Friday morning--still defending torturing

The great "maverick" John McCain denounced torture for months, but then when he had a chance to vote on a Senate bill banning it, he voted against the bill. Some have speculated he did it to get the endorsement of some he loathes (like Mitt Romney). Others have said he can't be in opposition to Bush on this particular issue as it will be too easy to divide and conquer. I say he isn't as principled as he would like to suggest.

Marty Lederman points to the odious testimony given by Steve Bradbury (of OLC justifying torture fame) in a great post entitled Lowering the Bar: Well, At Least We're Not as Barbaric as the Spanish Inquisition (which oddly reminds me of conversations here):

Instead, Bradbury tried to reassure Nadler, and later Representative Franks, that the CIA's waterboarding was not as bad as press reports would have it -- that our variant of the technique is materially distinct from the sort of water torture used by (i) the Spanish Inquisition; (ii) U.S. forces in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th Century; and (iii) the Japanese in World War II. In those earlier historical examples, there was a "forced consumption of a mass amount of water," and occasionally the interrogators would stand or jump on the stomach of the victim, sometimes leading to "blood coming of the victim's mouth." Which apparently crosses the line. Thankfully, we do not do such terrible things.

Some of you will recognize that the technique Bradbury is disclaiming is the one often called the "water cure." The CIA doesn't use that. Instead, the agency apparently is using the less dangerous version of "waterboarding" -- the sort popularized by the French in Algeria, and by the Khmer Rouge.[emphasis mine]

Sigh.

*****

I would like to say that is the last word on torture. I am still amazed that we are in a country now where we "debate" the "morality" of torture. Thanks, George. And a special thanks to the moral majority people who backed his administration and stood by silent even when Bush defended torture. Thanks, guys.

Speaking of some of those people, Wiley Drake is back in the news. As our friend Tony notes, the IRS has announced an investigation into Drake's use of his church letterhead to endorse the Huck. Drake is unhappy, and we expect him to call down locusts or worse on the IRS. I am kind of surprised that he hasn't yet. But then again, I don't think that Mr. Drake is the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Then this morning, Bootlegger sent me this disturbing story about Paige Patterson suggesting that an advocacy group for victims of sexual abuse by clergy were "evil doers" who are "just as reprehensible as sex criminals."

This just reminds me of the problems of institutions and power. Certainly not unique to the right, but perhaps easier to do with people who seem to gravitate to more authoritarian power and hierarchy, Patterson and Drake are good examples of people who have become more enamored with power than serving people.

*****

This morning, we heard the President go back to his playbook:

"American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's still a threat on the homeland. There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," Bush said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need, to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it."

"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," the president said.

That really could go on his Presidential library as the quote that defines him. He has used a variation of this so many times. There is hope, actually, that democrats are finally refusing to cower in fear every time the President says "do what I say or the terrorists will kill you."

It might have something to do with the fact that the lapsing of the Protect America Act (PAA) won't substantially affect things at all. The old FISA law will kick back into effect. And authorizations granted under the PAA in the last six months to wiretap entire terrorist groups will stick for an entire year. In the words of House intelligence committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), "Things will be fine."

Keith Olbermann was in fine form in yesterday's Special Comment

“This Saturday at midnight,” you said today, “legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning, will be compromised…You said that “the lives of countless Americans depend” on you getting your way.

This is crap.

And you sling it, with an audacity and a speed unrivaled even by the greatest political felons of our history.

Richard Clarke — you might remember him, sir, he was one of the counter-terror pro’s you inherited from President Clinton, before you ran the professionals out of government in favor of your unreality-based reality — Richard Clarke wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.”

And I liked this part because it has always bothered me:

But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn’t even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.

“The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.” Believed?

Don’t you know?

Indeed.

Waterboarding, race and rape

Sully continues on this thread--that our focus on whether waterboarding is torture (of course it is) distracts us from other issues including the very real possibility (and likelihood) that many other interrogations used by our government are also torture.

*****

At a time when we might actually elect a man of color as President, we are reminded that racism is far from dead. A Utah state senator compared a bill he didn't like to a black baby:

Republican Sen. Chris Buttars' comment came during a debate on SB48, aimed at equalizing school construction funds. Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, called it "the ugly baby bill," but, as Buttars stood to vote, went further. "This baby is black. It's a dark, ugly thing," he said.

Worse than that, possibly, was his "apology:"

"I made a comment that I think a lot of people could take racist. I certainly did not mean that in any way but it was wrong and certainly could easily have been taken that way," Buttars said. "I apologize to anyone who took offense. . . . I ask for your forgiveness."

A Democrat said he appreciated the apology, but:

"I have no idea how it would be interpreted not to be offensive."

Yeah, me too.

*****

And let's not forget sexism. H/t to Feministing for this little gem from Kentucky.

Sen. Doug Henry, an 81-year-old Nashville Democrat, explaining to the state Senate his votes surrounding amendments to the abortion resolution: “Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, ‘Let’s don’t go forward with this act.’

*****

But somethings are really not about sexism, or at least not what some want it to be. David Shuster got in trouble for asking why the Clinton camp was "pimping out" Chelsea. He shouldn't have said that, but Hilary has made a bigger deal out of it than was merited. I am glad that Shuster is not going to be fired.

****

And a couple of disconnected posts I found interesting. This one attempts to debunk common free market myths about Canadian healthcare. This one suggests that our view of moderate Islam needs to be corrected. And speaking of the TPMCafe, they have an interesting discussion about E.J. Dionne's new book on religion in politics. Unfortunately, I can't find a good single link that connects us to the discussion. But check here and you will see some.

