The glass jaw of leadership

And Matthew Yglesias gets into an interesting discussion of Bush's alleged leadership qualities here. I think the only way to beat Bush in 2004 is to take the battle right to him and not hesitate to attack him on the grounds that Common Wisdom say are his strong points: leadership and foreign policy. He obviously is VERY weak on economic issues. But, for a lot of people, especially in the media, the idea that he is a strong leader and has a good foreign policy have become givens. Many who cover him allow the assumption that these characteristics are true to permeate their stories on the guy. What needs to be done is to spend the next two years hammering the guy constantly on every aspect of his alleged superiority on these matters. This is an attack that cannot come in piecemeal bits every now and then. It must be uncompromising in its ferocity every single day from now until election day. Every time the assumption is raised that Bush IS good at being a leader or IS good at foreign policy that assumption must be questioned vigorously and repeatedly. We must not give ground on this matter. I fully believe that George W. Bush has one of the biggest political glass jaws that this world has ever seen. All that is needed is for people to be brave enough to take a swing at it.

Losing the shine of hero worship

Calpundit has some interesting thoughts on the question of how gay politics might effect the 2004 election. He looks at some of the polling data on the matter and finds that there might a not-so-insignificant number of Bush supporters who might lose faith in him if they come to believe that he is willing to look the other way at the kind of intolerance represented by Rick Santorum. Cal points specifically to the apparent disillusion that Andrew Sullivan is experiencing this past week. POSTSCRIPT: I know that Andrew Sullivan is not exactly a prototypical voter, but when he says this...

It is hard to express fully the sheer discouragement of this past week, capped simply by a calculated and contemptuously terse political gesture by a president I had come to trust. It makes me question whether that trust is well founded. And whether hope for a more inclusive future among conservatives is simply quixotic.

...it's hard not to believe that there are some fence-sitting moderate voters for whom this could be an issue that nudges them toward a Democratic candidate. (Can I just ask, though, what the hell has Sullivan been thinking? Whatever else you think of him, he's a very smart, very politically astute person, so what could possibly have lead him to believe that George Bush might actually be willing to take any kind of electoral risk to support gays? 9/11 must have really addled his brain for him not to understand something this basic and this obvious. I almost feel sorry for the guy.) Who among us can stand to face up the reality that our heroes might have feet of clay? We might think that Sullivan was extremely naive for thinking otherwise, but perhaps we can find sympathy for him when we think back to past experiences of similar hero deflation in our own lives. Who among Clinton's supporters was NOT disappointed by his handling of the Lewinsky matter? How many of them grew so discouraged from the matter that they chose to vote for Bush over Gore in order to make a break with all the unpleasantness? And who, among Bush's supporters, would become discouraged, as Sullivan appears to be discouraged, and break from Bush in 2004? An interesting question no?

Give'm Hell Howard

Equal Rights is the Responsibility of Every American By Governor Howard Dean t r u t h o u t | Exclusive Editorial Sunday 27 April 2003 George W. Bush ran for President on the promise that he would be ``a uniter, not a divider.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. Earlier this week, Senator Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. On Friday, President Bush praised Santorum as ``an inclusive man.'' With his praise, this President has once again demonstrated his willingness to follow the extremist Republican tradition of dividing our country for political gain. The President knows that his defense of Santorum's inflammatory words deeply offends millions of gay and lesbian Americans, their family and friends; his praise also raises grave concerns about this Administration's commitment to civil rights and civil liberties. Senator Santorum has called his repugnant remarks ``a legitimate public policy discussion.'' Senator Santorum is wrong. Equating the private, consensual activities of adults to the molestation of minors is not a policy discussion. It is gay-bashing, and it is immoral. Senator Santorum asserted that the government has the right ``to limit individuals' wants and passions.'' While the government has the right to protect citizens from the harmful acts of others, as well as an obligation to promote the general welfare of all people, I do not believe that it is the proper role of government to step into the private bedrooms of consenting adults. The continuous assault by right-wing radicals on the privacy of ordinary Americans must stop. Senator Santorum must step down from his leadership post. His failure to recognize that it is wrong to attack people because of which group they belong to makes him unfit to hold a leadership position in the United States Senate. The issue at hand is about more than Senator Santorum's reprehensible statements, however, and the issue is also about more than the dignity and respect of gay and lesbian Americans. The issue is whether we, as Americans, will continue to allow ourselves to be led down a path by this Administration to a country that is divided against itself by race, income, gender, sexual orientation and religion. (much much more) Woohoo! Give'm hell Howard! BTW, I happen to disagree with the good Doctor on one point: Dean should not be calling for Santorum to step down. Santorum is a leader of the Republicans and it is therefore the responsibility of the Republicans to decide who they want to lead them. If they decide they want a gay-bashing bigot to lead them then they should have that right. And we should have the right to point out that that is who they think best represents them. But, other than that... Woohoo! Give'm hell Howard!

