Check out this fantastically honest and charming article written by Peggy Orenstein in this past weekend's New York Times Magazine concerning the rise of the Princess nation (amongst the littlest ladies in the USA). Worth a read, on many levels. Look out, Chris!
Welcome, John Edwards. My admiration and support for the Senator is no secret. It's safe to say that he has come a long way in a short time in both the clarity and depth departments, from the first time I watched him wow the crowd from the center of the VFW Hall on a cold winter's night in Solon, Iowa, to his recent appearance on Hardball.
Bloomberg's Margaret Carlson turns out a great summary of Edwards' path from 2004 to his announcement today. Unlike, say, the New York Times' Adam Nagourney (who e-mailed a defensive, Inside-the-Beltway reply to me after I complained to him about his 12-19 article) as the 2008 contest solidifies, my partiality will be out in the open. May the best candidate get the Dem nod. Obviously, this excludes Hillary (she's not a foregone conclusion, folks!).
In the "Person of the Year" Issue of Time (it's me...and you!) tiny Joe Klein hands in a short, obvious slice of journalistic homework handicapping the 2008 situation on the ground for Democrats in Iowa. Klein (with the help of the Davids Yepsen and Broder) posits that people in Iowa really like Edwards, no one really wants to actually vote for Hillary, and Obama was catching a wave of support even prior to his recent multi-media blitz (his Monday Night Football introduction was risky genius--if you missed it, here). Yepsen acknowledges that Iowans don't yet view Vilsack in a "presidential frame" (I bet it's a pretty frame...I wonder if its gilded?). Klein then insolubly suggests if Iowans deem out-of-towners too slick Vilsack could benefit (but I thought Iowans already liked Edwards?). Ah, well, who needs logic when you occupy such a small part of the magazine? Limited copy, limited deduction.
With a terse David and Goliath metaphor as his guide, Senator Evan Bayh bowed out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination this weekend. Now, weeks ago when Governor Mark Warner gave a pass to the race this was easy to rationalize, but Evan Bayh had both the resume and cash to hit the ground running. What's with these guys? Suddenly the thick political oxygen of celebrity and donorship is thinning for white men, and they're fading into the wilderness faster than you can say, "Obama".
If you have a spare moment amidst the holiday shopping this weekend, the article "Somalia’s Islamists and Ethiopia Gird for a War" in Thursday's Times is a riveting read. A whole world beyond the Middle East exists and needs our attention, respect and diplomatic nuance. Hopefully our next President will recognize the significance of this region.
Arizona Senator and presumptive GOP Presidential candidate John McCain completed a trip to Iraq this week, and the New York Times aptly revealed what's really going on inside the Senator's head. A clue: all strategery, no genuine thoughtfulness. Tastes great, but truly less filling. Per the Times:
Great, early news on the ground in Iowa for John Edwards, who continues to consolidate his support among caucus-goers. Most of the media has chosen to focus on Edwards' front-runner status, but the more interesting aspects of this poll are Obama's hard number (13%) and Hillary's decline since the last poll (from 26% to 16%). To focus on the Hillary issue, it seems that this new poll displays not only how weak her support is when it comes to actual voters, but also that after all this time in front of the nation, Iowans at least aren't buying what she will most likely be selling. As for Vilsack, the single digit showings don't help much.
At least UN AmbASSador John Bolton is consistent in his inability to be a diplomat. After attending a farewell dinner held at the White House for outgoing UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Bolton snidely joked that, "nobody sang 'Kumbaya.'" While a "joke," Bolton's comment is a clear window into why our nation's foreign policy is a disaster. President Bush has a knack for finding white guys with the distinct capacity for heaping scoops of hubris on top of ignorant indecency. Annan's laughing comment after being told Bolton's joke is a window into exactly how to handle these W. acolytes, and also the man's character: "But does he know how to sing it?"
One of my favorite professors my senior year at Georgetown was former United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, who taught a course on styles of political leadership throughout history. Ambassador Kirkpatrick was often late, but once she arrived and took her chair at the front of the classroom, the lectures began in her low, throaty voice with phrases like, "One time I was talking with King Hussein of Jordan, and he said..." I also remember she sometimes wore a bright pink raincoat, a choice that seemed so out-of-character it was a delight. Jeane was an intelligent, classy, respectful and serious woman and will be missed.