Wednesday morning

My back is improved, though not where I had hoped. I did some gentle stretching this morning and am moving around at a little better rate. At least I don't have to grab all the furniture as I make my way around the room. Sigh.

****

Watched the Daily Show last night. And am glad they are getting writers back. Still good, but will be much improved, I am sure. Last night, Jon did a great little bit about Huckabee's claim that he isn't the one who keeps bringing up his faith. The Huck said that on MTV and claimed that he always gets asked the "God question" but that isn't how he is framing his campaign. Jon, of course, followed that with some clips from actual Huckabee ads where he talked about his faith and, of course, the time he suggested changing the constitution to match God's laws. Or the time he said:

"There are only 10 basic laws that we need … the reason that the law is more complicated is because we try to find clever ways around those 10."

Additional reports at CBS News showed Huckabee taking his statement a step farther.

"I hope you know Jesus Christ personally…because the level to which he rules you and governs you, you need less and less of man’s law to tell you how to live and that is what our Founding Fathers understood and we must understand," he preached.

But he is tired of the God question. Right.

*****

Jon interviewed Bill Kristol who despite being wrong about everything still gets interviewed by everyone. How does one get that kind of job? I couldn't stomach watching most of it, but caught the last exchange where Jon asked him where he was on torture. Bill said something like "I am squishy on torture. On one hand, I respect John McCain and if he says it is not right to torture, I see that point. On the other hand, we evidently got a lot of good information out of these people at Gitmo that helped stop another attack." Jon said that "sounded almost human," which of course was a bit of a joke. But I thought it sounded chilling. His discussion of McCain's objections sounded very phony anyway, and the very idea that we are asking people "so, do you support torture" is chilling enough. I sure am thankful that this administration has turned us into a nation where people debate the morality of torture. Thanks, guys.

Telecom immunity passes

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall | Surveillance Bill Passes Senate:

"The Democratic-controlled Senate just passed the surveillance bill, 68-29.

As we have mentioned through the day and covered extensively at TPMmuckraker, most of the civil-liberties-friendly amendments to the bill failed. Retroactive immunity for telecoms survived."

Russ Feingold is not happy.

****

In other news, the administration is going to try 6 suspected terrorists at Gitmo and evidently if convicted they could be executed and buried there. Some suspect mostly to keep their cases away from federal courts. Because, you see, we have the best justice system in the world. Our administration simply doesn't believe in it. So much so that they evidently sent in a second team after some of the 6 were tortured to give the facade of acceptable evidence. They are called the "Clean Team." They clean up bad interrogations.

And we are exporting this democracy to others? Don't places like Syria already do this shit?

My back still hurts, but this hurts even more--updated again

Glenn Greenwald details just how bad our Democratic led Senate has acted today. As he notes:

"The Senate today -- led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 (and probably more) Democrats, in conjunction with an as-always lockstep GOP caucus -- will vote to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, thus forever putting an end to any efforts to investigate and obtain a judicial ruling regarding the Bush administration's years-long illegal spying programs aimed at Americans."

What is more, they tried to pass an amendment that would force Bush to at least limit his warrantless wiretapping to through this bill. Democrats couldn't muster the 60 votes necessary to even get that. The Dems split on most votes, but the Republicans voted lock-step every time.

I am forcing myself to get up and around to try to get the muscle spasms so I pulled out the Senate phone book and made few calls--telling the staffers very politely, that I was a concerned Democrat from a very red state and simply wanted to know why Democrats worked so hard to get the majority if they were going to give bush exactly what he wanted already. Most of the Dems who crossed over to vote with the automaton Republicans didn't have anything to say. "I haven't spoken with the Senator, I don't know." But two told me that they thought their Senator's point was that the telcoms had acted in good faith and so should not be prosecuted. I asked (again, politely) "how would the senator know this?" After all, the most galling thing about this is that the President, Vice President and assorted lobotomized lemming Republicans won't even say what the telecoms did. Bush and Cheney talk about what they "might" have done to protect our country.

That's justice for a certain few in America right now. Say you authorized waterboarding? No investigation because you thought you were doing something legal. A telecom opening up conversations, billing records, emails, text messages, (who knows?) for this rogue President? No problem and we won't even inquire further. I wonder if any of us would get that kind of consideration. For anything.

I called several and made their staffers say they would pass on my objections to their Senator. I don't know if that will really happen, and know even less if it makes any difference. I suspect those telecoms are pumping in large buckets of cash to these political coffers. All I could offer was outrage.

But following Glenn Greenwald's suggestion, I signed an online petition to urge the House to not fold like a rented suit as did our Senate Democrats. Please follow suit, even if it is an empty gesture.

Updated:

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall | If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em: "TPM Reader RL throws in the towel:

I actually like the idea of a unitary executive, because it implies that there could be a unitary citizen. I have begun to consider myself a unitary citizen. I am allowed (by virtue of the definition of a unitary executive) to pick and choose the laws I would like to follow, kind of Thoreau like.
I also like the idea of retroactive immunity paired with the unitary citizen. I could decide not to follow a stupid law and then forgive myself afterwards.

But it begins to sound like (horrors) anarchy. Maybe that's what we now have as a form of government: unitary anarchy. I like it. It works for me!"

