Entries from September 2008 ↓

Words fail me . . . As they do Sarah Palin (transcript below)

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read, before you were tapped for this, to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press for the media, I mean…

COURIC: Like what ones specifically? I’m curious that you…

PALIN: Um, all of ‘em, any of ‘em that um have been in front of me over all these years, um…

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn’t a foreign country where it’s kind of suggested it seems like, wow how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, DC may be thinking and doing, when you live up there in Alaska. Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

The last bit is just nonsensical gibberish.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

As Dan and Alan note, Jason Bowden doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about:

The left traditionally hates individualism, originality, and initiative. They want everyone to be subordinated to universal comprehensive plans. No exceptions!

To be fair, this is an accurate description of Stalinist Communist Parties during the 1930’s, and some elements of the hard left during the 1960’s, but I would hardly consider it descriptive of contemporary American left-wing political thought. Indeed, most lefties are, as Dan suggests, soft libertarians when it comes to personal expression (as are most Americans, for that matter). I would like to have an example of contemporary (past decade or so) left-wing policy proposals that are as lockstep as Jason suggests, but I know I shall wait in vain.

This exposes part of the problem not only with libertarian political thought in particular (Jason is self-described as such a one) but much of our political discourse in general. “Left”, “right”, etc. are really meaningless terms, to be filled in by whatever the user prefers. Now, back when there was an CPUSA, with a Stalinist COMINTERN calling the shots, the kind of description Jason offers of “lefty” political thought could be described as reasonably accurate, as long as one limited oneself to Communist equating lefty. Remember, the CPUSA spent much of the 1930’s decrying fascism as the final result of capitalism . . . until the Nazi-Soviet pact, when the CPUSA went full-throttle saying that the Nazi’s were misunderstood, that the USA needed to be neutral in the struggle, etc., etc. When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, they did a pirouette again, but by then the most intellectually honest members of the Party were long gone.

Also, consider what happened to really culturally radical members of the Party. Emma Goldman, perhaps the most famous Communist besides Lenin and Stalin, ended up on the wrong end of a firing squad for complaining quite publicly about the doctrinaire nature of Leninist rule. A true Bohemian in every sense of the word - free-love, open marriage, modern art, free thinking all were tools of the coming revolution - she hadn’t reckoned with the fact that, in practice, Leninism demanded full acquiescence and submission. Since it was “scientific”, it answered all questions before they were asked. Since artistic freedom, and cultural expression in general, were stymied under communist rule, it stands to reason that should one equate “communism” with any even moderately liberal approach to politics, you’ve got a Q.E.D. for your argument ready to hand.

Except, American left-wing politics as never been doctrinaire, which is why it’s so fragmented and powerless. Ideological purity, demanded by a few (especially on matters concerning religion), is anathema to most lefties and liberals. The right, however, makes any attempt by liberals to insist on purity like pikers. Whether it’s abortion rights, or doctrinal purity in religion, or on economic policy (as the past couple weeks have shown), you either put up or walk out.

My guess is that the multi-generational use of “liberal” as code word for “dirty commie” has created a situation in which the general picture Jason tries to paint, thoughtless and silly in its own way, has become common currency among those who don’t pay enough attention to the real world to understand as mindless nonsense.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

Yesterday, John Boehner quite publicly complained about Nancy Pelosi’s really mean speech as the source of the Republicans “No” vote on the bailout. Today, the House leadership (although not Boehner himself) are walking back that explanation quite openly. Fine. Whatever. Principles or tantrum, the House Republicans put the ball squarely in the Democrats’ court on this one.

Who, however, was behind the Republican decision to screw this particular pooch? According to Andrea Mitchell, it was none other than former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. If true, this was a colossal interference in the legislative process by an outsider.

More interesting are the ways to try and understand what, exactly, is happening. My own guess is as follows. There are enough Republicans, who for principles reasons, did not like the concept of a “bailout” (or, as the new nom de jeur puts it, a “rescue”) and were planning to hold their noses as they voted for it. My guess is that Newt figured he could get the Republicans to sink the bailout, allow the Democrats to write a more liberal version - including some of their own pet stuff like extension of unemployment insurance, protection against foreclosure, strict caps on executive compensation, etc. - that the President would most surely veto. Thus, the Democrats would get even more blame, in their eyes for (a) not doing what was necessary to round up enough votes in their own caucus to get the first bill through; then (b) passing a bill the President would most surely refuse to sign. Thus, the House Republicans could run against the Democrats as preferring to play politics in an opportunistic way during a “crisis” rather than knuckling under to Republican demands for a blank check. If this is the game Gingrich and the House Republicans are playing, it’s a dangerous one on a number of levels.

