GeckoBlue: Politics Archives (Aaron Benson)

"You really should write more."

I'm not sure why, but today, that remark stuck with me.

My automatic response to this type of comment is usually that I just don't have time. But that's not true. When I look at my daily routine, and measure the time it takes to type out some kneejerk reaction to the headline of the day, it's really not all that time-consuming.

What's probably more of a factor, I think, is the fact that nothing's really happening that merits me sitting down for a half-hour each day to try to offer up some unique dissection of the day's events.

I mean, come on folks. Once the election was over we already knew what was coming next. After all, it's nothing that those of us who actually read and digest real news haven't already seen: Yeah, the Democrats lost elections across the board, but it's the Republicans who are doing the purging. Senators, secretaries, career intelligence personnel...it doesn't matter. The same folks who equated dissent with disloyalty before the election are now proceeding to queeze out anyone who isn't practically a wild-eyed idiologue. Moderation will be a foreign term to this new government.

And if you think you've seen it all now, just wait until they start making laws.

Want my take on a few other headlines? Okay...

Condi Rice is a poor choice for SecState, but you already knew that.

Arlen Specter got hung out to dry for telling the truth about the battle awaiting pro-life Supreme Court nominees, but you already knew that.

Kerry lost what should've been the easiest, most self-evident election since 1980. He is sorely mistaken to interpret the God-Not-Bush-Again vote as a mandate to take a leadership role in the party. You knew that.

"Hillary 2008" would only prove that the Democrats have learned nothing from 2004 and deserve to lose again. If you have brains, you already knew that. I've talked to a few people who still seem receptive to the idea (usually the Dean '04 folks), and I've been good about not expressing my newly reinforced impression that they're not too bright.

But I digress.

Like you, I look to the future and see only dark gray clouds rolling this way. There are huge, momentous battles that will occur over the coming term. But right now, both sides are merely putting their pieces into place.

So what's one to do, then, during this over-reported, over-analyzed post-election period in which nothing significant really gets done? Should I become part of the echo chamber, blogging every topic that comes to mind just for the hell of it, struggling to add just a bit of snark to each blurb so visitors will think it worth their while?

I think not. Don't get me wrong: I like blogging, and I think it's a great outlet for people like myself who don't know many politically knowledgeable people IRL. But more important than just writing, I think, is the need for substance, or at least some unique value that makes that five-second scan of this page worthwhile. You know, like razor blades in soap.

So whether I blog once a day, or once every three days, or once a week, I'll always do it because I have to say something that's worth adding to the din of shrill voices in the blogosphere. I'll never do it just to give you some new text to look at. That wastes your time and, frankly more importantly, it wastes mine. Besides, there are plenty of other places you can go, edited by people who get paid to do that sort of thing.

Well, there goes another hour out of my free time. IM me if you've something thought-provoking to say (and no, not "but Hillary could win!!"), because I'm always up for some intelligent convo. 'Til then, I'm off to play Half-Life 2 or do something equally productive.

Politics | 652 Words | Comments (8) | Trackback (0)

Mis-Leader

I like this idea. Simple and quite effective.

The election is over. The fight is not.

Bush's election is bad for the US, and even worse for the rest of the world. But elections are only one part of democracy. We need to think strategically about direct action, learn from a rich history of nonviolent activism, and develop new tactics to take on this administration.

Let's start from the start: Inauguration Day.

On January 20th, 2005, we're calling for a new kind of action. The Bush administration has been successful at keeping protesters away from major events in the last few years by closing off areas around events and using questionable legal strategies to outlaw public dissent. We can use these obstacles to develop new tactics. On Inauguration day, we don't need banners, we don't need signs, we don't need puppets, we just need people.

We're calling on people to attend inauguration without protest signs, shirts or stickers. Once through security and at the procession, at a given signal, we'll all turn our backs on Bush's motorcade and continue through his speech and swearing in. A simple, clear and coherent message.

Link via nanovirus. Don't bother visiting his site without a magnifying glass.

Politics | 205 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Black Sunrise

It was a week ago, just about now, when everything changed.

I've come to accept the election now, and think to the future. But at the time, I remember feeling a profound sense of grief and loss:

Let's be honest: We are aghast at the success of a campaign based on vicious personal attacks, the exploitation of strong religious feelings and an effort to create the appearance of strong leadership that would do Hollywood proud. We are alarmed that so many of our fellow citizens could look the other way and not hold Bush accountable for utter incompetence in Iraq and for untruths spoken in defense of the war. We are amazed that a majority was not concerned about heaping a huge debt burden on our children just to give large tax breaks to the rich.

And we are disgusted that an effort consciously designed to divide the country did exactly that -- and won. With all his failures, Bush could not count on a whole lot more than 51 percent. Karl Rove and company calculated perfectly, organized painstakingly, greatly increased conservative turnout and produced a country divided just their way.

Last Tuesday, I couldn't talk about the election, couldn't blog a response, couldn't respond to all the IMs from friends asking what it all meant. My mind reeled too much to form the words needed to convey what I felt. Today, I can only describe it by saying I didn't feel like an American anymore. Estranged.

Sure, I thought, we could change candidates, tinker with slogans and refine "Get Out The Vote" efforts. But what can you do when much of your country rejects what goes to the very core of your beliefs? When can you do when so many Americans would rather see their children go without quality health care and better public schools, just so long as they can stop two men or women from getting married?