Update 2:
Froomkin is equally unimpressed with the logic protecting telecoms:

"Here's a White House ' Fact Sheet' on telecom immunity: 'Companies should not be held responsible for verifying the government's determination that requested assistance was necessary and lawful -- and such an impossible requirement would hurt our ability to keep the Nation safe.'

But isn't that the very definition of a police state: that companies should do whatever the government asks, even if they know it's illegal?"

Scalia really does love the 24

Wow, and he is on the Supreme Court.

Damn hip flexors

Or something.

Yesterday was a bit of a stressful day. Nothing terrible, mind you, but stressful nonetheless. I was going to blog last night about music and how much better last year's albums seem to what I am anticipating this year.

Then my back seized up. Actually, they are back spasms and I haven't had them this bad for quite a while. Somewhere in the connection between the lumbar region and how it connects to my right hip is not happy. Furious, actually.

Ok. That is it for now. Hopefully, I will have more later. When I can move better.

Bush and taxes

Crooks and Liars points to one of the more ridiculous arguments coming out of this administration: We can't raise taxes on the rich because they will simply not pay them.

If they’re going to say, oh, we’re only going to tax the rich people, but most people in America understand that the rich people hire good accountants and figure out how not to necessarily pay all the taxes and the middle class gets stuck.

Really? That is your argument for not taxing the rich?

Sigh.

Huckabee as VP candidate?

(H/T Mary) A Kos diarist responds:

"In the middle of a hugely unpopular war, take the most aggressively pro-war candidate and make him Commander in Chief. Then, what the hell -- add a heavy dose of hardcore, far-right evangelical Christian rhetoric to the mix. 'Bombs for Jesus': doesn't that sound like the bestest idea ever? The whole problem with Bush, you see, was the annoying subtlety with which he pursued his highly complex and well-thought-out positions. Can't we just distill that down to even more explicit support for unending 'preemptive' military action, and explicit declarations of Jesus-based manifest destiny?"

Just another Reason to vote for Obama

Our less-than-smart leader spoke out on Barack Obama this morning on Fox (of course) where he said that Obama would attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad.

Obama's campaign responded this morning. 'Of course President Bush would attack the one candidate in this race who opposed his disastrous war in Iraq from the start. But Barack Obama doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation,' said spokesman Bill Burton."

Perfect.

Elsewhere in the interview, he defends torture.

BUSH: First of all, whatever we have done, was legal. And whatever decision I will make, will be reviewed by the Justice Department to determine whether or not the legality is is there. And the reason why…there’s a difference between what happened in the past and today is there’s new law. And um, and so to answer your question, whatever we will do will be legal. The American people have got to know that what we did in the past gained information that prevented an attack and for those who criticize what we did in the past, I ask them which attack would they rather have not permitted…stopped? Which attack on America would they have said, you know, well, maybe that wasn’t all that important? That we stopped those attacks. I’ll do what’s necessary to protect America within the law. That’s what you gotta understand. And um, [nods head]

It wasn't torture then because it wasn't illegal. Now there is a law in place, but if you want it followed you have to choose which attacks you don't want to stop.

Someone said the other day that Bush is smarter than he appears. He would have to be, wouldn't he?

Cheney speaks

The Swamp: Dick Cheney: "Damn right" we'd do it all again: "Cheney rigorously defended the interrogation of detainees in the war on terror, and insisted that it has been lawful.

“The United States is a country that takes human rights seriously… We do not torture,’’ he said. “America is a fair and a decent country… The war on terror is, after all, more than a war of arms and a test of will. It is a war of ideals.’’"

What can you say?

Good god

With Mitt Romney suggesting that voting for a Democrat is the same as voting for the terrorists to win, Mike Huckabee comparing himself to Jesus, David and whatever other Biblical figure he thinks will make the faithful vote for him, and this McCain "joke" about Chelsea Clinton in 1998, I am beginning to wonder if the far right of the GOP isn't completely hateful and deluded. The fact that they are largely Christian just makes it sadder. As this blogger notes, when David Shuster said something stupid about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" by her mother's campaign, he was suspended. But the man who said called her ugly in a hateful joke, is poised to be the next President of the US. Great.

Jon Stewart to Mitt Romney: F You!

Thanks to Anglican for alerting me to this gem.

One more CPAC and GOP goodie

Sadly, No! -- The Beast is Red, Chapter 9: Brought Me To Darkness, But Not Into Light:

"Rachel Marsden, all-around conservative gadfly, is giving out free t-shirts to those who can answer questions about Ronald Reagan. The t-shirts, which Rachel had made herself, read, “C.I.A. CENTER FOR AQUATIC EXCELLENCE - WATERBOARDING TEAM”. The crowd just came apart when they saw this — biggest laugh of the convention so far. Torture is hilarious!"

Just remember that the next time a Republican lectures you on moral values. They think waterboarding and torture are fine as long as we do it. That is the level of their morality--"do unto others, period and make the shit legal."

Rant of the week

And it isn't mine. Sadly, No! covers Bush's CPAC speech (obscenity warning), and this is just one of the great lines:

"He’s stupid in the truest sense of the word: willfully ignorant and determined to surround himself with people who keep him that way, not only resistant to different ideas but actively hostile towards them. He is neurologically incapable of thinking ahead and he consigns the consequences of his actions to the status of dreams. And he forced his country into a pointless, unnecessary, unconscionably wasteful war that will poison every aspect of American life for generations."

