The Broad View

A village voice speaks — from the crypt

I nearly blew my coffee out of my nose when I read this, from David Broder, to be published in tomorrow's WaPo.

The country faces a choice between two men who both promise the nation a more principled, less partisan leadership.

Broder says this is the best campaign he's ever covered. The best? Well, maybe the craziest and even the most exciting, from his Village perspective. "Best" is a word that just doesn't fit. And Broder's forcing an equality between the presumed governance styles of both candidates is, at the very most charitable, absurd.

As for "more principled" — see RJ Eskow's piece, noted immediately below.

And for "less partisan" — well, Tristero at Hullabaloo has the last word.

Update: Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian says something a lot different from Broder, and a lot closer to the mark:

THIS has been the worst US presidential campaign I've ever seen. Vacuous, fatuous, misleading, dishonest, trivial, at times unhinged in its disconnect from reality.

I don't agree with Sheridan's general slant (he leans to the right, and doesn't like Obama) but I think his lede quite captures the "American Idol" idiocies of our post-modern campaigns.

RJ is brilliant...again

This is a MUST READ!

An excerpt:

You probably remember Rumsfeld's line: "Democracy is messy." But you may not remember when he said it. It was in response to widespread looting of banks, offices, and museums. That says a lot. To this crowd, "democracy" is a violent mob. Representative government is an unpleasant necessity, not a value or an ideal. The rest of us think "war is too important to be left to the generals." They think self-government is too important to be left to the voters.

To some extent this is nothing more than greed and lust for power, the misuse of conservatism as a cover for naked self-interest. But it also reflects a difference in political philosophy that goes back to Locke and Hobbes. Their equation of democracy with mob rule, so clearly mirrored in Rumsfeld's comment, helps explain why they feel morally entitled to lie, cheat, and steal votes. To them, voters aren't reflections of a democratic ideal. They're suspects, threats, enemies. They're the Iraqi mob looting the Museum of Antiquities.

What Sarah Palin might look like if she were a Democrat

Gorgeous? Check. Designer glasses? Check. But...

I know quite well the young woman pictured in the ad and I can tell you this. She has spent a good deal of time abroad. She was brought up in a relatively affluent family in New York, where she was educated at private schools. She's a graduate of Cornell University. She's been a small-business owner and now has a managerial role in a publicly traded company that specializes in high-end home furnishings. She's as witty, as chic, as sophisticated, as cosmopolitan -- and as liberal -- as they come. And I have no doubt that she'd more than hold her own in a conversation with Katie Couric, or Joe Biden, or just about anyone else for that matter.

She does have one ability that might appeal to Palin's fan club. Some years ago, taking advantage of one of the enrichment experiences her parents were pleased to be able to offer her, she went on an Outward Bound adventure to the deep North -- in the course of which she learned to track moose by following their scat.

Did I fail to mention that she's my daughter? :-)

Comply, or else

I've been meaning to write something about this post from Glenn Greenwald on the surreal news that Army troops will be deployed here in the U.S. for, among other things, crowd control in what seems to be a direct violation of Posse Comitatus. An Army Times article has some of the details. This is when the water gets hot enough to truly boil us frogs.

However, I couldn't do better than to direct you to Digby's extraordinary addition to the discussion:

So men who've been fighting in Iraq will now be armed with tasers on the streets of the United States. You can be fairly sure that after what they've been trained for they'll believe that tasering someone is completely benign. After all, you get up again.

But as bad as putting more tasers on the streets, there's an even worse possibility.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

I think you have to wonder if this is what they might be talking about:

The US military has given the first public display of what it says is a revolutionary heat-ray weapon to repel enemies or disperse hostile crowds.

Called the Active Denial System, it projects an invisible high energy beam that produces a sudden burning feeling. [...]

It can penetrate clothes, suddenly heating up the skin of anyone in its path to 50C.

But it penetrates the skin only to a tiny depth - enough to cause discomfort but no lasting harm, according to the military.

A Reuters journalist who volunteered to be shot with the beam described the sensation as similar to a blast from a very hot oven - too painful to bear without diving for cover.

But that's not all! Raytheon is also developing a "non-lethal" weapon for the Army -- "Silent Guardian." Here's a description Digby found on Silent Guardian's effectiveness:

When turned on, it emits an invisible, focused beam of radiation - similar to the microwaves in a domestic cooker - that are tuned to a precise frequency to stimulate human nerve endings.

It can throw a wave of agony nearly half a mile.

Because the beam penetrates skin only to a depth of 1/64th of an inch, it cannot, says Raytheon, cause visible, permanent injury.