It used to be that we could just ignore the huge swaths of religious fundamentalists in this country. The idea, right up through this election, was just to contain them -- let them impose their creationism-teaching, Ten Commandments-posting, regressive-taxing way of life on the people of Alabama, Mississippi and the like. But the reason containment hasn't worked is because these people aren't limited to a region. They're a demographic, exerting a rightward influence all through Appalachia in the east and along the Mississippi River in the rural midwest, always threatening (and sometimes succeeding) to tip blue states into the Republican column.

That's why 2004 is worse than 1994. Not because the Democrats were routed -- they weren't. It's worse because, in changing their campaign strategy based on each day's headlines, and placing bald-faced pandering over principle, the Democrats ceded the moral high ground to the Republicans, of all people, and allowed them to creep like a cancer and take hold of the very places where ordinary people need Democrats the most.

In the days since the election, as shock has turned into incredulity, and despair into resignation, I've begun to look around and assess what was lost. The truth is, America had been slipping away for a while. Last Tuesday, I think, it finally fell out of the grasp of reasonable people in both parties.

We are now entering an era of one-party government. Republicans continue to hold the executive branch. They have majorities in the congress and the senate, the state governorships and legislatures, and soon, the Supreme Court. From where I stand, the future looks bleak.

Where do we go from here? I don't know yet, but like you, I'm thinking about it. In the meantime, aside from the occasional joke about moving to Canada, I'll be keeping this in mind:

"Liberals, stop threatening to move because Bush won. Real liberals should be pledging to stay because Bush won."

-Bill Maher

Politics | 646 Words | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)

This Isn't Helping

But I understand his frustration. [more]

Politics | 8 Words | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)

Principle

From Newsweek:

Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that."

For shame. My respect for Bill Clinton just dropped a notch, the inverse being true of Senator Kerry.

Fourty years ago, many politicians lost elections for supporting civil rights legislation that was anathema to their constituents. Today, they wear their opposition as a badge of honor. I understand the cold political calculus behind decisions made then and now, but some things have to be more important than winning the next election.

It all brings to mind the most poignant statement of the post-election:

Democrats will never win another elction if they keep trying to siphon off votes from the Republicans. They will only win by creating a lot more Democrats, and you don't do that by trying to leach onto issues that you should be denouncing.

-Bill Maher

Politics | 177 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Look Forward

- Roe vs. Wade is finished.
- Gay marriage is stricken for a generation.
- Stem cell research remains nothing more than lip service.

Instead:

- Patriot Act II.
- Church and state, intertwined.
- A massive federal debt, paid for by our children. Mine, yours, people who voted for W.
- Arrogance, disinformation and deception = principled leadership.

Mourn.

Politics | 60 Words | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)

The Cancer Takes Hold

Mourn.

Politics | 1 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

A Failure of the Imagination

254-252. It was not supposed to be this close. As of this morning, the future remains in the balance.

Politics | 19 Words | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)

The Unthinkable

I found myself agreeing so much with these articles (summarized here), in which several pundits ponder the consequences of a Bush victory.

I left this post in draft mode for about four days. I've found it difficult to finish, because frankly, the prospect of a Bush win, and the implications of such, are so upsetting.

The root cause of a Bush win, I think, would have to be the profound dissonance that has taken hold in America. There are, for example, the SUV-loving suburbanites who can't connect their choices to our continued dependence on the Middle East, and taxcut-mongering Republicans who eagerly gobble up government rebates despite the snowballing future financial burden on their own children. There are other issues, but overall, a Bush win would be nothing other than a stunning confirmation of the national disconnect between action and effect, decision and consequence.

It would also, I think, be an affirmation of "Anything Goes." The transition from talking points to triangulation to outright disinformation will be complete. Rather than changing positions to fit the facts, future administrations will be counted on to change the facts to fit their positions. And our great watchdog, the press, will roll over, having accepted the election results to mean the rules have changed.

Regrettably, but understandably, many people tuned out of the political process in 2000. But this time we know. We were told. We saw. And an affirmation that our standards have, in fact, been lowered so much that we think Dubya is an apt successor to those who led this nation and served with character, intellect and integrity -- George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan -- is unthinkable.

At home, a Bush win means that the Nixonian veil would settle across the highest levels of the United States government. Transparency and honesty loses to Orwellian spin and up-is-downism. Abroad, The world would look to "lessor" powers to encircle and contain American arrogance and militarism.

Simply: The re-election of George W. Bush would signal the beginning of the end of American greatness.

Politics | 345 Words | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)

"Hilarious"

...Because as we all know, African Americans don't own expensive cars.

Too funny.

Politics | 14 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

I Voted

Since I'd already been lying awake in bed since 4am, I got up at 5, got ready, and headed out at 7:30 to vote. I went down to the university where, unlike in 2000 when there was no wait, there were about 50-60 local residents in a line that snaked out of the voting area and around the dormitory lobby.

The line moved steadily, though, and after about 20 minutes I was at the front of the line. Looking around the room, the room was set up exactly as it was last time, with four poll workers sitting along long tables, and four voting stations about 15 feet away.