Evolution is just a theory

by Tom Meyer

Dissent for fun and profit!

There has been an effort to beat down war opponents by threatening their careers, especially in the entertainment industry. But this effort has apparently failed. Indeed, the economic suffering that the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, and Martin Sheen have experienced has been negligible to non-existent. So, if that particular spin isn't working, let's try another. How about this: the anti-war celebrities aren't doing it out of principle but because the free publicity will help their careers! The Spoils of Antiwar Janeane Garofalo sounds energized about her whole antiwar thing: "I knew when I started speaking out that it was going to be unpleasant," says the actress-comedian, "and I've taken my punches. But the positives have far outweighed the negatives." Such as? Such as all the unsolicited offers Garofalo has received -- speaking engagements, stand-up gigs, stage roles -- in the weeks since she proffered her antiwar opinions on news programs. Such as the bundles of attagirl letters and the hearty congratulations of strangers in the street. Such as the sitcom pilot she's making for ABC. The other day, after a decade and a half of doing comedy, she made America Online's "Comedians to Watch" list. "Before this I was a moderately well-known character actress," she says. "Now I'm almost famous." Not to be too cynical about it -- Garofalo and other celebrities say they've been speaking from the heart -- but dissent, it seems, can be a pretty good career move. Just so long as your willing to put up with the threats of violence to yourself and your children.

Not everyone who comes from Texas is an embarassment to that state

Jim Hightower has a blog

Can we kick these people out now?

The new spin: "Yeah, we lied about the WMD (er...no...it wasn't a lie, just a "matter of emphasis"). But we had to in order to get people to do what we wanted and its turned out okay so the lie was okay. You got a problem with that?" The DailyKOS has much more on this. I'm beyond being angry at this point. The only thing that makes this story news is that they are admitting it. They aren't saying that most of us didn't alreay know. We've talked about just this for months. If the pundits start acting surprised at this revelation I say they should be taken out and shot. Update: I can't leave this alone. What George W. Bush and his buddies have done is completely trash the good word of the United States. By admitting that they lied (er...no...it wasn't a lie, just a "matter of emphasis") the message they have sent to the world is: do not trust the United States. They will lie without compunction and, when caught in the lie, will brag about its effectiveness. These people MUST be removed from office as soon as possible.

Sex For Idiots by Rick Santorum

Oliver Willis brings us a great idea: since Santorum has set himself as a judge of what is and is not correct sexual behavior we should all call his office and quiz them on various practices just to be sure they are Ricky approved. Suggestion: keep a copy of a purity test on hand while making the call.

On Howard Dean

Marty Jezer provides an interesting perspective on Howard Dean as a Vermonter. He says that he is surprised by some of the stands he has taken, but not that surprised by the passion with which he has put them forward. To me, Howard Dean was the governor with the overly-tight collar and a head that looked like the protruding bulge of a squeegee ball. Then came the battle over civil unions. In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court unanimously ruled that gay couples are entitled to equal rights and protections under the law. I initially castigated Dean for coming out against gay marriage. He chose to make a stand in support of civil unions. And stand he did. Right-wing Republicans attempted to make civil unions the issue by which they would bring down moderate Republicans and liberal Democrats. The debate was ugly, but Dean was heroic. On radio phone-in shows and in speeches and public appearances, he took on the abuse, bigotry and phony science of the homophobic following and did not give an inch. He turned the debate and the election that followed into a referendum on human dignity and dignity won. The bottom line with Howard Dean is that he’s a decent guy with backbone. As Governor, Dean had little to say about foreign policy and no contact with Vermont’s peace movement. His opposition to the Iraqi War is a surprise. But there is substance to his critique and, as evidenced by the civil union fight, he’s not likely to soften his position in order to pander for votes. I appreciate the comment that there is substance to Dean's anti-war stance. To many in the press have portrayed this as just an attempt to make a name for himself by latching on to a nascent movement. As if the peace movement were just another constituency. Dean's stance on the Iraq invasion is more than just rhetoric, as his recent column on the Bush Doctrine demonstrates. It's a stance that comes from principle, not just political gamesmanship. Here's hoping more people come to realize that Dean is not just a phenom.