One thing to note about this entire mess. As it stood, the sum in the failed bill was around $700 billion. Yesterday, once news hit Wall St. that the bill tanked, stocks lost $1.1 trillion. That’s about a third more in one day than the amount the feds were planning to pump in to the system over a span of months. Now, the Dow is back up today, which suggests that trying to gauge any bailout plan based solely on the fluctuation of the financial markets is a fool’s game. It is, however, something to remember.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

The bailout bill tanked, as did Wall St. While the former is good, the latter is not so good, although hardly surprising. While it is good it went down to defeat, we have the House Republicans to thank for that. Yet, they are whining it is all Nancy Pelosi’s fault. Because of a truly unremarkable speech she gave. So, not one shiny thin dime is going to the investment banks. Good. The House Republicans are the heroes. Not so good. They refuse to take responsibility for that failure, and blame the Speaker of the House, who doesn’t have any control over their caucus. Whiny-ass Titty Babies.

Untangling the political mess will make crafting a bill that is actually good look easy by comparison. The only really good thing about this is that, as I said, the bill went down. I doubt, with the time left, another can be drafted that will survive. I think Boehner and his buddies poisoned the well with the blame game they played after the vote.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

I mean that question in all sincerity. It has been pretty standard for the Republican Party to bring up social issues as a wedge to divide the electorate. Whether it’s abortion, or race, or prayer in public schools, or religion in general, it’s been thrust to the public table and made part of the discussion whether it is relevant or not. So far, this time around, not so much. Even the introduction of Sarah Palin, clearly the pick of the religious right, has not pumped up the volume on the outrage over the holocaust of abortion, or the de-Christianizing of America, or the way God has been kicked out of our public schools in favor either of Satan or Mohammed, or both.

Maybe it’s because, unlike previous election years, not only do we have the toilet bowl of Iraq to deal with, where we are flushing $10 billion a month plus all the dead and wounded, we have the collapse of the investment banking industry in a short span of a couple weeks. People are jittery about things that actually matter, like keeping their homes, their jobs, making decision about buying gas for their cars or medicine and food. Worrying over the ontological status of a fetus just doesn’t compare with these more immediate realities; kids probably are praying in school more, especially that they might have enough money to buy lunch; and since all the Christians in the high reaches of the Republican Party seem to be either stupid or corrupt or closeted homosexuals, or some combination thereof, I don’t see where a discussion of Christian values matters all that much.

Overall, I think this is a sucky year to be a Republican.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

Whether it’s the headline, or the way Broder attempts to pull it off, the whole thing is just a mountain of stupid.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

This song takes me back to high school. Since we didn’t get MTV in our area until 1983, I didn’t see this video until I was looking it up on YouTube and I had no idea Donnie Iris cultivated a nerd look, which gives this video a comical look. I hate to admit it, but I do so love, “Ah, Leah”.

While searching around for the Donnie Iris song, I came across Jay Ferguson’s “Thunder Island”! Oh dear Lord, but I loved this song, God knows why. Even now.

Speaking of looks, Jay Ferguson looks like the prototype of a late-1970’s pop-star, with his open shirt, his porn-star mustache, and his long hair. Did men really walk around with their shirts open like that, or was it just wannabe celebrities?

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

This song takes me back to high school. Since we didn’t get MTV in our area until 1983, I didn’t see this video until I was looking it up on YouTube and I had no idea Donnie Iris cultivated a nerd look, which gives this video a comical look. I hate to admit it, but I do so love, “Ah, Leah”.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

Having mentioned The Daily Howler, I would ask that you click here and read Part 4 of his “Special Report”, “An Affair to Remember”. Somerby highlights an article Jonathan Alter wrote for Newsweek in 1999. Alter is honest enough to write about the ways in which the contingent of the national press corps was swooning under the spell John McCain was casting.

ALTER (11/8/99): What we all like about McCain is that he might actually govern on principle, and what a strange sight that would be, says Bruce Morton of CNN. Even if he loses, McCain could have an important impact on the Republicans. It’s been 75 years since the GOP boasted any major figure who described himself as a reformer.

That reformist impulse, however atrophied from the original muckrakers of a century ago, also animates many journalists, thus further explaining their affinity for McCain. Liberal reporters may disagree with him on abortion, guns and opposition to the test-ban treaty (stands that he softens when talking to them). They know that his voting record would probably appall them if they looked too closely. But they are increasingly comfortable with his hawkish foreign policy and almost unanimously supportive of his core issue, campaign-finance reform.