As I approached the table, I noticed the poll workers yelling out and spelling each name rather loudly. One look to the other side of the room and I saw why. There were several people with directories, presumably checking the registration of each voter. Two people sitting in the second row looked to be Republican -- middle-aged, prim and proper, in corporate dress. In the first row was a single person, rather young (and strikingly attractive), dressed very casually, sitting lazily in a lounge chair, probably for the Democrats.

The woman in front of me in line knew one of the poll workers. They said their hellos, and after an awkward pause, the poll worker informed the lady that even though the worker recognized her, she still had to say her name aloud. "They're a lot stricter about it this time around," she said, leaning forward and with an eye toward the "poll watchers" across the room.

In any case, I saw no problems, and no voter was "challenged" while I was there. I voted straight Democrat, though if I were to decide the senate race based on who ran the best campaign I'd have voted for Sen. Specter over Joe Hoeffel. They were using punch card ballots, so I stuck the needle in, punched it all the way down, wiggled it around and then studied the ballot to make sure the "chad" was gone. It was.

Once I was done, I turned around and handed a poll worker my card. And as I walked away and heard the "thunk" of my ballot being deposited in the secure box, a feeling washed over me. It wasn't so much the glee that I felt in 2000 when I voted for the first time. Just relief.

Politics | 403 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Post-Election Strategery

The Democrats, if they have any brains, ought to have a few action items today beyond GOTV if they expect to win. Because simply, it all comes down to their ability to keep people in line to vote despite all the inevitable challenges and delays we can all expect to happen.

On the ground, invest some of that GOTV money into handing out water bottles and umbrellas in all the major, democrat-heavy voting districts. They should know by now where it's going to rain, and that there will be near-interminable lines everywhere.

On the local media level, send Jesse Jackson to Broward County and Bill Clinton to Philadelphia or Detroit, not for rallies but to give people a pep talk about how imperative it is that they stay and finish the job. Get them covered on the local news posing the following question to groups of voters: "Which would you rather give up: four hours or four years?"

On the national stage, send John Kerry out in the early afternoon to talk about the super-long lines at polling places. Have him offer a few platitudes about how great it is that so many Americans are taking part in this nation's most sacred process and making their voices heard. Then have him issue a direct call to President Bush to join him in declaring that polling places should stay open "for as long as it takes" to allow every eligible voter to vote.

It doesn't matter that neither candidate has the power to make it happen. News organizations will juxtapose Kerry's statement with pictures of lines of voters wrapping around blocks. If Bush joins Kerry in his call, then he will be burned badly by 1) high turnout and 2) any Republicans court action (like in 2000 in St. Louis) to close the polling stations. If Bush refuses to join Kerry, or offers some excuse about local jurisdiction, then he'll look like he doesn't want those people to have a chance to vote.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's all about positioning.

Politics | 344 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Thinking People Choose Kerry

So, yeah. We've heard a lot in this campaign about how the Democratic Party would be trounced if it weren't for that monolithic inner-city black voting bloc. More interesting, though, is a recent survey which shows voters with a college education choose Kerry over Bush by a 10-point margin, while Bush retains a 2-point edge among the mill-worker classes.

Yeah. We've also heard a lot about how Kerry is fooling the masses by flip-flopping and changing his position on issue after issue. But another survey shows Bush's supporters are woefully uninformed about where the president stands on major issues. Why? Is Bush sending "mixed messages," or are his supporters just ignorant?

Maybe the whole thing can be explained by the following poll results (and others), which show that Bush Country, by and large, doesn't even read the news:

Nonpartisan, academic poll found 72 percent of Bush supporters still believe Iraq had WMD. 75 percent think Iraq gave substantial support to Al Qaeda. Some 63 percent believe evidence of this support has been found. Should US have gone to war if our intelligence concluded Iraq was not making WMD or supporting Al Qaeda? 58 percent said no.

That's Red America for you.

There's more. Kerry leads in the newspaper endorsement tally, both in the number of papers and overall circulation:

Kerry continues to lead in the overall count by 186 to 151. Kerry also holds a wide lead in circulation of supporting papers, by about 19 million to almost 13 million...In addition, four other papers switched from pro-Bush in 2000 to neutral today, bringing that overall total to at least 15.

It all reminds me of something Bill Clinton said on The Daily Show last August: "If you're a democrat, you win when people think."

Quote of the election. Here's hoping most Americans think for a change next Tuesday.

Politics | 310 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Deluded

More sad examples of the conservative cocoon.

But hey, if all I watched was Faux News...

Politics | 17 Words | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)

Laughing. Out. Loud.

From my friend Eric @ Divigate:

I love it when elected officials use incorrect grammar in their political ads. You probably don't have that in Pennsylvania, but in Iowa several of races feature candidates purposfully using incorrect grammar in an effort to attract hick conservative farmers. "We got 44 million seniors in America." and "I don't think we coulda got the bill passed if it weren't for AARP." Chuck Grassely

Politics | 71 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Snark

Buried in a New York Times piece showcasing the idiotic rationale of swing voters was this priceless quote:

Similarly, Joan Deane, 78, of Scarborough, Me., a registered Republican who is fond of the Bush family, said that she found Mr. Kerry "Lincolnesque" but that it was her sentiment against the incumbent that was motivating her now to vote for the senator.

"George W. is not as smart as other people," she said. "He has about 10 phrases that he uses over and over again. He's a little arrogant when he walks. And he was so foolish to go over to Iraq. Go back and look at the Bible, honey. They've been fighting over that dreadful piece of land forever."