But anyone in the beam's path will feel, over their entire body, the agonising sensation I've just felt on my fingertip. The prospect doesn't bear thinking about. [...]

Silent Guardian is supposed to be the 21st century equivalent of tear gas or water cannon - a way of getting crowds to disperse quickly and with minimum harm. Its potential is obvious. [...]

This machine has the ability to inflict limitless, unbearable pain.

What makes it OK, says Raytheon, is that the pain stops as soon as you are out of the beam or the machine is turned off.

And still that's not all. Read about the Pulsed Energy Projectile weapon, designed to raise bubbles of superhot gas on the skin of people up to a mile and a half away. This is the stuff of conspiracy thrillers and bad sci-fi movies of authoritarian dystopias run amok.

There has never been a weapon invented (outside of some WMD) that hasn't been used. And the supposed "non-lethality" of these weapons assures that they'll be used in "crowd control," i.e., dispersing political protesters. "Free speech zones" aren't nearly as satisfactory as zapping the fucking hippy traitor bastards.

And if you get trampled to death in the stampede, or your eyes get permanently burned by superheated contact lenses, or your pacemaker goes haywire -- well, that just serves you right for hating America. That'll teach all you malcontents to stay at home and STFU.

This is America in the 21st Century. Paid for by our tax dollars. Who will stop this madness and how?

Krugman as SecTreas?

A thought before going off to watch the debate...

Not long ago I found myself in conversation with a well-kept older man having his hair cut in the chair next to mine at the hairdresser.

We soon discovered each other's political leanings.

I said I'd make a deal with him. I'd read Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" if he'd read Paul Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal."

His response: "I couldn't possibly stomach even a page of Krugman."

Paul Krugman wrote this in his blog on September 23

I’ve been pointing out that the dictatorial powers Paulson has sought would accrue to the next Treasury secretary, who might well be Phil Gramm. I’ve been trying to come up with a liberal-leaning name who might seem equally horrifying to Republicans, and the only one I’ve come up with is … me.

Red Alert: Watch out, California Democrats. There's danger ahead.

Red Alert!!!

If you read Hendrik Hertzberg in the August 6 New Yorker, or Jonathan Alter in the August 13 Newsweek, or Hannah-Beth Jackson at her Speak Out California website, then you'll know that we California Democrats may be facing a daunting challenge in June 2008.

Note how the three authors have slugged their pieces: Hertzberg calls his "Votescam." Hannah-Beth tells us that the Republicans are "Trying to steal the Presidency — again!" Alter goes with a three-fer: "Is California GOP Trying to Steal the 2008 Election?" "A Red play for the Golden State" "There's some malicious mischief at play in efforts to reform our electoral system." Bam! Bam! Bam!

This is serious stuff, and will require us to be on our activist mettle at the very moment we'd most like to take a breather. Dammit, we have another election — in June 2008. It's only the presidential primary that's been unbundled from our usual June ballot. The primaries are held then for all the other offices up for a vote in November. It's the perfect opportunity to put stealth initiatives on a ballot that too many people will regard as ho-hum.

The Repubs will be angling to get us to vote for something they've named with perfect Rovian pitch. Here's how Alter describes its intended effect:

The Presidential Election Reform Act would award the state's electoral votes based on who wins each congressional district. Had this idea been in effect in 2004, Bush would have won 22 electoral votes from California, about the same number awarded the winners of states like Illinois or Pennsylvania. In practical terms, adopting the initiative would mean that the Democratic candidate would likely have to win both Ohio and Florida in 2008 (instead of one or the other) to be elected.

[Alter tells us that Democrats are hoping to do a similar deal in North Carolina, where far fewer votes are at stake. In all fairness, we should stand in opposition to that ploy as well.]

The California effort may, in fact, not be constitutional — the Constitution gives only state legislatures the power to change how electors are chosen — so it will face a court challenge. Will it pass muster? We don't know that yet. But this is a development that bears close watching, and major action when and if the initiative is cleared for the ballot.

Meanwhile, please read the linked articles, know the stealth terminology, and stay wary.

Cheneystein

The publication of the Washington Post's stunning series on Dick Cheney, "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency," confirms with chilling detail what Washington insiders have long known and the rest of us have suspected. Simply put, Dick Cheney and his aides have manipulated the administration, the agencies, the president and the law to remake the executive branch into an unassailable, secret fortress of dicatators. The extent to which he has succeeded in six short years is frightening.

I won't go into the specifics; excellent commentary on the series and Cheney are widely available. I suppose we can take some comfort that the dank details are finally seeing the light of day. Given Cheney's obsession with secrecy, it's remarkable that the series' authors were able to find the sources willing to talk.