Question for the peanut gallery

Steve Soto has backed off a little from his previous attack on Dean's criticism of Gephardt's health care proposal. Yet he is still concerned: My main concern about pointed criticisms from Dean against other Democratic candidates still stands. It was one thing for Bill Bradley to go after Gore in 2000 when Gore had the benefits of incumbency and a positive record to defend himself (even if he subsequently squandered it). It is another thing for a gaggle of nine candidates to sink into a circular firing squad when they already are up against Karl Rove and the corporate media and ATM. This is not the first criticism I have heard from other Democrats on this point. I have heard several supporters of other candidates complain that Dean is being to harsh on their candidate of choice (note: I am not assuming that Steve is a Gephardt booster, I'm just drawing an example). The problem is that very few of them explain exactly how it is that Dean is supposed to criticize an opponent without sounding like he is attacking them? It's all, "don't do this" instead of "why don't you do this instead?" So, here's the question: how exactly should Dean criticize other Democratic candidates so that it won't raise people's hackles yet still get across the idea that he is the better choice for the nomination? Is this even possible?

Driving the story

From the NY Times report on Bush's trip to Ohio to put the muscle on Voinovich: Capitol Hill Democrats sought to counter the president's tax-cutting message in advance, issuing a report that they said showed how little Mr. Bush's package would help Ohio residents — and how little his policies had helped the Buckeye State since he came into office. "Ohio has lost 167,800 jobs, or more than 3 percent of its total work force, since Bush was sworn in," Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee said in a statement. "More specifically, the Canton metropolitan area has lost 6,300 jobs (3.43 percent of its work force) and the Lima area has lost 2,500 jobs (3.18 percent of its workforce) since Bush took office." You know, the Democrats may be on to an interesting campaign tactic here. They should have a team of researchers who do nothing but put together talking points on the impact Bush has had on the economy of whatever region he happens to be visiting. They then issue this press release a few hours before he gets there. It's called driving the story and the Democrats need to learn how to do it or they are toast. This story suggests that they just might be getting the idea.

The snake bites hardest just before it dies.

JJ over on Table Talk gives a great example of how to respond to the kind of distortions Drudge is perpetrating against Dean: as to whether Dean questioned whether Iraqi's are better off without Saddam, he might say something like this: "I don't mind if they take my remarks and twist 'em around. Let's me know they're paying attention, as best they're able. "Also, gives me a chance to re-inforce the point I was making about the future of Iraq. Saddam's gone, and that's good, except maybe he isn't, and maybe many of his henchman aren't gone, either. It's turning out that we need administrators and police from his government to deal with the post-invasion chaos in major cities. "There are serious questions about who will run Iraq and for whose benefit. How will reconstruction be accomplished, and for whose benefit. How long will our presence be required there to keep peace, how long will it be tolerated there before it treatens peace. "We were well equipped to depose Saddam's regime, but are we well equipped to help a new regime develop that respects the rights of the various ethnicities and religions in Iraq, and as well the rights of women? "There are widespread suspicions about our motives for mounting this invasion, and I don't think Americans understand how much that's going to complicate developments in the country we believe we've liberated. "The fact that we allowed their museum to be looted and their library to be burned almost to the ground at the same time as we protected the Oil Ministry does not help the Iraqi's to develop trust for us. "For the Iraqi's to be clearly better off will depend a lot on whether America is seen to have done right and to be doing well there, and is so seen by the Iraqi's and others in that part of the world. "We can tell ourselves we did the right thing all we want. But we have to prove it to the people who live where our bombs have wrought destruction, and we have a long way to go before our case is made." I think the key is to not get distracted into a semantic quibble-match nor to appear apologetic because the other side chose to consciously misinterpret your remarks. And, most important of all, stick to your game plan. The more they attack you the better the indicator that you are drawing blood. The snake bites hardest just before it dies.