Politics | 119 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Four More Days

Look, fuck those swing voters. This election has already been decided:

Kerry 296, Bush 242.

The results, from where I sit, are quite clear: If all the votes are counted, John Kerry will win. Clearly. Convincingly. And without need for extensive litigation or Supreme Court intervention.

Allow me, first and foremost, to restate my displeasure with the near-incompetence of Kerry's tone-deaf campaign. Aside from the well-known shortcomings of the candidate himself, Kerry missed several chances by which he might have dominated the race early on rather than sinking into his August slump.

Consider the discipline of the Bush attack machine in contrast. If Kerry had said "I don't think you can win the war on terror," Republicans would have practically strung him up on the spot. The outrage would have been deafening, and would undoubtedly have sunk the senator's campaign.

If a Gore administration had advised Americans that the best they could do to protect their families was to go buy plastic wrap and duct tape, Republicans would never have allowed the public to forget.

If President Gore had stated that "the right track/wrong track in Iraq is better than here in America," Republicans would have howled about how the liberals care more about nation-building overseas than Joe Schmoe mill worker in Ohio.

And President Gore could never have run a baldly exploitative campaign based entirely on 9/11 -- much like if Franklin D. Roosevelt ran on the idea that Pearl Harbor was his finest hour -- because Republicans would have already impeached him two years earlier.

Kerry missed this and many other chances to crystalize Republican incompetence in the mind of the public. And chief among them, I think, was his refusal to fight back against the charge that he is a vaccillating flip-flopper even when there was a vast array of ammo at his disposal.

Still, though, Kerry succeeded in the race simply by not failing; He presented himself as a plausible president in the first debate, which instantly upended the Republicans' cartoonish characterizations of an ultra-liberal, viet cong-supporting, tax-loving, soldier-hating finger-in-the-wind opportunist.

The Bush campaign, for its part, has lost its last opportunity to turn the race into a referrendum on Kerry. Its incompetent handling of the Iraqi munitions story allowed it to quickly snowball and bury any message the campaign intended to disseminate in the final week.

Kerry's Ohio hunting trip, coupled with the Boston Red Sox's World Series win presented enough symbolic appeal to bolster the candidate's support among stupid, testosterone-addled men.

Lastly, and most importantly, the failure to enact intelligence reforms from the 9/11 commission before election day represents a profound political failure. Even signing a bill on Monday is too late to not be seen as transparently political and desparate. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the presidency, and their failure on this issue will drive the final nail in the Bush administration's coffin.

Politics | 482 Words | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)

Bush Loses Pennsylvania

Look, I know the Republicans are having wet dreams about stealing Pennsylvania away from the Democrats, but it just ain't gonna happen.

I was never a believer that this state would remain competitive in the first place. There's just too much anecdotal evidence, too many disaffected friends and co-workers who only voted Republican last time because, in the words of one, "Al Gore was a wimp." Folks around here are socially moderate (pro-choice/anti-partial birth/anti-gay bashing) and fiscally conservative (as if that label means anything nowadays). And they are, by and large, appalled by the incompetence and extremism they've seen from the White House.

Supporting my expectation of a Kerry win is the fact that Pennsylvania elected the liberal mayor from Philadelphia as its governor in 2002. Ed Rendell won in a landslide, taking all the major counties except for those "Alabama parts" in the middle of the state. Al Gore won comfortably in 2000 even with Tom Ridge in charge of the state machinery.

I live in West Chester, which is about 35 miles southwest of Philadelphia. The Philadelphia suburbs are, for the thousanth time, crucial to any party that hopes to win a state-wide race. Yes, it's a college town, but the student population can be better described as apathetic slackers than thinking liberals. Besides, I live far from the student section of town; my block is filled with families and only two apartment houses.

Yet today I counted seven Kerry/Edwards yard signs on my block alone, and none for Bush/Cheney. (A neighbor even asked me if I had an extra "Anyone But Bush" bumper sticker a few months ago.) On the next block up, it was split at four apiece for Bush and Kerry. And on my drive to work, which, on that particular day, I decided would wind through various neighborhoods in a bid to put off work, I saw three times as many Kerry/Edwards signs as I did Bush/Cheney.

(My co-worker and I decided on a whim to steal four or five Bush/Cheney yard signs during our lunch break today, so that should widen the gap a little more.)

Anyway, it's amusing to watch national Republican officials on cable TV, talking about how they still have a shot. They sent President Bush here just last week to visit Downingtown, that conservative little "nowhere" town 10 minutes up the road where my friends and I sometimes go to catch a movie. Both towns are a part of traditionally conservative Chester County, which has been growing more moderate over the years as Philadelphians like myself move out of the city.

Maybe if they'd had a gay marriage referrendum on the ballot, like in Ohio, then things would be closer. Without that, Bush might pick up a few votes in this area based on his emphasis on the L-word, but that's about it. I've been looking, and I just don't see the fervor or the conservative turnout necessary to overcome the reflexively Democratic vote coming out of Philly and Pittsburgh. Maybe Bush's pollsters know something I don't, but from where I stand, I just can't see Bush punching through here.

Politics | 522 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Bush Beats Kerry

In the first and second debates, John Kerry won simply by allowing the president to lose. Tonight though, the president came prepared and, particularly in the first half, beat Kerry soundly.