Meet the Press: Like everyone but Stephanopoulous, Russert is stuck with James Baker and Lee Hamilton, a duo who's passive recommendations will help Iraq probably about as much as Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton's aggressive recommendations assisted the nation's fight against terrorism. Word is that Lee Hamilton will soon publish his book, "Ignored Commission Recommendations Greatest Hits" sometime next year. A group of old white guys will also stop by to discuss the Study Group findings. Next.
In a stern editorial discussing the Iraq Study Group's "Report" today, The New York Times aptly notes that, "The world has watched as Mr. Bush painted himself into a corner and then insisted it was a strategic decision." Not only does this apply to Iraq, but it also describes the base-pandering Republican Party as molded by Karl Rove. Evidence of this Rovian Red Corner-painting is found in today's interesting column from Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post who writes:
Michael Kinsley writes an excellent and original main page article for Slate about the Bush twins and their failure to weigh in on the war created by their father. Kinsley writes:
A tasty morsel of hope in today's New York Times: Barack Obama is acting more and more like a candidate, giving well-attended speeches and meeting with possible donors. Some key graphs:
Due to odd L.A. programming for CBS Sunday morning, I was unable to follow my own advice, and only caught This Week (as well as the great Frank Rich column). This was the first glimpse of Evan Bayh that I've had, and I suppose two things struck me: he's calm and smart, and his voice is kind of radio-announcer-y. We'll see what happens with him. Vilsack also seemed calm and smart but his makeup was weird (red lips?) and it distracted me overall. The lame-o panel afterwards quickly wrote Vilsack off due to his lack of "passion" but I'm not sure what they expect; I doubt modern political passion requires full-throated zaniness, a la Howard Dean or Al Gore 2.0. Besides, when John McCain speaks he has the enthusiasm of a rural banker opening a savings account and no one seems to question his passion (or question him, period). And I don't think Hillary Clinton has any real passion beyond her trademark snark. Whatever though, right--at this early stage the pundits are at their weakest zenith in terms of power-- what matters most is signing up talent and raising the funds.
Meet the Press: Big yawn, here. I'm definitely sleeping in. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Sens. John Warner and Carl Levin, and former President Jimmy Carter. I wonder which one will wear the most colorful tie. That'll be the extent of the excitement on this one. Oh, and as an aside, I thought Tim Russert's interview last week with my Governor, Arnold the Tan, was ridiculous. As a double aside, I did not comment on Russert's interviews with Senators-elect Jon Tester and Jim Webb two weekends ago because the whole show was insulting. I don't even think Tim prepares for interviews with Democrats. His follow-ups are so passive aggressive it's sad. If I have to hear him ask one more Democrat what "redeployment" means... Anyway...
This Week with George Stephanopoulos: OK, double bookings are just lame. Surprise! George hosts Stephen Hadley. BUT George also has taped segments with Senator Evan Bayh and Governor Tom Vilsack. Maybe I'll TIVO this one. I wish the Bayh interview was live, but oh well. At least this show will try to be newsworthy.
Face the Nation: OK, triple bookings are just useless. Why even have these shows? Lord. Is everyone interesting busy? So you know the drill-- Captain Camera-Hog Stephen Hadley appears with Host Bob to spout the Party line about how Iraqis will stand up, we'll stand down, and how W. is God. Then we have much more interesting guest Senator Chuck Hagel, who may drop some hints about his 2008 plans. But, just to remind us that too much pleasure is a bad thing, we get to listen to oh-so-self-obsessed Joe Lieberman of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party talk about how pretty he is. Oy vey.
Pick: Face the Nation, with the Lieberman segment on mute.
December 1, 2006, 232pm PST:
The Washington Post's White House Briefing from Dan Froomkin is a tad heavy-handed, but a good summary of just why the evolution of our nation's Iraq policy no longer involves the President of the United States. The best quote comes from James Fallows, who contends that when it comes to where we go from here, "the choice is between a terrible decision and one that is even worse."
Even in law school, where they are all the rage, I never cared for study groups. Generally, individuals in any group are incentivized to practice restraint, be it with their wisdom, questions, or time. In study groups this restraint is amplified by blunt competition, and I don't care how nice or genial everyone is, there is a point where the group disperses and every man and woman is left to fend for themselves on exam day. Period.