Durbin stands up to Mukasey

In a very interesting response to the AG's refusal to investigate waterboarding because “no one who relied in good faith on the Department’s past advice should be subject to criminal investigation for actions taken in reliance on that advice.” Durbin points out the flaw in that response:

"However, I did not request nor suggest that those who relied on the Justice Department’s advice should be investigated. Rather, as I said in my letter, “a Justice Department investigation should explore whether waterboarding was authorized and whether those who authorized it violated the law”"

Which, not to blow my own horn, was my point when I first posted on this. I agree that we should not hang out someone to dry who did their job (although that whole "following orders" thing sounds a bit hollow too), but certainly we should investigate how this process was legalized.

Durbin then slams the AG pretty well. He points out the that as a nominee, Mukasey promised to review the "OLC opinions regarding surveillance, interrogation techniques, and detention standards"--a promise that he had not fulfilled. But then Mukasey told the committee that the torture memo writer (Steven Bradbury) had served the OLC as an exceptional lawyer. How did Mukasey know, asked Durbin, if he hadn't reviewed the OLC decisions? Good point. Reminds me of Mukasey's predecessor who assured us that no lawyers were fired for improper reasons. Why were they fired? He had no idea. But nothing improper.

In this case, Bradbury wrote an opinion:

on so-called “combined effects,” which authorized the CIA to use multiple abusive interrogation techniques in combination. According to The New York Times, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved this opinion over the objections of then Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who said the Justice Department would be “ashamed” if the memo became public.

That was wrong, of course, because what Comey didn't realize was that the moment Gonzales took the AG position, he did away with the ability to feel shame.

Friday morning sigh

So much for the post-SOTU bounce as Bush dropped back to 30% approval. Who are these 30%, though?

And what are they approving? Good question. Perhaps it is his unbelievable sense of denial. You know. As when Bush compares himself to Lincoln. Or when he told the CPAC meeting yesterday that Cheney was the best VP in American History. Those 30 percenters must be the only ones who don't think that Cheney is some kind of satanic figure. Sadly, No has a pretty funny romp through the CPAC gathering complete with what appears to be the record for American flags at the front of the room. Because Samuel Johnson was wrong when he said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

And just what are these soundrels up to? AG Mukasey went back to the hill and revealed a few little tidbits. He won't investigate whether the waterboarding that the WH now proudly admits was a crime, or whether the warrantless wiretapping was illegal. Why? Because both programs were signed off by the Justice Department, so that makes them legal.

Huh? As Obsidian Wings notes, future admins should take note. If you can put an idiot in Justice--or multiple idiots--they can save you a lot of trouble. Whatever they say goes, and since they work in the same department that would investigate problems in the White House, you are done. Mukasey dodged it by suggesting that then the people who took the actions assuming they were legal would now be in jeopardy. But what about investigating to find out if the program was illegal? What about simply investigating to find out if the process worked? What about finding out if the people who said it was legal had even thought about it? Too much for this White House and what you get is something approaching tyranny.

And no, I don't think I'm overreacting. When the Executive asserts the right to disregard the will of Congress without any possibility of judicial review, that is tyranny.

Speaking of a lack of oversight:

Michael Mukasey said today that if Congress passed contempt citations against current and former White House officials based on their refusal to respond to subpoenas, the Justice Department would not enforce them, as federal law instructs.

Why?

Enforcing the contempt citation is "not permitted when the president directs a direct adviser of his, somebody who directly advises him, not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce document."

If the President says it is ok, that is it. Just file this away for a potential Democratic White House. That big file of stuff that right wingers would never tolerate from a Clinton but think is "reasonable" from this guy.

And speaking of reasonable. Or unreasonable. Harry Reid says that Bush is demanding that the Senate confirm one guy--and he won't compromise. Shock. Reid said he called Josh Bolton and offered to compromise and push through a lot of backlog appointments.

He called me back and he said, “Well, what we want is to have a recess appointment of Steven Bradbury.” I said, “Josh, I don’t know who he is. Let me check.” I checked with Chairman Leahy, I checked with Senator Durbin, who’s a member of that committee, I checked with Senator Schumer, who’s on that committee. And they and others said, “You got to be kidding.” This is a man who’s written memos approving torture, and that’s only the beginning. Senator Durbin, if he has time today, will lay that out in more detail.

So I called Josh back and I said, “Josh, that man will never get approved, he just has not credibility.” He said, “We’ll look with the President.” He called me back and said, “It’s Bradbury or nobody.” I said, “You mean you’re willing to not allow 84 of your people get approved because of this guy?” He said, “Yeah, that’s what the President wants.”

What a great leader. And 30% of the country thinks that. Well, at least we have a few sane Republicans left. Let's hope for more of him and fewer CPAC attendees.

Sigh.

Heh

Craig Ferguson On Fox News: "Yelling Doesn't Make Stuff True!" - Media on The Huffington Post

A reminder

Found this exchange looking for how the religious right responded to torture. Richard Land did denounce torture, though he waffled a bit in his take on how to treat those who fight without uniform. But I don't think I have ever seen him publicly criticize Bush on this issue. Has anyone?