Bush's answers were, on the whole, much more robust and detailed than in previous debates. He aced Kerry on gay marriage, education and the role of religion in politics.

The same way Bush turned each question into an opportunity to attack Kerry's super-liberal voting record, Kerry should have juxtaposed Bush's rhetoric with his record as president, and framed each issue as a choice that reflected Bush priorities: tax cuts over homeland security. Tax cuts over full funding for education. Tax cuts over health care. Tax cuts over virtually every Bush second-term proposal that he's already failed for four years get done.

Instead, tonight was a night of missed opportunities. The president said he would tell an outsourced worker to go get educated. Kerry failed to stick up for those workers and indignantly tell the president that these are highly skilled and able workers, and that it's an insult to them to imply they're unemployable because they're uneducated.

Bush grasped so desperately when he said the No Child Left Behind Act was "a jobs plan," and yet Kerry gave him a pass.

Tonight saw the re-emergence of that old, meandering John Kerry that never fails to show up when the candidate is perceived as being ahead. The senator's answer on catholicism was excrutiating to watch and listen to. He also failed to break through the president's coded language on Roe vs. Wade. And tonight, days after the country became newly focused on the issue of stem cell research, Kerry failed to mention it even once.

Most other times the senator was on the defensive, his voice cracking as he ticked off counter-charges while failing to tie them together into a single indictment of Bush's beliefs and worldview.

Lost, amid all the facts and figures, was a chance to bring home the true enormity of our national debt and how it has worsened under Bush. Lost was the opportunity to cast the fiscal gluttony of the Republican-controlled congress as a tax on America's children.

Finally, the worst and most unforgivable error of all was Kerry's failure to leave viewers (and the press) with a compelling rhetorical question to stew over after the debates. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Are you truly safer? Is your family's future more secure today that it was in 2000?

Right now, the press and the rapid poll responders seem intent on awarding Kerry three wins in three debates. It's what the media needs to get the horse race it wants down the stretch run. Maybe maintaining that status quo is enough, but it's still disappointing, because John Kerry could have done so much better. He should have done so much better.

Politics | 480 Words | Comments (2) | Trackback (0)

A Decisive Kerry Win

Amazing. I'd have to say the latter half of the debate was a draw. But in the first half, which is probably all most voters will watch at 9:00 on a Friday night, Kerry simply cleaned Bush's clock.

The president came right out with what was, frankly, a rather shocking strategy of combative bluster. He shuffled around like a cowboy, head bobbing, smirking and winking offstage while Kerry spoke, and making with volume arguments that he couldn't make with facts.

Bush's statements on Iraq went against the grain of the news of the past week, and it showed. Bush talked at the audience and, in denying reality, he looked exasperated and sounded shrill. In the last debate, Bush gradually lost his poise and composure. In this one he never had any, at one point outright ignoring the rules and seeming just plain unhinged.

Kerry was punchy at times but dignified, such as when he derided Bush's "compassionate conservative" slogan in response to the "most liberal senator" label. Bush, however, exuded an attitude that he was fed up. Fed up with the process, fed up with John Kerry, fed up with being questioned. The American people, I suspect, are just now realizing who they elected four years ago.

But if the debate was a decisive win for Kerry, the post-debate period may prove more mixed. Favoring Kerry in addition to his performance is the fact that, for "undecided voters," that audience sure sounded dissatisfied with the status quo.

On the other hand, from here on out, you can expect the Republicans to behave like the Democratic candidates did in December of 2003 toward Howard Dean. There will be unprecedented shrillness. They will be ferocious, tearing into Kerry left and right. The president's behavior tonight was the beginning of that.

I've the feeling that, even though Kerry outmaneuvered Bush on almost every question, Bush' statements may play better on the news because, unfortunately, strong and wrong works in the media highlight reel. It's a shame.

Politics | 333 Words | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)

M. A. D.

Dean responded to my indictment of Kerry's and Edwards' debate performances. I'm re-posting it here because, frankly, my response was too long, but also because I think it goes to the heart of what's happened in this election.

Aaron: spoken like a partisan, my man. The administration has answered every one of your charges more than once. Perhaps you just haven't been listening? Heh.

It appears from where I stand that what you want most is red meat. You want Kerry and Edwards to be ferocious, tearing into their opponents right and left. It's pretty clear to me that they've chosen a pretty negative attack already and probably realize that if they're much more negative than they are now, they'll delight the Bush haters but will alienate the middle. I suspect they are correct in that.

I frankly think they're doing a pretty good job. On the record, Bush clearly deserves re-election in my view, both for his masterful handling of the econmy--he inherited a worse incoming economic situation than any president since Franklin Roosevelt--and for his excellent handling of foreign policy. And I say that not as a Republican (I'm not) or a conservative (I'm not), but merely because it's my analysis.

The Bushies could do a better job of defending themselves. Bush himself certainly could. Cheney did a good job on defense, he really did. I wish Bush were that good at it.

I think it is important, when piously asserting the partisanship of someone else, to actually know one's target. After all, independents like myself who supported John McCain in '99 and drafted Wesley Clark in 2003 did so not because of some hunger for rancor and "red meat," but rather, because they were the only candidates on either side capable of inspiring rather than dividing, and campaigning, as Clark put it, "not in destructive bickering or personal attacks but in the highest tradition of democratic dialogue."