Admittedly, the high level commission appointed by the President to "study" its way to a magical, feasible path towards fixing what W. and Dick have broken in Iraq (or what the White House website euphemistically terms "renewal") surely has none of this competitive "I-need-the-best-grade" bunk that normal study groups contend with. But the subtle political posturing required to be welcomed into such a prestigious "study group" or "commission" is pretty much a competition of sorts. And once inside the group, individuals retain their ulterior motives. Sure, Lee Hamilton and James Baker and whoever else is in the group (Sandra Day O'Connor? Can you believe that?) seek a similar field of result, that ever elusive "victory," but to quote Maureen Dowd's column from Wednesday: In Latvia, President Bush vowed [Tuesday] that "I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." But his words about Iraq long ago lost their meaning. Especially the words "mission" and "complete." How can this "study group" be expected to divine a solution to a problem not of its making, especially when the group is operating within a realm of Presidential semantics that make any realistic solution impossible? I look upon this commission like I would an internet term paper service college students use when they don't want to read the book--what will be delivered is result by proxy, or in this particular instance, leadership by proxy. W. is the failing student too desperate to study on his own and too incurious to dig in and earn the A+ like a person of character. The President has plenty of time to do what he loves (attend campaign parties across the nation, clear brush) but has no time to do what must be done to stop American soldiers from dying every day (create policy). Adding insult to injury, Jim Baker's commission is severely limited because the chief architects of the Iraq mess are still lurking over the process to clean it up, like lazy bullies demanding the nerd complete the assignment on time. Perhaps this is a great example of why inherited governance never succeeds. Throughout history, individuals handed governing leadership roles on the sole basis of filial affiliation often falter repeatedly, and even more often fail entirely. Being an executive requires a whole list of sacrifices, including doing many tasks that are tough by any standard. Being a political leader in modern America requires even heavier burdens. One has to want it, and badly. But W. is the President who never really wanted to be President; so much of his Presidency is wrapped up in his father's legacy, there is no room left for naive ambition or optimism or even truth. Rove & Company have ensured cynical, selfish "strategery" from day one. It has led to disaster. Even W. admits he's waiting to graduate so the next class can fix it all. I have little, true insight into what Baker and his "study group" will turn in to their intellectual purchaser, George W. Bush, on exam day. But reading quotes from W. like the one above, I can see it's already too late. Hopefully the inevitable end is that we bring the soldiers home as soon as possible. The best thing the rest of us can do is ensure that our next President knows what he or she wants for America, beyond victory and then winning re-election. Let's pick someone who will write their own term paper, or better yet, care about what grade the People give it.Looks like Senator Edwards will be in Des Moines tonight at the Barnes & Noble signing copies of his new book, Home. If you're in the area, it might be worth stopping by (even just to see the size of the turnout...).
Also this evening in Mount Pleasant, Governor Vilsack holds a potluck to pull the trigger on his announcement tour for the White House. I don't think Christie Vilsack's dish sounds appealing, but I guess what Tom is serving up is more important... grab a fork. I haven't been reading much about McCain's Iowa operation...I'm looking for any evidence he will take Iowa seriously this go-round and I'm not hearing much. Maybe he's too busy taking fancy photos for that website of his.Update: Political Wire notes rumblings that Hillary Clinton is not setting up necessary staff elements in Iowa, suggesting that she is watching Obama's moves before deciding to run herself or is skipping the caucuses entirely. If Obama runs and Hillary doesn't, I think the word "miracle" would be an appropriate response. I noticed that CNN is re-running clips of Vilsack's presidential announcement, but I also noticed how the announcer cited both Vilsack's support for gay unions and his single digit showing in the Democratic preference polls. On one hand, it's good they're even giving Vilsack coverage, but on the other hand, must the press highlight this kind of stuff even before a candidate leaves the gate? It's going to be a long election cycle....