But my favorite exchange was when Randall Balmer did a little history lesson reminder on the origins of the Religious Right:

"C'mon, Richard, you're a better historian than that. The Religious Right did not coalesce as a political movement in response to the 1973 Roe decision. The catalyst was a lower-court decision, Green v. Connally, which upheld the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service to rescind the tax-exempt status of institutions that engaged in racial discrimination. Bob Jones University of South Carolina stood in the crosshairs of that decision, and that is what motivated evangelical leaders to become politically active; abortion was cobbled into the political agenda in the late 1970s, in preparation for the 1980 presidential campaign, and not in direct response to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Despite the labored efforts of the leaders of the Religious Right to style themselves as the 'new abolitionists' in order to draw a moral parallel with the 19th-century evangelical opponents of slavery, the Religious Right organized as a political movement effectively to defend racial segregation."

I really start to hate the GOP

When they do shit like this. NPR: Romney Leaves Presidential Race:

"'If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,' Romney said, saying that a Democratic president would leave Iraq too soon and this would be like a surrender to terror."

If Democrats win, we will all die. The Republicans have run with this to the bank for so long, but it is so offensive and horrible. Here is hoping that McCain won't be such an ass about things.

And let's remember just how well this party has governed. After years of Bush swearing we don't torture, the White House now admits we do. Sort of. Actually, they admitted to waterboarding but want to keep it as an option if authorized by the Prez himself. Which suggests that Bushy was the guy who said "ok" to it before. But here is the kicker. They say it isn't torture. Even though waterboarding is widely considered to be torture, they say no. And why isn't it torture? Because the Administration's pet lawyers said it was legal, so therefor they know it can't be torture, because we don't break the law.

These people are horrible. But even more than that, we still hear a deafening silence from the right about this practice (except McCain). Religious conservatives are still silent. On torture. On the fact that their President Jesus committed war crimes. Silent.

Scumbag

Talking Points Memo | Bush: I Will Veto Any Surveillance Bill That Doesn't Protect Telecoms

The American people and the judicial system can go screw, but the telecoms will be protected.

SIGH@!

Post Super Tuesday

In the good news column, Obama did very well. Looks like the horse race is on, however, and we are far from done with this contest. I am still very proud that the Democratic party is divided between voting for a woman and a person of color. That is historic and should be celebrated.

On the other side, I am still a little stunned at the hatred from the far right toward John McCain. Has the GOP shifted so very far to the right that they really think that someone like John McCain is a liberal? That seems ridiculous on its face. James Dobson, for example, is all upset:

"I'm deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

I love how opposing tax cuts makes you a liberal. Why does Mr. Dobson not want us to pay for his wars? Where does he find that in his giant Bible? And the foul language? Come on. Was he equally upset by Dick Cheney's use? I doubt it.

Bible Belt Blogger notes that and has a nice little shot at the entire public prayer idea so loved by the right.

Dobson's wife, Shirley, is chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force. Once each year, she gets invited to the White House so that she and President Bush can publicize the power of prayer with the television cameras rolling.

If Sen. McCain becomes President McCain, will he continue to allow Dobson to pray in the East Room each May? Or will he tell Ms. Dobson to "enter into thy *#@!#% closet, and when thou hast shut thy *#@!#% door, pray to thy Father which is in *#@!#% secret..."

Hmm. Making a show of prayer. That is just so Godly.

But what is even more troubling for the Christian right is that Dobson cares more about John McCain's language than he does about our current President's defense of torture. Actually, Bush said in 2005:

“We do not torture,” Bush declared in response to reports of secret CIA prisons overseas.

Of course, at the same time, Bush was supporting Dick Cheney's effort to stop the Senate from outlawing torture.

January '09 really can't come quick enough. And if this primary means that people like James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh lose power, then that can only be good for our republic.

Just a reminder

Of how important this election is. Bush, evidently, imagines that he is like Lincoln. Sigh. And A new book suggests that the head of the 9-11 commission was able to keep some of the worst info about Rice and Bush from the final report.

Super Bowl Sunday WOOOOOOO--and John McCain scares Repubs silly

And I do mean silly. But about the game. We are going to watch with friends, and I am kind of looking forward to the game, but not in any kind of frenzied way. Here is hoping that the commercials are better than they have been. What was it the last couple of years? Flatulent horses and K-fed? Pass. I would take a well-played game. That would be cool.

****

But about McCain, a very (VERY) conservative relative sent me an email warning of the liberal leanings of John McCain. Evidently, if Republicans don't get their act together, they will end up with a RINO (Repub in Name Only). Evidently, McCain has dangerous "liberal tendencies." WTF?

Is it wrong for me to giggle? Especially when the email (the forwarded part) points to other conservatives who agree. Such luminaries as Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and Lynn Westmoreland. Yep, him.

But then I really started chuckling.



No, not the forgettable Wayne Allard (is he still a Senator?). No, below him. Good old Neil. The same one who was at the helm of Silverado Savings and Loan. The same one who admitted to having sex with women in Thailand who

simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them.

What good company and what moral and upright people to advise the base. Was Duke Cunningham unavailable?

Richard Clarke on Bush's legacy

Bush legacy: Setting a standard in fear-mongering | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/01/2008: "In order to defeat the violent Islamist extremists who do not believe in human rights, we need not give up the civil liberties, constitutional rights and protections that generations of Americans fought to achieve. We do not need to create Big Brother. With the administration's attempts to erode FISA's legal standing as the exclusive means by which our government can conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons on U.S. soil, this is unfortunately the path the president is taking us down.

So it is no surprise that in one of Bush's last acts of relevance, he once again played the fear card. While he has failed in spreading democracy, stemming global terrorism, and leaving the country better off than when he took power, he did achieve one thing: successfully perpetuating fear for political gain.