What I find fascinating about this little blurb is this - it could be written by a woman falling under the spell of a predatory abuser. Such men are usually adept at romancing women; they are dapper and congenial, promising so much, giving so much, seeming to offer exactly what a woman needs. Until, of course, the courtship is over, the deal sealed, and the relationship in full flower. Only then do the anger, the trend toward dominance, and the potential for violence become more clear. Yet, since the spell of love is cast, it becomes far more hard to simply “walk away” because the woman in question is “in love”.

Just like the press corps has had a decade long love for the John McCain they created in their mind.

Like serial abusers, the actual facts concerning John McCain - his adherence to right-wing shibboleths, his corruption, his ruthless opportunism, even his unpopularity with colleagues due less to his “maverick” status and more to his volatile temper and more than occasional verbal abuse - were available for them to consider. This availability is mentioned by Alter, then dismissed just as casually as the history of violence of a serial abuser is dismissed by their latest victim. All the restraining orders, the court dates and appearances by police for “domestic disturbances”, even the testimony of former girlfriends to beatings and psychological torture become irrelevant because the guy seems so wonderful. Except, of course, he isn’t.

While it is nice the press corps is realizing McCain’s oft-stated devotion to “honor” and “principle” is nonsense, under the pressure of one of the most dishonest and trivial campaigns in recent memories (quite a feat considering the history of political campaigns over the past quarter century), it should be noted there has been abundant evidence that McCain would not run a campaign any differently than he has. He surrounds himself with Rove proteges. His campaign manager signaled, during the Republican convention, that the campaign would not be about issues, then proceeded to lie about Obama, his person, his personal history, and his record with a relentlessness and thoroughness that was breathtaking. All those folks who “liked” McCain realized he was and is nothing more than a ruthless politician guided by no principle save the continuance of his own grip on power. While Obama is, like most politicians, little different, he at least has the virtue of being honest enough not to cloak his campaign in the nonsensical drivel of “honor”, “integrity”, and the constant invocation of a non-existent history of “straight talk”. Indeed, one of the attractions of Obama, at least for this voter, is that he is pretty transparent about his own status as a run-of-the-mill politician, with all the warts such a specimen usually has.

I do feel bad for the press corps, but only in the same way I feel bad for a woman who is emerging from the shadow of a violent abuser who has a history of such relationships. Yes, she should have known. Just as the press corps should have paid more attention to those things that might have “appalled” them had they not been so heart-struck.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

Like most such events, the Presidential debate between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain was pretty much a draw last night. Not really a surprise. With the rare exception of the single exchange between Bernie Shaw and Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen in the same election year, these things really don’t produce all that much. The much-hyped Gore-sigh was a non-event until a few right-wingers noticed it and made much more of it than it was (for details, see Bob Somerby’s many mentions of the invention of the myth of Sighing Al). Equally silly and false, there was the discussion of Pres. Bush looking at his watch during a 1992 appearance with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. The idea that these little tics and asides are noticed and become iconic moments is nothing more or less than the fantasizing of people trying to create drama where none really exists.

Having said that the event was pretty much a draw and non-dramatic, I will say that I think this presents a problem for John McCain. Part of his argument has always been that he is far more experienced and knowledgeable about foreign policy matters; that his judgment, especially concerning the war in Iraq, is far superior to Sen. Obama’s. Now, anyone considering the actual facts of the matter would question the basis of such a claim, but we’ll let that slide for the moment. For our purposes, I would only ask folks to think about this: If McCain has such a great grasp of foreign policy, and if his judgment is far more sound that Obama’s, then how could Obama hold his own? How is it possible for Barack Obama to be able to stand on the stage with McCain and not end up with egg on his face, is McCain is the expert?

This is to say that the results of a tie, at least in this case, go to Obama, at least on points.

Having said this, I don’t think this matters in the immediate aftermath. Unless someone finds a video clip of Obama sighing while looking at his watch and humming Rage Against the Machine songs while putting his prayer rug down, pointing towards Mecca, I think most people will consider the debate as some kind of hermetically sealed event, cut off from the arguments both campaigns have been making, and from the events of the past couple weeks. Had Jim Lehrer been smart, savvy, or even as tricksey as Bernie Shaw twenty years ago, he might have had a good “gotcha” for each candidate, with McCain’s manic weirdness from the past couple days being top of the list. He did not do so, more’s the pity.

Over all, this debate didn’t really do much more than allow each candidate to repeat his talking points, elaborating a bit. I think a far more interesting debate will be next Thursday’s between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. I do so hope that Biden sets aside any thoughts of chivalry and deference. I think it might be funny if one question concerned her understanding of the English language, since - from the various clips circling around from her interview with Katie Couric - it seems clear she can’t even construct a sentence.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)