Like I suspected, those ridiculous obituaries penned for Nancy Pelosi's power after her support of losing Majority Leader candidate Jack Murtha went nowhere were not only disingenuous but just plain lazy (Maureen Dowd cattily complained Pelosi's first move was to "throw like a girl." That MoDo leaves no cliche unturned...). Not so fast-- it's looking like the woman has what I believed Madeline Albright called "cajones." Pelosi will not select Jane Harman or Alcee Hastings for the Chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee... Well, done, Madame Speaker. Looks like no one will be forcing Pelosi's hands just yet (at least for now)... but you and I know the press won't see this as a gesture of strength from the Speaker-elect (which it is).
The Huffington Post is oddly concerned with something pretty useless today (are we surprised?). Namely, that a new poll shows John Kerry is the least liked Democrat and possibly least liked political figure (excluding W., naturally). Also, this new poll shockingly showed Americans like puppies more than little kids. Great stuff. Distractions are fun... focus, Arianna!
A noteworthy article yesterday from the Times about the dying breed of moderate GOP-ers. This ties in with my previous musings on Jim Leach and Lincoln Chafee, but sadly the article treats the moderate GOP flareout as one of cyclical, political realities and not one born of Bush and Rove tactics that put power above honor. Maine voters in particular voted for Sheldon Whitehouse because Bush and his 50% "mandate" in 2004 just became too painful to sit through. It seems that when a President and his cohorts start to decry partisanship while simultaneously calling the opposition party weak, unpatriotic and pretty much terrorist appeasers that these kinds of moderates fade. The article makes no mention of just who placed our country into these desperate times, and who forced voters' hands into taking desperate measures... but worth a read nonetheless.
Back on track! Thanks for your patience (presuming you're out there...)
Something happened to me on November 8th, 2006. I woke up and everything seemed a little easier. Traffic to work was nominal, the faces of my colleagues at work seemed genial, and all of my favorite websites pulsed with positivity. During my routine lunch-break walk the air spun a sweet scent and radiated a weak heat that California calls Fall. As the stumpy palm trees and fire-friendly grasses swayed with the wind, I was reminded of a passage in an essay written by the incandescently true Anne Lamott titled, Ham of God. In the essay, Lamott wrote:
Everyone I know has been devastated by Bush's presidency and, in particular, our country's heroic military activities overseas. I can usually manage crabby hope that there is meaning in mess and pain, that more will be revealed, and that truth and beauty will somehow win out in the end. But I'd been struggling...so much had been stolen from us by Bush, from the very beginning of his reign, and especially since he went to war in Iraq. I wake up some mornings pinned to the bed by centrifugal sadness and frustration. A friend called to wish me Happy Birthday, and I remembered something she'd said many years ago, while reading a Vanity Fair article about Hitler's affair with his niece. "I have had it with Hitler," Peggy said vehemently, throwing the magazine to the floor. And I'd had it with Bush.
Up until November 7, 2006 I too had had it with Bush. The dishonest politics, dismembered reasoning and disabled leadership all swirled into a quiet daily misery that clung to my leg like a playful child. There was no doubt about it: I had given up. I had learned to ignore this perpetual, nagging injury my daily life sustained, the result of the direct and aggressive insulting of my intelligence. Since 2000, I had more than lost my bearings, I had lost my national history. The past six years for me are a period of life marred by political disillusion and dispair. I have not recognized the sleepwalking country that is my own. Decency and hopefulness disappeared. When I was a sophomore in college, I headed to Washington, D.C., to attend Georgetown University, and no matter my politics (I was a safely closeted Republican) the knowledge imparted to me in my government courses was imbued with an overall tone clearly enunciated, a tone that mimicked what I had been taught growing up in Iowa: respect, collegiality and forward-looking perspective were the framework of my people and its government, and ideology was mere color on the canvas. If latent, petty hatreds existed, they were managed in the name of a greater purpose: getting along.
I distinctly recall the early morning George W. Bush was announced by cable commentators as the next President of the United States. My blunt and endearing grandfather Earl had just passed away, and my bags were packed for a return trip to Iowa to be with my family. The telephone in my dark, basement apartment on 31st street rang, and my mother said, "Can you believe this?" At first, I wasn't sure if she was referring to the grief we all felt over my grandfather's passing, or the prolonged, troubled election results. I immediately knew she had chosen the distraction, as would be natural, and meant the election results. In my family, politics was serious and significant. In fact, I recall asking my mother that evening if my now-deceased grandfather had voted. But you see, prior to that moment in 2000, American politics and family politics were very similar. They involved power and pressure and guilt and results, but all squeezed with a strong embrace of belonging and love. We were all in it together.