Sadly, it may be one of the only achievements of his presidency."

More conservatives for Obama

And not in the "easier candidate to defeat" way that some support Hillary. This guy wrote speeches for Reagan and Nixon and now wears an Obama '08 pin.

But even in this unsettled campaign season, the conversion of Hart -- speechwriter for two Republican presidents, former writer for the National Review, and patron saint of the notorious Dartmouth Review -- to Obama's banner is cause for a double take. Nancy Hart said she believes her husband is emblematic of a larger class of old-school Republicans disenchanted with the status quo.

“People who are disgusted with Bush,” she said. “A lot of them are.”

Professor Hart suggests that our labels are often misguided and points to Bush's policies as evidence:

Hart's estrangement from George W. Bush's brand of conservatism -- which Hart describes as “radicalism,” citing an expansion of federal spending and aggressive foreign policy -- began some time ago. After voting for Bush in 2000, Hart says he supported Sen. John Kerry in 2004. In the 2006 Congressional elections, Hart cast a ballot for Democrat Paul Hodes -- not Charlie Bass, the Republican whom Hart had voted for six times — out of frustration over the Iraq War, which he says has been mishandled.

“It's all wrong,” Hart said. “It's not going to be a beacon of liberty. There's no indication that Bush or Wolfowitz or Cheney looked at Iraq and said, ‘What are the problems here?' It’s as if Eisenhower did D-Day not knowing whether they had a cliff or a swamp on the other side.”

Hart also finds the GOP's aligning with religious conservatives problematic, as well as their inability to address key domestic issues, such as healthcare.

Steve and Tony are not the only grownup Republicans. Perhaps the others are standing and demanding to be counted. I applaud and say "welcome to the reality-based community."

See, Huckabee has principles

Jimmy Carter invited the Huck to speak at the big Baptist Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant. Al Gore and Bill Clinton are speaking, and even the Methodist Hillary will attend. Huckabee was originally on board, but then changed his mind:

"At the time, Huckabee expressed fears about the meeting’s direction. “I feel it would be best for me to decline the invitation and to not appear to be giving approval to what could be a political, rather than spiritual, agenda,” he told the Florida Baptist Witness."

Because Huckabee is very serious about his faith and doesn't want to pollute it with politics. Even though he felt so seriously about the nation's spiritual health that he left the ministry to enter politics. But the Huck has principles and fancy pants to match. Oh wait.

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says he did nothing improper by holding a political fundraiser in a Texas televangelist’s church sanctuary last week.

The event, which coincided with Kenneth Copeland’s annual Ministers’ Conference, was held at Eagle Mountain International Church in the Fort Worth suburb of Newark. Preachers from around the country who had gathered in the sanctuary for the religious event stayed for the Huckabee fundraiser.

I love it when religious people pat themselves on the back for being so very virtuous.

Why Obama?

Steve asked in the comments for a reason to vote for Obama. I have been wrestling with partisan ship and general angst the last few days. Some of it about personal stuff that is largely unimportant, some just moodiness, some the weather, etc. But I have also had a conversation with a conservative Christian republican who might be considered one of the 29 percenters--you know, those rare Americans who think Bush is doing a "heckuva job." The disconnect between us was jarring. Liberals are essentially socialists and unpatriotic--unless they support the President. Conservative policies don't have any unintended consequences. Republicans make mistakes, but only when they act like Democrats. Sigh.

That is part of what Obama, out of all the candidates brings to the table. I liked John Edwards too. I think he is a good person and has broadened the debate to focus on poverty and the working class. But Obama has a chance--a chance to do something beyond that. To be cliched, voting for him is a vote for some kind of optimism. Bush has taught us for the last 8 years to vote out of fear--fear of what the terrorists will do, and what the Democrats might do. (I can't tell you how many conservaives have suggested as much--they understood that Bush wasn't great, but what Kerry or Gore might do was terrible. Sure, Bush might torture and ignore a Hurricane, but Kerry might have, gasp, addressed climate change.)

Andrew Sullivan, in Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters suggests that the country has been divided over that Baby Boomer generation's central conflict of VN. That certainly was true about 2004's election:

"At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce."

Clinton plays to that divide in a way that her husband, I think, didn't as President--though he certainly has as potential First Husband. McCain is still a legacy of that generation and is more likely to continue failed Republican policies. Obama, whatever you think of his policies, has a chance to return us to something approaching a normal political debate where conservatives and liberals can debate the merits of proposed taxation policy.

Homer and Marge: The Worst President Ever

Just saw this episode and it is actually pretty good. Homer invents grunge rock and becomes a diabetic from drinking too many frappuccinos.

Mukasey: it isn't a crime if the President does it

Salon.com | Mukasey's radical worldview is now the norm: "Mukasey explicitly embraces the most extreme theories of presidential omnipotence and lawlessness and displays as much Cheney-ite contempt for the notion of Congressional oversight as the Vice President himself. He repeatedly endorsed patently illegal behavior -- including torture -- and refused even to pretend that he cared what the Senate thought about any of it. He even told Republican Senators that they have no right to pass a whistleblower law allowing federal employees who learn of lawbreaking to inform Congress about it, because such a law would infringe on the President's constitutional powers. In Mukasey's worldview, the President has unlimited power and Congress has none."