The problem today isn't that folks like myself have tuned out. Quite the contrary, the reason people are disappointed with Kerry is because we are paying attention. And we see that the truth, or any semblance of it, is long gone from this campaign, bruised by the Republicans who impugned Democrats' patriotism in '02, bludgeoned by the Democrats' lemming-like adoration of Howard Dean, with his kitchen-sink indictments of All Things Republican in '03, and finally, swift-boated today by half-truths and outright lies by bi-partisan surrogates who cast candidates as latter-day Nazis and V.C. interlopers.

It's notable, most importantly, for the hypocrisy of it all. Bush supporters, for example, laud Cheney's "excellent" bludgeoning of the facts, and in the next breath caution the Democrats to play nice. They cheer the "red meat" from their own candidates while admonishing the opposing side for seeking the same. George W. Bush can pull two words out of a sentence to invert its meaning, and can all but equate the election of John Kerry with America's surrender in the war on terror, and there's nary a word. But John Edwards, of course, was already "a little shrill," and to expect more toughness is to expect him to "be ferocious, tearing into [Bush and Cheney] left and right."

I point out these things not because I'm a Democrat (I'm not) or a liberal (I'm not). It's merely my own analysis. Those who give tacit approval to Bush-Cheney's desparate and shrill attacks and pat Kerry-Edwards on the head for good behavior know better themselves which tactic works best today. So do we.

As a result, and with the primaries over, the choices constricted and the board set, those of us who crave true leadership from either party are left seeking something much more practical from those left standing: competence. No, not the competence of a Dukakis-like dignity in defeat, but rather, the toughness and willingness to fight fire with fire, to seek the high ground but defeat them, if they so choose, on the low road.

This is all a necessity nowadays, since our great referree, the fourth estate, is already bought and spoken for and seems to value storylines and stereotypes more than the truth. At this point, the most we can hope for is that the ultimate winner maintain some semblance of respectability. Something he can build on after the pandered-to go back to Survivor and Trading Spouses.

So while we shake our heads at the way both parties have sullied the democratic process, we also realize we need a candidate who will, if necessary, go down into that pit fighting.

Politics | 757 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Edwards Fails

So disappointing. Not just the debate, but the evenness of the press spin afterword. The fact is, Cheney came as close to steamrolling John Edwards as he could have come while still allowing the press to call it a draw with a straight face.

Cheney was credible and steady. He exuded competence and gravitas. Edwards will never be a Cheney, that much is obvious, but he was still worse than he needed to be. Edwards batted his eyelashes and flashed his pearly smile between questions, seeming as if he was more interested in getting the moderator and audience to admire his charm than to take him seriously as a potential president.

The task that Edwards failed at was similar to John Kerry's: Don't just slip a few negative details into answers filled with meaningless, boilerplate platitudes. Stay on message and drive the point home, forcing the other side to either answer the charge or concede the point.

For example, we knew Cheney would dodge questions about, say, Halliburton. But it was Edwards' job to call attention to the fact that he avoided the issue, and then tell the American people why.

"The vice president never responded to the the issue of cutting soldiers' combat pay while sending them into Iraq, because it is a fact, and it will stand up to the light of the truth well after this debate, and he knows it."

"The vice president didn't address the outsourcing of jobs because his administration supports it. It's a fact, and one that they prefer not to own up to when confronted by the American people."

"This administration sent 40,000 troops into battle without body aromor. It's a fact, and the vice president knows it, and it's wrong. No parent should have to take up a collection here at home to provide their son or daughter with basic equipment in Iraq."

"In addition to being the first president in 70 years to lose jobs, George Bush refuses to even acknowledge that millions of Americans are underemployed, a situation so bad that parents are competing with their children for minimum-wage jobs. The fact is, this administration would rather cover up the problem by counting McDonalds jobs as 'manufacturing' jobs because they make hamburgers. George Bush refuses to accept the reality of what's going on in America, and the middle class is hurting as a result."

And it goes on, and on, and on. Bush opposed 9/11 commission and the Department of Homeland Security. He didn't fully fund No Child Left Behind. He still hasn't caught Osama bin Laden.

Edwards' mentioned most of these criticisms, but the problem was how. His occasional jabs were quick and forgettable; he never stuck to them and made them the focal point of what will be beamed into millions of households over the next three days. Edwards left us with very few takeaways, when the story could have been how Cheney was too stubborn and ultraconservative to even admit a mistake in voting against the Department of Education, against Head Start, against Meals-on-Wheels for seniors, against a resolution for freeing Nelson Mandela or against a Martin Luther King holiday.

Cheney won this debate because he successfully portrayed Kerry as vaccilating and unsteady. He also revealed how tremendously unready John Edwards is for this job, and undoubtedly left Democrats wishing they could sub in a Joe Biden to close the gravitas gap.

I still think John Kerry will win this race. The two additional cracks at Bush alone should ensure that. But seeing as how the Democrats have been so consistently outmaneuvered by the Republicans in this campaign, if Kerry does lose, tonight's debate will be one of many reasons why.

Politics | 617 Words | Comments (5) | Trackback (1)

Dissent

I soldier in Iraq told me this:

I think the majority of people over here will vote for Bush. I could be wrong, but that is the impression that I get. Even if Kerry's service has been proven, he used to hang out and participate in events with "Hanoi Jane."