One of my clearest memories in life is returning from that very funeral. I was sitting in a window seat on a small Northwest Airlines plane, pulling away from a Kentucky airport gate. I was watching Katherine Harris' heavy, made-up mug certifying the votes that would make George W. Bush the next leader of the free world. My anticipation was salient, however misguided (I had voted for Bush). For me, looking back, that moment combines with the grief I felt for my mother's loss of her second parent. Knowing what I know today, that grief would shift its primary rationale and focus but would not leave me for six years. Not until this November 8th.
As a creature of routine, for once on November 8th, 2006, I welcomed with intensity the notion that everything must change, that absolute truth gets tested and unquestioningly yields to the arc of new orders. On the morning of November 8th, I felt as if the entire nation had thrown the proverbial magazine down, disgusted with being so viciously discounted for so long. W's "thumpin'" was my reason to believe. It should be a reason to believe for all of us.
Of course, I do not expect that the nation's political tonal trajectory will improve immediately. I am not stupid, but I am no longer put upon with the burden of lies being believed, no longer weighed down with the Rovian rhetoric of divide and scare.
In the late 80s, when I was nearing 11 years old, my grandmother Zita and I would conduct play-acted political interviews and tape them on an old black analog recorder. I played the role of Dan Quayle, the then current vice-president, and my grandmother played the cynical interviewer. My role consisted of playing dumb, and my grandmothers, of the inquisitive journalist. After recording these sessions, we would replay them and would laugh and laugh. I don't think I have experienced such pure laughter too often since those interviews. But together, our humor was as deeply joyful as it was harmless. At that time, making fun of political leaders was different, Despite our laughter and mockery, the powers that be governed, and our homes and churches and bedrooms were wonderfully quiet and absent of these leaders' judgment. These places sustained a spirituality and intimacy that was special and shared with only a few. The laughter about our leaders then contained no trace of nervousness. We feared our God, but never our Government.
9/11 did not shift this paradigm. Karl Rove did. And on November 8th, 2006, as I tossed my magazine down and loudly proclaimed, "I have had it with George W. Bush," something shifted again. Something righted itself.
I am reminded of two years earlier, on that clear, hot day of November 8th, 2004. I stood on the steaming concrete tarmac at Los Angeles International Airport waiting for my transit shuttle to move. I had just touched down from a month-long work project in Ahmedabad, India, and I was filled with stories of a foreign land and utterly exhausted. My tiny cell phone found its signal, and I excitedly dialed my brother in Chicago. The results. Who won? This time, I had voted for John Kerry.
"It's over, buddy," my brother said, with a sadness unmistakable between kin.
This November 8th, I thought of that moment yet again.
"It's over, buddy."
Well, yes, it almost is. And for this, for this, I am truly thankful.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Yesterday I began working on a legal project that requires my complete attention for 8 hours a day. Thankfully, it is located at a Hollywood office with lovely views of the hills. Regrettably, there is very limited internet access. While I am working to remedy this for the days to come, regular posting will not resume until tomorrow, Wednesday the 22nd.
Thanks for your patience and please check back soon.
Read Frank Rich from Sunday. Fully original and marvelous.
I had no idea Dick Cheney was that old.
Giuliani seems more serious than I suspected. Does he hurt or help McCain? Speaking of, I've been Exploring McCain, and it seems that like Stephen Colbert, the Senator doesn't see color. (More black and white than Bush, Chris?)
Newsweek's 2008 bench seems a tad narrow. Hagel? Is he even interested? Good for Vilsack, though... One man not on this roster is Senator Chris Dodd. He's the guy trying to restore habeus corpus, but the media doesn't seem to care much about stuff like that and would much prefer to highlight more unexamined topics, like, say, Joe Lieberman.
Let's just be honest, this is crap and we all know it. Not only did the woman make history, but she broke through a marble-reinforced ceiling that has persisted for years, even after most other nations have seen the light and moved on. Nancy Pelosi is now 3rd in the line of succession for the Presidency. But what kind of political discourse does this event generate? Nothing positive or hopeful, that's for sure. Maybe the bums that need to be kicked out are all of the reporters in this country. The fourth estate needs an Extreme Makeover, pronto.