Right wing dialogue

Glenn Greenwald - Political Blogs and Opinions - Salon: "Writing about last night's GOP debate, John Hinderaker of Powerline, Time's 2004 Blog of the Year, shared this observation:

"Businessmen, in my experience, are generally more idealistic than politicians. Businessmen really do make deals with a handshake. No one would dream of doing that with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the Clintons. . . .
I don't view this as an argument in Romney's favor. As President, he wouldn't be dealing with honorable, law-abiding businesspeople. He would be going up against the Vladimir Putins, Osama bin Ladens and Harry Reids of the world."

That passage was then promptly quoted by National Review's Mark Steyn, who said that Hinderaker 'might be on to something.'"

Quote for the day

The Anonymous Liberal says he wishes people would stop blaming Giuliani's collapse on bad campaign strategy:

"Giuliani lost because he's a creepy weirdo, and the more you see him, the more that becomes apparent. Moreover, his entire campaign was built around the fact that he happened to be the mayor of a city that was attacked by terrorists, and even stupid people eventually realized that wasn't a particularly compelling rationale for being president."

Wednesday morning

Or at least I think it it. I am sure glad I missed the SOTU address. I don't think I could have handled watching this man talk. Few seemed to like the speech and thought it was phoned in, or should have been. Sometimes it seems like he understands he is in over his head and is just stalling to pass on his disasters to the next guy. For example, as I read/hear this story, the military budget just signed into law doesn't include the war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, or more accurately, just includes enough to get them through the end of Bush's disaster. The next President will be saddled with a huge problem right off the bat. Thanks George.

And then there are his insidious signing statements. He added one to that military bill too. Says he may not do what the law says. And what was objectionable in the bill?

The President just signed the Defense Authorization Act, which has two provisions that are relevant to contractor accountability. The first, section 841, added through an amendment sponsored by Senators Webb and McCaskill, would establish an independent commission to study the waste, fraud, and abuse in wartime contracting. The second, section 846, would improve whistleblower protection for contractor employees who report abuses by contractors.

The only wrinkle, however, is that the President issued one of his infamous signing statements, singling out these and two other provisions that the White House says "purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief." According to the statement, "[t]he executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

Senator Webb has said that he’ll nonetheless move forward quickly to establish the commission.

Yes, by all means, make sure you cover up the corruption of your administration. Yes, by all means, punish whistleblowers as you have already. And who dares to challenge the imperial Bush who can commit America to whatever he wants. Congress, as we have discussed, is a nuisance to King George.

****

I have been thinking more about the Faludi book and our conversation on women and their supposed natural role. She notes how biased the media coverage was about the victims of the attacks. Widows--and that meant stay-at-home-mom-Widows--were on every talk show and featured and lamented in every magazine. Widowers were largely unnoticed, unless they had young daughters. And as long as those widows kept their domestic role, they were golden. If they dared step out of that mold, as the Jersey Girls did by criticizing the President, they became horrible shrews who enjoyed their tragedy. Some of the widowed firefighters were raised up as suitable victims, but when one had an affair with another firefighter, it hit the fan and she was the villain. Not him. She stepped out of her acceptable grieving role and became some kind of siren. He was a victim of seduction.

And that is part of why I object to this idea of "natural" attached to actions like family abandonment or staying with the kids. Under that model, when the man stays with the family and is responsible, he is really rather heroic, because according to many, he is going against his "natural instincts." After all, he has much less natural connection to the family and the kids. The guy who leaves his family is then actually just weak, but also following his natural instinct. When the woman stays with the kid, she is remaining true to her nature. Human choice starts to get blurred here as do the complexity of these individual human relationships.

Sigh

I did not watch Bush last night. I just can't. Listening to him talk is just more than I can take. Watching him talk is even worse--with the smirk, and the silent laugh, and the shoulder shake. Sigh.

But this is an interesting trend. Actual media fact checking! Who would have thought about something this radical. At least NPR fact checked the speech and suggested that the President was not being honest when he said this about the FISA law:

"Unfortunately, the Congress set the legislation to expire on Feb. 1. This means that if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. The Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."

The NPR blog disagrees with how the President defines what will expire, but I was most taken with how he described (again) telecom immunity. "The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America." Believed? Doesn't he know? Doesn't anyone know? And if they didn't do anything, why give them immunity? And if they did nothing wrong, why give them immunity?

Speaking of that FISA vote, yesterday Democrats were able to defeat a Republican move that would have guaranteed telecom immunity and all sorts of other hideous provisions. We aren't out of the woods yet, but we have more time, as the blog Obsidian Wings puts it: to fight another day. So if you are inclined to make a phone call, now is the time. But speaking of this train wreck of a bill, our great leader has threatened to veto if congress were to simply pass a one month extension. Glenn Greenwald points out just what that means:

This veto threat is one of the President's most brazen acts ever, so nakedly exposing the fun and games he routinely plays with National Security Threats. After sending Mike McConnell out last August to warn that we will all die without the PAA, Bush now says that he would rather let it expire than give Congress another 30 days. He just comes right out and announces, then, that he will leave us all vulnerable to a Terrorist Attack unless he not only gets everything he wants from Congress -- all his new warrantless eavesdropping powers made permanent plus full immunity for his lawbreaking telecom partners -- but also gets it exactly when he wants it (i.e., now -- not 30 days from now).