Then again, maybe it's not so surprising. The Republican villagers, it seems, are close to leading a torchlit procession to rid the countryside of the Cheneystein Monster. And like Frankenstein's creation, Cheney is a collection of all the basest impulses of the Republican village from whence he sprang -- and just as out of control. Cheney's marauding ways are giving the village a bad name and chasing away the tourists.

Sally Quinn reveals in the Washington Post today that "[t]he big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office." She should know; she's been a villager in good standing for years.

As the reputed architect of the war in Iraq, Cheney is viewed as toxic, and as the administration's leading proponent of an attack on Iran, he is seen as dangerous. As long as he remains vice president, according to this thinking, he has the potential to drag down every member of the party -- including the presidential nominee -- in next year's elections.

Quinn reminisces about Barry Goldwater debating in her parents' living room whether or not he should lead a delegation of Republicans to the White House to tell Nixon to resign. (Nice name drop there, Sally, to establish your bona fides.)

His [Goldwater's] hesitation was that he felt loyalty to the president and the party. But in the end he felt a greater loyalty to his country, and he went to the White House.

Today, another group of party elders, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, could well do the same. They could act out of concern for our country's plummeting reputation throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East.

Good try, Sally. But those party elders haven't heretofore demonstrated loyalty to anything above their president and party. If they're fixin' to storm the White House barricades, it's because -- as you put it -- Cheney is a toxic drag on their collective fortunes in 2008.

Then comes the interesting part as Quinn floats this trial balloon:

For such a plan to work, however, they would need a ready replacement. Until recently, there hasn't been an acceptable alternative to Cheney -- nor has there been a persuasive argument to convince President Bush to make a change. Now there is.

Rudy, St. John and Mitt would categorically not fit the bill. Not only would they not want the job, according to Quinn, but The Decider doesn't particularly care for them anyway. Who then, to ride to the rescue?

That leaves Fred Thompson. Everybody loves Fred. He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor.

He could be just the partner to bring out Bush's better nature -- or at least be a sensible voice of reason. I could easily imagine him telling the president, "For God's sake, do not push that button!" -- a command I have a hard time hearing Cheney give.

Oh, my. The "healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan." And a good sense of humor! What's not to love?

Can anybody read those two paragraphs and not get the dry heaves? What, Sally? Isn't Ben sexy enough anymore? Egad, but this woman gives all women a bad, bad name.

I wonder who whispered this scheme in her ear. Among its virtues for Sally, "Thompson would give the Republicans a platform for running for the presidency -- and the president a way out of Iraq without looking like he's backing down."

I'm not sure how that would be accomplished, but one thing is sure: the removal of Cheney and the installation of Thompson would be one of those game changers. It would take the wind out of the Democrats' sails as the media and pundits turn all attention to the movie star, 24/7.

One last bit: According to Quinn, Cheney is scheduled to have his pacemaker replaced this summer, thus affording the perfect opportunity to take down the Monster on "doctor's orders."

Although I'm horrified at the prospect of launching Fred Thompson one step closer to the presidency, there is one glimmer of hope in all of the murk surrounding Cheney: For a man who has demonstrated iron control over so much, the fact that these stories are building to a chorus of opprobrium signals his downfall 'ere long.

Decaying Democrats

These are not good times to be a Democrat. I'm finding it harder and harder to self-identify with the hapless clowns we sent to Congress with such high hopes just six months ago.

I'm supposed to puff up with pride at the elevation of Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House. I'm afraid that from the moment she declared impeachment "off the table," I've seen only a slightly addled and pleasant grandma who's still under the impression that these are normal times. (And will she please get her goddamn dentures fixed so she can stop adjusting them with every Stepford smile?)

A few days ago, I received a fund-raising email from the DCCC, one more in a stream of email solicitations from various Democratic entities. They want my money, if not my opinion.

This particular effort was signed by James Carville. There are some Democrats who still think of Carville as the pit bull of the 1992 Clinton campaign, the "Ragin' Cajun" who was a tireless defender of the "little guys," the downtrodden base of the party. They don't realize he's morphed into another Beltway hack, the enabler husband of the vile Mary Matalin, another loser consultant who triangulates and tacks rightward, who shows more allegiance to his Beltway cronies than to the electorate he pretends to respect.

Here's a sample of Carville's email pitch:

Karl Rove understands that elections can't be won in 2007, but they can be lost.
[snip]

Together we can send a message that if you're a Republican in the House still playing "follow the leader" to President Bush, we're coming after you. If you're a long-in-the-tooth Republican incumbent, we're going to introduce you to the joys of retirement. If we can't convince Republicans not to run, we can sure as hell make sure they run scared. [snip]

You and I don't have to wait until next November to make big trouble for Republicans who have tolerated all the Bush Administration corruption, overlooked all the Bush lies and incompetence, and let President Bush bring us to the brink of disaster time and time again.