Should we really apply male-created power rules and traditions to this situation? Objectively, women will and do make management decisions differently than men. Not much hay was made of Dennis Hastert blatantly covering-up the sexual aggressions of Mark Foley--what kind of a power decision was that? Were we supposed to applaud Hastert's turned cheek since he enabled Republicans to amass further power? Nancy Pelosi was guilty of taking sides in a minor (and healthy) power struggle. Rather than focusing on Pelosi's loyalty to Jack Murtha, her gestures of support were labeled as ones of weakness. Reports even indicated that no one in the Democratic caucus left the Majority Leader fight phased or disheartened. And yet the response in the MSM to Pelosi's choice is derision and a shake of the head. Howard Fineman and others like him have clutched their pearls in shock at the politics of it all, but their false shock is about as geniune as Bush's new bipartisanship. It seems the perfect person to address this matter is Maureen Dowd. I'll be on the lookout for her Saturday column tomorrow to see if she decides to rail against the press for furtively making Pelosi the bad Mommy.
Toyota's new truck assembly plant in San Antonio reminds me of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy for Democrats--take the fight directly into your weakest territory, and try to win 'em over with your best ideas. Methinks that in this instance, Toyota has the easier battle on it's hands. Regardless, this New York Times article about the new San Antonio assembly line hints at how the plant's success will have ramifications not only for U.S. manufacturing but for global technology innovation. Reminds me of the 2006 Democratic inroads in the West. Whether you want someone's vote or want them to by your Tundra truck, you won't get what you want if you don't show up and ask for it.
Garrison Keillor's latest essay may be lighthearted but his point is not. The 2 Senators per state tradition, despite the enormous population disproportion, has bothered me for years. That'll never change though.
Look at the new site for Senator John McCain:
If I missed this nuggest, perhaps you did as well... in a November 11th article (hidden in that tricky local section) discussing Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign staff situation post-Nov. 7 and her possible 2008 shuffling, the New York Times reported that:
What's going on? Do my Iowa readers suspect Vilsack is simply throwing his favorite-son wrench into the caucus combine just to pave Hillary's way? On one hand, this is just absurd-- who runs for President as a gesture of goodwill for another's ascendancy? On the other hand, it makes sick perfect sense. Perhaps the answer to my question is: someone who wants to be Vice President or possibly even Secretary of Education.
Have a great time, Mr. President!
Former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards appeared on The Daily Show last evening to promote his new book, Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives. The book is a compliation of narratives from over 60 Americans, sharing stories about their homes either as children or adults. Jon Stewart asked Edwards if he was running for President and Edwards said stay tuned to his website JohnEdwards.com.
Greg convinced me to sit down and watch last night's Frontline special on PBS, "A Hidden Life," which detailed the outing of Jim West, the former Republican mayor of Spokane, Washington. West passed away in July of colon cancer, months after being outed by a local newspaper and recalled from office in a whirlwind of troubling events reminiscent of "The Crucible." The show did a remarkable job in demonstrating how American politics has become a sad spectacle, an arena where the media refuses to make genuine judgments about political leaders' personal lives, allows rumor to become headline, and in some cases actively works to create facts to then sensationalize. It is amazing to me how willingly cynical some journalists are, to throw their hands up and put things into the public sphere without discretion, as if left with no option.
West was guilty of being a closeted homosexual, and little else. When the local newspaper, the Spokesman-Review, learned of West's true sexuality it determined his Party affiliation and past support for anti-gay legislation were enough to warrant ruining the man, first by entrapping him and then by printing details of the entrapment in addition to awful allegations of sexual child abuse (that were never proven). West's quiet hypocrisy was not illegal, and in a real sense no different than the political against-interest posturing of African-American or homosexual Republicans or even wealthy Democrats across the nation. Nor was his hypocrisy immoral; West was not married and had no children. While the paper sought to prove West used the power of his office to find government work for young men, the FBI investigation that followed found nothing wrong occurred and cleared West's name. West died just months after the investigation ended.