Avoiding wonkiness

Liberal Oasis has an interesting discussion on the merit's of getting to wonky when discussing policy. His advice to the Democratic candidates: don't get bogged down in the details because the details will always change and, besides, wonk debates just bore the average voter. I agree with that sentiment. But do you want to have a nuanced debate over fiscal priorities and policy specifics at this stage of the game? Or do you want fight over who is displaying the most dedication, competence, principles and political savvy to get the job done? It really is about leadership and, unfortunately, I think Dean has a much better track-record on the question of leadership then does Gephardt. Gephardt's plan may cover more avenues then Dean's but Dean's is probably the more likely to actually get passed and thus make a real difference. Furthermore, I think Dean is more likely to stick by his original proposals then would Gephardt, who's primary motivation seems to be to find the best way to compromise himself and his party. I will say one positive thing about Bush's leadership style: he understands the value of sticking to what you want until the last possible moment. There will always be compromise in the end, but if you enter the room with the first question being, "what can I give up?" then you WILL lose in the end.

It's time to shame the Republicans

BTW, while reading the comment's section to that DailyKOS post that I talked about below I noticed a comment from someone that said that, if the Democrats played it right, by the time of the Republican convention, Americans should think the GOP will be holding their convention in a tent on ground zero on Sept. 11th. The details aren't exactly correct, but the sentiment is the same: the Democrats NEED to hammer the Republicans for using the death of 3000 Americans for political advantage. They need to embarrass Bush to within an inch of his life on this matter (yes, I know, easier said than done considering Bush's apparent invulnerability to embarrassment). Once again I think it would behoove the candidates for the Democratic nomination to issue a joint statement decrying this desecration (yes, they should use that word). It's time to make the Republicans squirm. Make them squirm so much that they leave a slime trail all the way to next November.

Deaniacs are creepy?

There is an interesting discussion going on in the comment section to the most recent Cattle Call post on the DailyKOS. The question of the "fanaticism" of some Dean supporters has come up. Some have expressed the feeling that it makes them feel "creepy". Here's what the original post had to say on this matter: (Incidentally, Dean's fundamentalist supporters are starting to get creepy. Look guys, I like Dean as much as the next guy, but relax. The world doesn't revolve around the guy. You won't gain new supporters by denigrating those that support other Democrats.) CA Pol Junkie, a Dean supporter, had this to say in the comments: Please take criticism of other Democrats from Deaniacs as the desire to see Dean's fire in other candidates and the desire for all candidates to stand up for the Democratic Party. Regardless of who wins the nomination, I am sure that Dean will make the eventual candidate much stronger. In the end, what most Dean supporters want more than anything is to beat Bush. I second that sentiment. My "passion" for Dean comes primarily from the fact that he is one of the few Democrats out there who is actually fighting back against the Republican instead of just trying to figure out how to be Republican-lite and/or rolling over in the face of Republican smears. Even more then any stand on any particular policy issue, it is this fighting spirit that I MOST want to see in the Democratic nominee. Indeed, I don't believe the Democrats have a chance in hell if they put forward someone with that fighting spirit. Which is why I was heartened by Kerry's recent refusal to back down on his comments about America needing "regime change". I can't help but feel that the success that Dean is achieving with his "give 'em hell" stance is influencing some of his fellow Democrats to be a little more ornery in their rhetoric. THIS IS A GOOD THING! I'd like to see Dean as President. But, even more then that, I would like to see Bush as EX-president. The latter is a far more important goal than the former.
John Isbell had this to say: You'll notice that my comments here say nothing whatever negative about Dean. Only about some of his supporters. That is elementary political tact. Tact? Calling supporters of another candidate "creepy" is tactful? I'd rather you criticize the candidates then criticize their supporters. They, after all, are the ones who are going to have to crawl in the ring with Dubya. Look, there is going to be acrimonious grousing between various Democratic supporters for the next several months. We have to keep our eye on the ball. Ultimately the most important thing is not that we elect a President Dean a President Kerry or a President Edwards. It's that we FIRE George W. Bush! I will support whoever the eventual nominee is. I will even vote for Lieberman (and then go out and promptly get drunk in order to deaden the pain) because getting rid of Bush is that important. I happen to think that Dean, so far, is the only candidate that has demonstrated one of the essential qualities that the eventual nominee MUST have: a true fighting spirit. Kerry is showing some glimmers of it and, as I said above, I am glad of that. But until the field really begins to swing around towards this style of fighting I will stick with Dean. And let me make another promise: I will not, from this point on, call into question the intelligence, sanity, or creepiness of anyone who supports any other candidate for the Democratic nomination. Perhaps we can all make that pledge? Please?

Keep on movin' on

MoveOn is starting a new online campaign. The goal this time: showing Bush the door in 2004. Sign up!

