Counterpunch was positively drunk with “thank God Gore didn’t win”, as he would have gone batshit trying to prove how tough he was. Somebody like Cummings still pushes that dubious line around here. There reaction to Bush’s victory, totally misreading the situation was “great, now we’ll have gridlock.” They made excuses for all Bush’s hard rightward lean
right up to 9-11. Sorry, Progressives of your type seem to have short memories.
I would imagine if you track down Cockburns get Gore book, a lot of this same stuff is in there, re: the enviorment. As to the rest, yes, I’ve heard the “Clinton was Impeached for the wrong reasons” line from many Progs. A novel appoach to justice and fair play, but as we know when it came to Clinton(s), anything goes.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:05 am
bench pressing…
I found it very useful. Thanks for the knowledge. I am personally trying to follow the advice & try to be independent….
March 17th, 2010 at 7:35 am
hey guys, i just came here after an fast google search. Neat site you have here! Keep it up!