The Sectarian Violence Ate My Homework

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.

2008: Hawkeye State

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....

Post-Its: Pelosi, Hagel, and Obama-mania

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).

Weeks ago I doubted Senator Chuck Hagel's interest in the White House and a reader aptly pointed out Hagel was by no means out of the picture... here is some further evidence in a solid David Ignatius column... Hagel's conserative pragmatism and lack of superficial rhetoric would certainly have appeal to Iowans, I would suspect...

The other day I was waiting for the elevator inside the office building I am currently working at in Hollywood, and the lobby's flatscreen television monitor was tuned to CNN. Senator Barack Obama was on the screen giving an interview and I couldn't help but notice how everyone around the television lingered, watching the screen until the last moment when they stepped into the elevator car. There's no doubt the man turns heads... I hope his upcoming trip to New Hampshire goes well...

Speaking of 2008 hopefuls, has anyone checked out John Edward's book? Any reviews?

Finally, I really would have expected more from Brian Fellows, but alas, life goes on. For those of you who don't know, you're not missing much. But for those who do-- that goat has devil eyes.

Who Amongst Us Doesn't Like Kerry?

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.

Soldiers of Fortune

Back on track! Thanks for your patience (presuming you're out there...)

Behind the TimesSelect walls, Bob Herbert traveled the road most-definitely taken before in his New York Times column Monday, lamenting the reality that most of America's Malls are bustling with holiday spending while Iraq burns and American soldiers continue to die. While I'm game to go along with this semi-legitimate whining something about it is so absurd and misplaced it's just gross:

There is something terribly wrong with this juxtaposition of gleeful Americans with fistfuls of dollars storming the department store barricades and the slaughter by the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including old people, children and babies. The war was started by the U.S., but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it.

Personal responsibility, huh... while Herbert quotes some college students who bluntly acknowledge they feel no connection to W.'s moral crusade, he's left with college kids and materialistic mommies as the bad guys and no one else . This is all fine and nice, but when there is so much to be outraged about in this world (hello, poverty, genocide and disease) and when there are so many that are personally responsible for these things (uh, like the Bushes and Cheneys and such) shooting the student and shoppers is just weird. "Gleeful Americans with Fistfuls of dollars," Bob? Really? Come on. We have to question just what exactly people like Herbert mean when they say, "there is no sense of collective sacrifice in this war, no shared burden of responsibility."

I don't know about you, but I have heard this "where's the shared sacrifice?" talk from commentators towing the line on both sides of the political spectrum, and have always wanted them to elaborate. What would they like us to do? Who's responsibility is it to rally Americans to such a collective cause? And even if the President awoke from his fraternity-style detachment, what sacrifice could he offer us to lay down, beyond a token gesture of superficiality? Herbert mentions Representative Charlie Rangel's proposal to bring back the draft--but is mandated all-male army-making the kind of burden this nation needs? I have no answers here, but this brand of weepy "why aren't we all paying attention" column-making doesn't seem to achieve much.

Rampant consumerism is arguably a modern malady but I don't see how a woman buying towels at Restoration Hardware for her Christmas guests is a bad American or has not given any thought to the chaos in Iraq. Americans have given up on this war. The direct cause of this is George W. Bush.

Much better is Nick Kristof's Tuesday column, The Cowards Turned Out to Be Right, which quietly defends the journalists that have steadily turned out factual, balanced reporting from beyond the Green Zone in Iraq. Kristof ends his piece asking this: "how about if the administration devotes itself less to managing the news and more to trying to manage Iraq?"

Wouldn't it be nice?

Gratitude

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.

Lost Highway

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.

Friday's Last Gasp

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.

The Biggest and the Littlest Lady in the World

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.

You Want It, You Got It

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.