Thanks

Sometime in the night I experienced my 50,000 hit. Thanks to all for coming.

The Mighty Wurlitzer targets Dean

Dean appeared yesterday on Wolf Blitzer. This is the final paragraph of Drudge's report on that appearance: Asked if the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam, Dean said, "We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance." But this is how Drudge headlines it: Dean: 'We Don't Know' If Iraqi People Are Better Off Without Saddam This makes Dean sound like an idiot who thinks that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy after all. Which, of course, is nothing remotely close to what Dean was saying. But this is how the Republican spin machine works: take a comment out of context, look for the worst interpretation possible, and then run with it as if that was what the person was actually saying. It is vitally important that the Dean campaign respond to this NOW before it is allowed to become a settled matter and we end up having to argue a year from now about whether Dean thought Saddam was an ok guy. It's important to remember that Dean never said the Iraqi people aren't better off without Saddam. His point was that changing the name of the person in charge does not automatically lead to a better world for the Iraqis. As Dean said, "the hardest part is still ahead of us". This is a very important message to get out amidst all the rah-rah-rah-ism that we see in the media. Those who think that a people are automatically "better off" once you remove their despotic leader are naive in their political approach to life and are setting themselves up for a nasty fall later on down the road. How should Dean respond to this? He shouldn't get into a quibbling match over what he actually said. That's just what they want because then it comes down only to a matter of interpretation. He should instead turn it around and attack those who would rather distort the message of the opposition then actually debate the real consequences of current Bush administration policy. There are people dying in Iraq, young and old, as a direct result of the US invasion. The country is in chaos and on the brink of falling into a religious dictatorship (better then Saddam's dictatorship?) or civil war. It is fundamentally irresponsible for our leaders to use the thrill of victory to obscure the agony that exists today. But the operatives of the Wurlitzer would rather play word games then deal with these very real problems. That is the kind of thing Dean should say in response. Let's hope his campaign understands this and swings into action immediately. UPDATE: I just read the full transcript of Dean's appearance with Blitzer and the distortion in Drudge's report is even worse then I suggested. Here's the question that Blitzer asked of Dean: BLITZER: But governor, nobody -- nobody disagrees there are going to be problems. But aren't the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back? So, Dean wasn't disagreeing with the statement that the Iraqi's were "better off now without Saddam". He was disagreeing with the statement that they were "so much better off now without Saddam". Quite a difference no?
Here's the complete Drudge item since he doesn't have a permanent link for it up yet: Dean: 'We Don't Know' If Iraqi People Are Better Off Without Saddam Thu Apr 24 2003 10:09:22 ET Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean was asked on CNN Wednesday if he feels differently about the war now that it has ended. Dean said, "Not really. I don't think anybody could reasonably suspect we weren't going to win. The problem now is how to govern, and that's where the real rubber is underneath the road. "The hardest part is still ahead of us, and I think the events that we were watching on CNN showed that. The Shi'a in the south would like in some cases fundamentalist religious state or province, that would be much worse than Saddam Hussein in terms of a threat to the United States it would allow al Qaeda to move in. "We seen chaos in Baghdad with the proclamation of somebody claims he's the mayor. And this is going to go on and on. So we've really got to now build a Democratic society." Asked if the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam, Dean said, "We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance."

Being a friend of Bush

The never-ending soap-opera that is Washington DC continues: Under Fire, Powell Receives Support From White House By STEVEN R. WEISMAN WASHINGTON, April 23 — Since the end of the war in Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has come under intense fire from conservatives within the administration, in Congress and at policy institutes long favoring less diplomacy and more muscle in the American approach to the world. On issues from the Middle East to North Korea to the makeup of a postwar government in Iraq, Mr. Powell and the State Department have been battling hard-liners at the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, administration officials say. In the face of conservative criticism, Mr. Powell has won approval from President Bush for negotiating with Syria on its support of terrorism, negotiating with North Korea on its nuclear weapons program, and promoting talks between Israel and a newly emerging Palestinian leadership to create a Palestinian state. Some may be confused at this since it is hard to believe that Newt went into meltdown mode entirely without foreknowledge of the Bushies. But really, this problem is easy to explain. You see, the Bushies like to hurt their friends as much as their enemies. They like to get them to attack each other, see who comes out on top, and then go with them. It also keeps them from getting strong enough to threaten their superior position. There's always time to screw them over later on down the road. Remember, the only thing worse then being an enemy of Bush is to be a friend of Bush.