Carville concludes by asking me to "Send Karl Rove a Message: Contribute $35, $50 or more today...."

What an appeal. It moved me to immediately respond to the DCCC. Forget about sending a message to Rove; I wanted to know what kind of message Carville was sending to all Democrats who have worked and contributed to be rid of Bushism when he decided to co-sign a fulsome letter of support for Scooter Libby. (By the way, google Carville and Scooter Libby and a sponsored ad will pop up for ScooterLibby.com: "Find out what You're Not Hearing & How You Can Help!" How heartwarming is friendship?) One day Carville's asking the criminal justice system to ignore Republican lawbreaking and the next he's requesting money to fight the Republican lawbreakers.

Haven't Pelosi and Reid heard? Public approval ratings for Congress now stand at 23%, even lower than Bush. Are they incapable of putting two and two together?

David Michael Green writes, in "If Reid Were Rove":

How in the world could a Democratic Congress manage to earn a 23 percent favorability rating in just six short months, without even doing anything? Perhaps by not doing anything? Nothing, that is, except, of course capitulating on the single issue that enrages the American public the most, and that most explains the rout of 2006 that gave them their very majority. [snip]

The sad fact is that Democrats are frightened of the shadows of their shadows. On an overcast day. Which leads to the even sadder fact that American voters have two bold selections from which to choose when they step into a voting booth. There is the truly disastrous party and then there is the merely embarrassing party.

Green goes on to ask the questions every Democratic voter should be sticking to Congress:

Even if the Democrats don't have the stomach for hardball politics, how about just using the institutional powers given to them for just this purpose by an angry public in the last election? Watching the party fold a powerfully winning hand on the war appropriations bill last month was a sickening visage. Bush needed that money for his dramatically unpopular war - why not continue sending him the same bill (which gave him the money, after all, along with Congressional strings attached) and let him keep vetoing it? [...]

Why can't the Democrats just keep sending the White House bill after bill of popular legislation - stripped of all earmarks and other distractions - and let Bush cast veto after veto of laws and programs the public wants? Healthcare, environmental protection, reform of government corruption, progressive tax reform, workplace protections, college funding, stem cell research, et cetera, et cetera, and yet cetera. If you can't get these into law, at the very least the public should know just which party is blocking the legislation they favor. Make these guys own their unpopular ideas, and make them pay for them!

Green points out what should be obvious to any politician:

Ah, but you're no doubt thinking, there's the prospect of the dreaded filibuster to worry about (careful, now - you're channeling Harry Reid here). And it's true - since the Democrats took control of Congress in January, the GOP has repeatedly used the threat of a filibuster to block consideration of important legislation. But, hey Harry, why do you keep playing that game? Why not revert to the old system, in which a minority had to actually filibuster - rather than just threaten to do so - in order to block business in the Senate? Make them pay for their obstinance. Make them own their regressive and unpopular ideas. Do Republicans really want to be seen fighting bravely for days on end to ensure that the Senate does not actually discuss what to do about an unpopular war?

Who can deny Green's conclusion?

What's most astonishing about the Democrats is that they are so beaten down, so practiced in the art of capitulation, so used to identifying with their tormentors in some sort of twisted political version of the Stockholm syndrome, that they can't even manage to serve their core personal interests anymore. You gotta figure that the Joe Bidens and the Steny Hoyers of this world could at least pull off the one thing politicians are best known for, at the expense of all else. You'd think that they could minimally protect their jobs, whatever that took. And yet they stand by watching, mouths agape, like passengers on a train that just passed their intended station, as the GOP rigs elections, and when that isn't enough then uses the Justice Department to steal them even more efficiently still.

Read the entire piece for the most damning indictment of gutless politicking I've read in a long time. I know it's not every Democrat. But for every Russ Feingold, there's ten Joe Bidens.

Why did the Dems cave on the Iraq appropriations bill? Why hasn't Pelosi started impeachment proceedings against Alberto Gonzales? Why do Congressional Democrats continue to threaten and posture but fail to follow through?

I don't believe the voters' choice is quite as dismal as Green describes, but it's getting close. Are Reid and Pelosi, Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel and the rest still basking in last November's victories to the point where they don't recognize the danger?

The Republican presidential nomination is still up for grabs. It's evident that no one among their pretenders is broadly satisfying to the Republican base, or comes without considerable baggage. The posturing thespian Fred Thompson may change all that. Republicans of every stripe historically seem to prefer ciphers onto which they can project their basest desires, figureheads to be trotted out while the usual beneficiaries of Republican power operate behind the scenes.