The most striking aspect of this uncomforting, sad report from Frontline was that the newspaper's reporting on West achieved nothing. Nothing, that is, but a ruined and broken man. If there was any evidence at any stage that West had actually behaved illegally, I would understand the effort to scrutinize him. But I couldn't help but wonder how different West's life would have been if he had lived a country where personal privacy extended to every citizen, and not just those who throw the most stones. It's something to think about as we enter the 2008 presidential race--there is something cruel and unusual about expecting our political leaders to be inhuman and then being disillusioned when they prove to be the opposite.
For wonks, anticipated Senate committee assignments in the 110th Congress. Foreign Relations looks stocked with the most 2008 hopefuls.
For jokesters, John Edwards appears on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this evening. Edwards announced his candidacy for President on the show in 2003. Can we expect a do over?
For optimists, do you really think competence and service get rewarded by this President?
Finally, I tried to do a FoxNews.com Cracker Watch this morning, but when I checked the site's main photo was of the freshman class for the upcoming House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, my calculator can't count that high...
One of my favorite political writers, Michael Kinsley, produces a piece in the Washingon Post today worthy of a read. His basic message is that policy by Commission is no way to run a Democracy. "If we had wanted our country to be run by James Baker, we had our chance," Kinsley notes. This is a solid point. The deference all parties are placing towards Baker is odd, considering his lack of elected office and distance from the People. I suppose desperate times call for desperate measures, but at least many top Democrats, including Senator Joe Biden, have dared to put their Iraq solutions into substantive form. "The chance that this group of aging white men, plus Vernon Jordan and Sandra Day O'Connor, will come up with something original is not enormous," Kinsley also notes. An ominous reality.
A New York Times mini-profile highlighting John McCain's loner Iraq position exposes the complex disingenuity of demanding more troops in the region after so many years of failure and a national consensus for some form of phased withdrawal. It should come as no surprise that McCain's position is aimed at his "base" instincts, and probably nothing more. The article quotes Leslie Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, saying, “He’s making the bet — and it’s not a crazy bet — that the country doesn’t want to lose. The public realizes we can’t afford to win and probably can’t win, but it doesn’t want to lose. And the Republicans probably won’t nominate anyone who’s prepared to accept that now.”
The State of Denial persists.
Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has endorsed Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha for the position of Majority Leader in the House, over Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer, who is also seeking the post. Buzz is that Hoyer will pull it off, but it's not certain. Here's an excellent and short interview Murtha did with Rolling Stone magazine back in December to remind you why you his ascendancy in the Party could be a good thing.
Looks like Michael Steele's homeless busing skills won't be put to use at the RNC after all. Florida Senator and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez will take the post.
I guess Katherine Harris was busy.
Salon's Walter Shapiro fitfully and briefly examines the impact of today's announcement by Senator Russ Feingold that he will not seek the 2008 Democratic nomination for President, noting that the field now excludes former hopefuls Feingold, Gov. Mark Warner and Senator John Kerry (if we're honest). Who is left in the race? It seems Hillary, Gore, and Obama top the charts with John Edwards and others (including Tom Vilsack) jogging behind. After six long years of dealing with a leader who says junk like this with utter seriousness, it is insane that the Democratic roster is stocked with such lukewarm possibilities. John Edwards is an intelligent, decent American, but the 2004 primaries proved the Democratic Party can't handle such direct simplicity in both message and policy. The atmosphere of fear engendered by the cynical Bush Team sidelines the effectiveness of appeals to hope or opportunity. Is there a mystery Governor who will come to the rescue?
If President Bush campaigned during the run-up to the midterm elections like it was 2004, baiting John Kerry's bluster as a last-minute tactic for GOP victory, on today's Meet the Press Senator John McCain picked a different race to run-- McCain's gonna run like it's 1999.
On a wide array of issues, whether Iraq, energy independence or the economy, McCain responded to Tim Russert's assertive questioning as if the events of the last six years were a mere nightmare from which America could easily awake, as opposed to the horrific reality that exists on the ground just outside of that Republican State of Denial. Iraq? More troops. Ethanol? Only worth exploring if oil is more than $10 a barrel. Minimum wage? Small businesses interests' trump the workers' needs. John McCain sounded like a candidate with the full trust of the American people, and acted like a Republican that was magically distinct from all of those that lost on November 7th. There was no indication that the last six years of secrecy, dissembling and dictatorial governance by the Bush Administration have impacted McCain. "Government changed us, we didn't change government," McCain oddly noted as a reason for GOP defeat. Doesn't this "us" include John McCain? It was hard not to wonder where exactly, besides setting up the framework for a White House run (and hitting up Jerry Falwell for base-centric "reconciliation"), the Senator has been hiding out while the rest of the Republicans spent and schemed the Party into ruin.