The Dixie Chicks Come Clean

The Dixie Chicks (news - web sites), Emily Robison, left, Natalie Maines (news), center, and Martie Maguire, are featured in this undated handout of the cover of the May 2, 2003, issue of Entertainment Weekly. (Courtesy warrior of BartcopNation). UPDATE: In case some of you were wondering if this was real, the AP has the photo up as well.

No one picks on a strong man

Dave responded to my post about a possible future war between America and Europe: Everyone is in a strugle to put a name on what we just did, and are doing now, in Iraq. It doesn't matter to me what you call it, or how many reasons you come up with for why we did it. I think Joe Weider said "Nobody picks on a strong man". Devisiveness makes us weak, unity makes us strong, as a nation, as a world. Too many people get their delight from fighting and arguing. I'm not sure you aren't one of them. Look at your post above this one about the election. Great, you hate Bush, so who is your candidate and what is so great about him. I'd give him a serious look. Or are you just an "anybody but Bush, anybody but a Republican" kind of guy? My response: No one picks on a strong man? That's a laugh. There is no security at the top. When you are the biggest kid on the block and are more then willing to use your strength to intimidate your neighbors into doing what you want, that just encourages your neighbors to join forces to bring you down. Whatever happened to the "humble foreign policy" that Bush promised us? You can be strong and secure without being arrogant. But Bush is all about arrogance. That and fear are the only commodity he has to offer. In regard to your last question: I long for a return to a world in which Republican's could be considered serious candidates for political office. Our country needs TWO strong political parties because it is only in the competition between them (remember competition? Remember that capitalistic idea?) that the best world can be produced for all of us. You are right that divisiveness makes us weak. But it is the Republican program of "unite with us or we will destroy you" that is the most divisive force in the world today. Unity does not mean that everyone has to agree. There is strength in the ability to disagree and still work together. That is what was great about America. But, as it stands now, the GOP, as epitomized by Bush, stands for the destruction of that good. And for that reason alone they cannot be allowed anywhere near the reigns of power. (Unfortunately, but for a few rare exceptions (Howard Dean, my current candidate, being the most prominent), the Democrats are letting them get away with destroying this country.)

The lesson of the Dixie Chicks

I agree with others that it is a good sign that the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore are still coming out on top in the political correctness wars, at least as far as popularity is concerned (the Chicks and Moore are still #1 on their respective lists). That, unfortunately, is not the threat from the "chill wind" effect that Tim Robbins talked about. What is threatening is the monolithic control of the media that could impede the future ability of people like the Chicks or Moore to make a living. Clear Channel would have banned the Chicks outright if they hadn't issued an apology. That a group as successful as the Chicks couldn't even stand up to that kind of intimidation proves that Clear Channel has to much power.

Santorum, it just keeps getting better

Oliver Willis points out another aspect of Santorum's comments: he seems to suggest that the sex scandals in the Catholic church were consensual. SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it. And, of course, Santorum falls into the typical trap of assuming that gay sex and sex with teenagers is the same thing.

Pager alert

Howard Dean scheduled to appear on Wolf Blitzer tonight at 5pm EDT. He's called on Santorum to resign his leadership position.

You knew he couldn't be for real

Who knew? Bush has a filmography at imdb (courtesy Kynn of shock&awe).

Getting the Republicans to eat their own

Steve Soto has some interesting suggestions on how Democrats might exploit the recent broadside from Gingrich against Colin Powell: Ladies and Gentlemen, this president cannot control his own foreign policy apparatus, for in truth we have not one, but two foreign policy teams in this administration. We have the formal one run through the Secretary of State, and another one run by a small cabal of aggressive and in some cases shadow policy makers inside and outside the government, aimed at undermining the Secretary of State and even the president while creating business opportunities for themselves and their friends. This cabal aims for more wars, putting our sons and daughters in harms way numerous times. Why? For more conquests of oil and contracts for GOP campaign contributors under the guise of preventing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, while keeping us in a constant state of fear. Yet this president is apparently unwilling or unable to control this cabal and be accountable for a single foreign policy and vision for our citizens and allies to see. A very good start Steve. I would also throw something in there about the unofficial foreign policy team being driven by "ivory tower intellectuals" since that seems to be a good hot-button phrase.