I would say the Democratic candidates currently in the race are similarly unsatisfying. We must understand that the White House is not a slam dunk for Democrats in 2008, despite nearly universal loathing for Bush and Cheney. The best way to boost the eventual Democratic candidate is for congressional Democrats to start showing that they can actually fight and get the job done.

Meanwhile, once again we face the risk of quixotic third-party candidates muddying the waters and playing spoiler. Perot played the part in 1992, throwing the election to Clinton. Nader returned the favor in 2000 by giving Bush enough of an edge to steal the election through the Supreme Court.

Nader is making noises about running a third time but he's so utterly discredited that I can't see him presenting any threat. The boomlet around Mayor Michael Bloomberg is another matter. Some see him as a potential spoiler for the Republicans. I don't believe it. His natural constituency is the centrist Democrat, the voters who would otherwise be firmly in Clinton's or Obama's column.

This is not an idle threat to the Democratic candidate. An independent run by Bloomberg will attract the sizeable portion of the electorate that is utterly disgusted with the performance of both parties. (Remember that 23 percent approval rating for Congress!) And we're talking here about the deepest pockets in town. He is perfectly capable of putting $500+ million of his own into a campaign.

Personally, I think the last thing we need is someone like Bloomberg as president. His stance on most issues would please many Democrats but on Iraq and Iran he might as well be AIPAC's candidate. More than that, to my mind he's another Bush in temperament. Another "CEO president." Another authoritarian used to swift and unquestioning obedience from his underlings. Another autocrat who just knows he knows best and besides, dammit, I will get what I want. (West-side stadium, anybody? How about the Olympics?) Oh, he's smarter and certainly more successful a CEO than Bush ever was, but still Bloomberg is a man used to saying "Make it so."

A Bloomberg candidacy is, to my mind, another nail in the coffin of American democracy. Bloomberg, I'll bet, sees himself in the mold of Washington or Jefferson -- wealthy and landed aristocrats who can afford to devote their lives to public service. I see him as a shameless egotist willing to bury the opposition under a mountain of cash. He's spent a lifetime bossing people around in business and as mayor. Now he seeks the ultimate power to boss us around.

I doubt that Bloomberg can win, despite his money, but he can throw the election to the Republicans --  as crazy as that might be. But with the continued failure of Congressional Democrats to rein in the Bush administration and with presidential candidates who -- like Clinton and Obama -- show no ability to throw a punch, let alone lead us, where will the voters turn in 2008?

Why does Inhofe hate the Earth?

Sen. James ("The Hoax") Inhofe is proposing to block the use of the Capitol as the site for the July 7 Live Earth concert.

"There has never been a partisan political event at the Capitol, and this is a partisan political event,” Inhofe said yesterday.

Elana Shor reports at The Hill on Inhofe's latest shot across Al Gore's bow in his ongoing grudge match against Planet Earth.

Who, exactly, is making all those mistakes?

In the post recommended by Ellen below, RJ Eskow writes:

When a Washington official uses the passive voice you know they're toast. Sentences like the Attorney General's - "I acknowledge that mistakes were made" - should come with subtitles that read "I'm desperately trying to avoid the inevitable."

Indeed. Like a child's reflexive "I didn't do it!" when caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Republican excuses and blame-shifting are equally pathetic with none of the charm.

Each hot-potato scandal is passed down the chain of command to land in the lap of someone as far as possible from George Bush. In the matter of the US Attorney purge, it's not far enough for White House comfort. I don't want to put the hex on it, but it looks like Abu Gonzales is going down.

Gonzales richly deserves whatever bad fate awaits him. Resigning in disgrace is hardly sufficient payback for six years of finding spurious legal justifications for torture and the evisceration of large chunks of our Constitution.

Gonzales, however, is still just a foot soldier and enabler of the chief criminal -- the man who always seems to sidestep the shitstorm, who always manages to deflect blame, who never accepts responsibility for all the bad things done to further his interests. And so it's no surprise to read this yesterday from the execrable Tony Snow:

Asked if Bush himself might have suggested the firings, Snow said, "Anything's possible ... but I don't think so." He said Bush "certainly has no recollection of any such thing. I can't speak for the attorney general."

"I want you to be clear here: Don't be dropping it at the president's door," Snow said.

Yes, we're clear here. The buck never stops with Bush. But if we, as a country, ever want to put these terrible times behind us, we will have to find a way to drop it all at the president's door. Bush must pay, as all of us will be paying for years to come.