Maybe McCain's over-confidence made sense when the Straight Talk Express was pounding the pavement, but like McCain, America has changed somewhat since the 2000 presidential election. From the moment the war began Americans have been told, by men proud of their resumes and resolve, to sit back and trust their collective judgment. The "failed policy" McCain kept mentioning was developed by a group of conservatives that the Senator has already begun to seduce in his effort to become the GOP front-runner in 2008, a group that refuses to acknowledge that steady hubris leads to steady chaos. If McCain believes that he will need to seriously approach the electorate with substantive reasoning behind his position on Iraq, this was not evident today. Referring with knowing self-satisfaction to his "experience" in war, McCain called for more troops in Iraq, and soon, noting that Joe Lieberman's Connecticut Senate victory proves "some Americans" support our continued presence in Iraq (too bad that those "some Americans" are Connecticut Republicans and no one else, but no matter) and explicitly ignoring the stance of a strong majority of the nation at-large.
The most interesting moment came when McCain explained Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki's anti-American words and behaviors both before and after the U.S. election as simple opportunistic gestures required of a leader who must cover his bases when unsure of his allies. "I can understand why he took the position that he did," McCain noted. Of course McCain understands. It's just like going down there to Liberty University--sometimes you need a Falwell, and sometimes you don't. It all depends on what's best for your personal power. Straight talk, indeed.
[Note: Russert was true to his word with Don Imus, using a line of questioning to impliedly reveal that McCain did in fact blindly exploit John Kerry's "do your homework" joke by refusing to read Kerry's entire statement in context and also refusing to consider John Kerry's character and service to his country. A sad truth.]
Must be Don Imus day here, but I have to acknowledge this one... it's a beaut. Congressman Joe Barton, a man who kept the Combating Autism Act from going to a full House vote while acting as Chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce (and thus sparked the I-man's hilarious ire), is running for a leadership post in the newly-minoritized GOP House caucus. Today Barton had this to say:
"After prayerful consideration and literally hundreds of discussions with my colleagues, I have decided to seek the position of Republican minority leader. My guarantee is this: We will achieve a net gain of seats in each upcoming election cycle and if we do not regain the majority within three election cycles, I will not seek the position of minority leader in the succeeding session."
Say what, Joe? I love this for many reasons, but most of all because a Member of Congress has decided to quit pretending that legislation or policy even play any role in the process what-so-ever--it's all about the Power. Now we know what the "P" in GOP stands for... I sympathize with Imus' rantings on Barton even more...
On Don Imus this morning, Tim Russert briefly discussed his upcoming interview this Sunday with Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona. Imus asked Russert to quiz McCain about his apparent outrage over John Kerry's flubbed joke regarding war and homework and the President. From the unlimited pile of smooth pundits analyzing Kerry's gaffe, Imus was the only individual, to my mind, that called the GOP outrage what it was: disingenuous. I will be watching Meet the Press to see if Russert actually follows through and forces McCain to defend his comments against Kerry. At the time of the gaffe, McCain held the GOP line, calling Kerry's comments "an insult to every soldier serving in combat."
The New York Times is offering its caged columnists' opinions for free this week, in a sort of journalistic HBO-free-weekend kind of thing (when I was a kid, I remember thinking the HBO free weekend was the coolest occurrence ever, even if they just played Ghostbusters and War Games over and over). Such a broadening of the columnists' audience makes Maureen Dowd's recent column on all things W. and Rummy even more sad--MoDo is definitely phoning it in this week (I like how Don Imus assigned Charles to read the column this week, noting that it was just too much of a commitment to deal with Dowd's writing). While not awful by any stretch, it certainly isn't thought-provoking or necessarily original. Dowd has covered this W.-vs.-Daddy slant many, many times before, and this week she writes the obvious and notes that old 41's crew is on the warpath to make W.'s War Path one towards victory as opposed to chaos.
Go, Obama, go.