So, let me get this straight: George Bush uses his father's connections to avoid service in Vietnam, and then subsequently fails to meet all of his National Guard requirements because, well, he had other things to do.

John Kerry, on the other hand, volunteered to go to Vietnam. He served two tours, saved lives, took life, and carries around shrapnel in his body to this day as a reminder of the experience.

You want to vote against Kerry because his Iraq position is all twisted into knots? Okay. You want to vote for Bush because you think he's clearer and more resolute when it comes to fighting terrorism? Good for you.

But to vote against someone who served honorably because he was seen at the same event as Jane Fonda? And to instead vote for someone who avoided service altogether and partied hard while some poor kid was sent to Vietnam in his place? Well, that's just the essence of stupidity. I sure hope he's wrong about "Hanoi Jane" being the rationale against Kerry, because I want to believe most soldiers -- and indeed, most Americans -- are smarter than that.

Politics | 241 Words | Comments (2) | Trackback (0)

Kerry Won?

What a classic example of groupthink in the national media. Immediately after the debate I thought Kerry turned in a subpar performance on substance, but was still a bit better than Bush. The pundits apparently agreed that Kerry had edged out Bush.

But by the end of the night, buttressed by flash polls and more confident spin from the Kerry camp, pundits -- even those on Faux News -- were almost uniformly trumpeting a decisive Kerry victory. By the next morning, as the coverage snowballed, you'd have thought it was "Lincoln and Douglas vs. Elmer Fudd," as Charlie Cook put it.

Dean says taking my advice would have backfired on Kerry. That by being more aggressive, he would have looked like a nut and turned off the liberals who already want us to be nicer to the U.N. and pull out of Iraq.

I disagree with that completely. Look closer at the Gallup numbers (as Dean is now doing). Sure, Kerry "looked more presidential" than Bush, but he made little headway in changing voters' fundamental assumptions about him. Namely, that he's a flip-flopper who changes positions often, is less trustworthy than Bush and weaker on Iraq, terrorism and national security. By a 17-point margin, voters preferred Bush as the man "tough enough" for the job.

Kerry would have done better to follow my advice. Maintain the same posture, which worked. Talk about the need for allies, which worked. But cut out the references to a "summit" and instead offer some real meat on Iraq. Tell them you'd ask NATO to secure the border areas, and then you'd deal once and for all with murderers like Muqtada al Sadr and Zarqawi, and then you'd break up the terorrist mini-states that had formed in places like Fallujah, so we could finish our work and get the hell out of there.

Yes, liberals badly want to make the point that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq. But at the same time, they don't want to see us just pull up stakes and leave Iraq in a state of civil war or islamist theocracy. Hell, only the Kucinich/Nader crowd wants us out tomorrow, and there are just as many conservatives who'd also just as well see us declare victory and leave, whether Iraq was at peace or not.

So it's possible to press the case that invading Iraq was a collossal error in judgement, but that now we've got to win there to get back on track in the war against al Qaeda, and that we must do so in such a way that's tough on the terrorists but respectful of our allies. John Kerry didn't do that, and that's why, spinning aside, the American people still doubt him today.

Politics | 459 Words | Comments (2) | Trackback (0)

Kerry for Secretary-General

Allow me to diverge for a moment from the press's congratulatory orgy over John Kerry's debate performance. Those of us who look for more than mere gaffes and atmospherics recognize that, to gain our true confidence rather than tentative votes, John Kerry needed to convince voters he would see Iraq succeed and crush Al Qaeda. He failed.

Kerry can only change the dynamic of the race by waking people up to the stunning reality of Bush's failed leadership, AND doing it in such a way that offers us his own strong and steady hand and a competent leader. For that to happen, Kerry had to not only attack Bush, but his every statement needed to connect to underlying principles and values that the public would be stunned to learn Bush apparently doesn't share. Diverting resources from catching bin Laden to go after Saddam Hussein? Check. Opposing the creation of a Department of Homeland Security? Missed opportunity. Opposing the creation of the 9/11 commission? Missed. Ignoring newly revealed pre-invasion warnings that Iraq could turn into a guerilla war? Missed. Protecting Saudi Arabia even though it's home to 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers? Missed.

I kept wanting Kerry to lean forward a bit more, to jab his finger in my direction, to act and talk like a man who was ready to lead the United States in war. I wanted him to talk about how the United States of America doesn't retreat, but shockingly, that's exactly what Bush did in Iraq once the militants started flooding in -- backed down and let the terrorists push us out of entire cities like Fallujah and Samarrah, and allowed thugs like Zarqawi to set up terrorist mini-states in places. Placated and nice with radicals like Muqtada al Sadr who repeatedly attacked U.S. forces.

Kerry could have run both to Bush's left and right. That is, he could have driven home his Osama-over-Saddam message, but also shown that he was ultra-committed to smashing the terorrists in Iraq so that the U.S. would succeed. It's that simple: Kerry = Smash the terrorists in Fallujah so we can get back to get back to killing bin Laden. Bush = Iraq is America's new West Bank.

Instead what we got was, in the words of the hilariously shrill Zell Miller, a "bowl of mush." From the former prosecutor, lots of middling over details and scattershot accusations, without a continued focus on the big-picture indictment to tie it all together. Kerry seemed to be running for U.N. Secretary-General, auditioning for chief facilitator of some international circle-jerk. I can see the Bush ads now: "Kerry now says the answer to dealing with Saddam Hussein was to get another U.N. resolution. And now he says his plan to win the war on terror is to hold a summit! A summit?"