Maybe we should try this Democracy thing here in America?

billmon points us to the following passage from a recent post by Josh Marshal on the recent political wrangling within the Palestinian Authority: The deeper story seems very positive: the emergence of something like conventional politics, the open vetting of the crucial issues and thus the possibility of democratic accountability. More than anything else, it's the splintering of unitary power within the Palestinian authority and the possibility of having the crucial political questions hashed out with some degree of openness rather than by violence and opaque factional in-fighting. This is important. And, potentially, good news for everyone. To which billmon responds: Sigh. Now if we could just have some of that "good news" here in this country . . . I was thinking much the same thing. Why is it that Democracy is such a good thing for the rest of the world but something to be discouraged here in America?

Bush reveals his 2004 hand prematurely?

No doubt many of you have probably already read this NY Times article in which it is revealed that Bush aides are planning a "late sprint for re-election" in 2004. The plan calls for Bush to focus most of his efforts on the period from his nomination speech on Sept. 2nd (a late date chosen specifically to coincide with the 3rd anniversary of 9/11) until election day. Looking past the reprehensible exploitation of national tragedy that this plan represents, I think this idea could provide a unique opportunity for the Democrats. If the Republicans are serious that they will concentrate most of their efforts into a late sprint then I think the Democrats should take advantage of this and hammer the guy virtually non-stop from now until then. After all, if they are really going to hold their guns until then that means the Democrats will be able to attack with less chance of them fighting back. And, if they do fight back, then that will spoil their plans for a "late sprint". Either way it is good for the Democrats: either fill up the American psyche with negative messages about Bush or disrupt the GOP campaign strategy. Sounds like a win-win to me.

A forecast for the future

Let me run something by you that I've been thinking about for quite some time. Proposition: if America continues down the course that Bush has set for us I can well foresee America and Europe going to war with each other within my lifetime (I am 37). Question: Am I crazy? I made this proposition to various people this past weekend and not a one of them seriously disputed it. Indeed, I think I was giving voice to an unspoken fear that a lot of people have. The fear that America is no longer the good guy. The neo-cons like to think that the invasion of Iraq was a message to the rest of the world that said, "Do what America wants or you will be made to pay." I think the message that was received was more like, "We better figure out a way to survive without America if we are to stand in the way of its increasing belligerence." And this is not just the thoughts of people that were already unhappy with us. I strongly suspect that there are plans being launched, even as we speak, to reduce and/or eliminate the stranglehold that America holds on the world, both economically and militarily. I have already heard rumors of several European nations forming a Common Defense Force that would function like NATO but without the support of the US. The problem, of course, is that a Bush America will not go quietly into that dark night. Which is why I think my prediction of eventual war between Europe and America is not as crazy as it might sound.

Shaming the GOP

DEAN'S STATEMENT ON SEN. SANTORUM'S OFFENSIVE REMARKS In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum’s remarks. That a leader of the Republican Party would make such insensitive and divisive comments—comments that are derogatory and meant to harm an entire group of Americans, their friends and their families—is not only outrageous, but deeply offensive. The silence with which President Bush and the Republican Party leadership have greeted Sen. Santorum’s remarks is deafening. It is the same silence that greeted Senator Lott’s offensive remarks in December. It is a silence that implicitly condones a policy of domestic divisiveness, a policy that seeks to divide Americans again and again on the basis of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation.

Thank you Dr. Dean! Dean, by this statement, is adopting an approach I wish more Democrats would take: trying to shame the Republican's into disassociating themselves from their fellow Republicans. Yes, I know that shaming a Republican these days is nearly an impossible proposition. But the first step towards doing so is to ask fellow Republicans to explain why they don't appear to have any problems with the negative comments of their fellow travelers. It's a process that may take years to bear fruit, but, as the Republicans have shown with the Democrats, it can work. I like the way this guy works. He continually tries to put the Republicans on the defensive. He repeatedly points out the radical nature of Republican policies (something which is helped out by the fact that it is true). He doesn't apologize when confronted on a difficult issue. He doesn't back down from a stand even when common wisdom says that it is politically dangerous. One lesson I think Dean has learned from Dubya is that you can't change hearts and minds if you appear to change your heart and mind at every sign of negative reaction. Bush sticks with a position, even if it is a stupid one, despite the opposition it may produce and, quite often, wins out significant concessions in the end. There is always room for compromise. But a real political player these days has to be willing to delay the inevitable compromise until the last possible moment. And then declare victory when agreement is finally reached.