Hey, Kerry: Fuck that summit, those resolutions, and that "global test," whatever that meant. Same for the bizarre alarm about American nuclear weapons that "we might actually use." Stop playing dove. Run as an American patriot whose tired of seeing America's reputation sullied, and our soldiers let down by an incompetent chief executive whose battlefield reality check has cost us lives. Remind people that over the next four years there will be other crises, other crucial choices, and that a president who refuses to admit his mistakes and adjust to the reality of current events is doomed to repeat them.

Tonight, John Kerry had the chance to present the alternative vision that was once within our grasp: a willing world, post-9/11, on the march against terror behind the steady and respected leadership of the United States of America. He needed to bring home the magnitude of how that profound opportunity has been lost under George W. Bush. Instead, he lost his focus, playing along while Bush peered at his cliff notes and conflated Iraq with the war against al Qaeda. Maybe he remained "poised" and "presidential," but he was anything but inspiring and left the distinct impression that Iraq under a Kerry administration would remain in flames.

I don't care much if the floodgates open tomorrow and voters stampede toward John Kerry. He failed.

Politics | 695 Words | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)

Hypocrisy

From the Daily Show:

Jon: Rob, the Iraqi prisoner scandal is a huge setback. What went wrong?

Rob: John, you heard the president say the America that turtored those prisoners is not the America he knows.

Jon: Rob, to the Arab world though, those few miscreants who did what they did in that prison -- to them, that IS us!

Rob: Well John, there's no question what took place in that prison was horrible. But the Arab world has to realize that the U.S. shouldn't be judged on the actions of a....well, that we shouldn't be judged on actions. It's our principles that matter, our aspiring, abstract notions. Remember, just because torturing prisoners is something we did, doesn't mean it's something we would do.

Politics | 126 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Separate But Equal

Well, it's happened. Gay marriage is here.

I wonder if those newlyweds have had time to destabilize and desecrate any straight marriages yet. Any of those queermongers come knocking on your door?

How appropriate for such a milestone to occur on the anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling. America has taken yet another step forward.

Politics | 59 Words | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)

Another Nonthinker

It appears that Mike at Miniluv didn't take kindly to my reference to his post on the Nick Berg murder. Not only did he delete the trackback ping (which he'll undoubtedly do for this post as well), but he posted a swipe in my comments. So allow me to clarify the issue by reprinting Mike's post on Berg, in its entirety:

I've never met Nicholas Berg. I know he was my age and I know he was a telcom guy, just like me. His body made it back to the U.S. today.

I also know that killing a defenseless worker is no way to regain honor. Not in islamic culture, and not in ours. It makes you a murderer and a coward. That's all. Swine have more honor than you al-Qaeda cowards.

If one of you cowards happens to be reading this I'll be happy to prove your lack of honor to you. Swords to the death. Email me and we'll arrange it. Lets see if even one of you will be brave enough to face one normal American face to face.

In the comments, there's some more, mostly along the lines of "Yeah dude, you'd like totally do that!" And "That's right man you know I would, I friggin' MEAN it!!" (exaggeration mine)

So yeah. In my post on Berg, I called Mike's so-called challenge to the terrorists "mindless and meaningless chest-thumping." I mean, you have to wonder what Mike would do if they killed two Americans. Gun duel? Dick-measurements? What?

So what was his response?

Is that what I was doing? I don't think so, but even if I was I'd prefer that to being a boring second hander that can't seem to come up with a single original idea.

"Boring second hander." Wow. He sure knows how to lob those rhetorical bombs, doesn't he?

You know, I actually have to agree with Mike on one thing. His writings may be asinine, but they aren't boring. He obviously has all the sophistocation of a fourth-grader, which explains why his moronic schoolyard taunt of a post is the best reaction he can muster to the Berg video. I find these kinds of posts, coming from the unthinking wing of the Republican party, to be as hilarious as the ultra-liberal rants over at Kos.

Look Mike, you were right and I was wrong. I actually thought all this time blogging with Court would have taught you to use your brain every once in awhile. Now I know better.

Politics | 420 Words | Comments (2) | Trackback (0)

Scandalous

According to this story, Arabs are shocked and awed by the level of stubbornness Bush has displayed in endorsing Don Rumsfeld:

"After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It's just incredible. I am in total shock," said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.

"Bush's praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States...and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world," he added.

Analysts have said the damage from images seen worldwide of U.S. soldiers abusing naked Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison would be indelible, incalculable and a gift to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Personally, I'm in total shock over how absolutely awful the prosecution of the Iraq war has been, from the very beginning until now, and specifically how rapidly the situation has deteriorated over the past two months. And not only has the civilian leadership not done anything right, but they've been able to parlay their dogged and obstinate pursuit of failed strategies into an image of strong and decisive leadership.

I used to think comparisons to Vietnam were premature. However, at this stage, we really have to consider that if Bush is reelected, America may actually be on its way to losing another war and empowering the terrorists in the process.

But according to Them, the mounting casualties -- American soldiers, American credibility -- are signs that we are winning. Up is down. Black is white. 2+2=5.

Stated aptly by George Will:

This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts....Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.

Politics | 318 Words | Comments (4) | Trackback (0)