*****

I am reading more of the Faludi book. It relates so well to several of the conversations we have had on this blog. She contends that immediately after 9-11, people (and especially conservative commentators) started talking about how needless and even harmful feminism was to our culture. Faced with terrorism, they argued, nurturing little boys or trying to teach healthy conflict resolution was national suicide. Of course we had Falwell's rant that feminism and their "fellow travelers" allowed 9-11 to happen (which he still argued right before his death). The National Review accused feminists of taking the side of terrorists, and another suggested that American multi-culturalism was actually encouraging the spread of radical extremism in the Muslim world. Others charged that feminism had undermined us by making the men more like women--almost indistinguishable. Faludi noted the parallel statement by the Taliban attorney general Maulvi Jalilullah Maulvizada, "who had earlier told a journalist that when women are given freedom, 'men become like women.'" (23-24) Bill Bennett said that feminism had infected generations of men teaching them that violence was "always wrong." Mark Steyn made fun of Oprah and any women calling for peace. Susan Sontag and Barbara Kingsolver were pilloried and hated for suggesting some reasoned response to 9-11--some measure of introspection. Fallwell did it by blaming gays and feminists, and he was chided. Sontag and Kingsolver got death threats. Katha Pollitt was told to "go back to Afghanistan, you bitch."

What was most interesting to me was her contention that in this post 9-11 world, the contributions of women outside the home became almost invisible. Even those women who participated in the rescue effort, or who lost their lives trying to rescue people in the World Trade towers were ignored. Instead, the male fireman was elevated to a superman-like status. The heroes of flight 93 were assumed to be the men, not the women flight attendants or passengers. Police and fire departments across the country started hiring women less and less, because the political climate had changed. The Bush admin no longer even participated in gender discrimination employment suits. The message was clear--you women don't belong out here with the men.

It is that context, I think, that is the backdrop of both Al Mohler's concern about "women graduates" and groups like the Godmen's concern about "wussified men."
Faludi contends that our response to 9-11 was not to look at our culture, our foreign policy, our consumption, etc., but to simply go back to previous narratives to help us. In this case, the dominant narrative was the heroic masculine man and the helpless female. Even when that didn't fit. Not only in the case of those female responders at the WTC, but also in the narrative. The most telling detail, at least for me, was when the Bush people organized a PR film with some people from Hollywood to spin the GWOT. This film (which I completely missed) was called "The Spirit of America" and evidently played in thousands of theaters across the country. A montage of scenes from American cinema celebrating the male hero--and bookended with the opening and closing scenes from the Searchers. For these people, the American hero was Ethan Edwards, a racist killer who rescued his own niece, true, but after he attempted to kill her himself.

Sigh.

Post SOTU music

To get the sound of Bushy out of your head.

SOTU anyone?

I live blogged the last one, but don't think I have the stomach for this one. Anyone planning on watching? I think watching him is painful. Perhaps this video from Kathleen Madigan will help. I love her description of Bush's speaking style at the beginning. I tried to find where she describes him as Yosemite Sam, but this was as good as I could do:

Froomkin asks Is Anyone Listening? and has some great little bits from the press about tonight's anticipated inevitable address.

"Michael Abramowitz writes in The Washington Post: 'Tonight's State of the Union address by President Bush had its origins in a conversation between the president and his small crew of speechwriters in late spring or early summer last year. As the speechwriters tell it, Bush called them into the Oval Office and told them he was interested in giving a speech about his governing philosophy."

And America wonders aloud, "wait, he has a governing philosophy? Or any philosophy beyond "blessed are the rich?"
I think this next one is most accurate:

James Carroll writes in his Boston Globe opinion column: "You and everyone you love are riding on a large bus. The bus driver, unskilled and careless, drives too fast, ignores traffic signals, and barrels off the road occasionally. Because the bus is huge, other vehicles swerve to get out of its way, with cars crashing repeatedly. But your driver just keeps going, leaving carnage in his wake. Naturally, you are terrified - but your reactions are irrelevant.

"Finally, the bus itself crashes, killing many. Miraculously, you and your loved ones climb out of the wreckage. A second bus is standing by, and you gratefully scramble aboard. The engine starts up, but then the bus lurches dangerously onto the road, going too fast. Only then do you see that this new bus has the same driver, and he has learned nothing. Welcome to the United States of America. And welcome to the annual State of the Union address."

Dream dinner party

You can blame SOF for this post. She said I should think about my dream dinner party (where you can invite any famous people you want--hell the rules are up to you as it is a fantasy dinner party) and write a post about it. And then I couldn't stop thinking about it. Obsessing. Looking at teevee saying, "should you be at my dinner party?" Sigh. So here goes at least an attempt.

For mine, I am limiting the guests to 6 because we have a small place and I find a smaller group better for the talking and ranting. Plus, I am not catering this fake event, so want a fake group size I can fake-cook for.

And the invites are harder to come up with than I thought. And some people have acted in ways to get themselves uninvited. Bill Clinton, for example, would have been a shoo-in on this list. He is smart, and well-read. I have always wondered what he would think of my own research and teaching areas and suspect he would have something smart to say. But Bill has been such a jerk lately, that I don't think any of my other guests would want him around either. And no one wants a dinner party with that kind of setup. (Plus, the secret service would probably drive on my lawn.)

Another difficulty, of course, is managing the strong personality ratio so you don't have too many people who take the air out of the room. Of course, since this fantasy party includes famous people, that will be difficult. But we will see what we can do.

1) Jon Stewart. I went back and forth between him, Colbert, and Keith Olbermann. I like all three. But for some reason, I think Jon might be the better guest. I share his outrage at our country's decline and just think it would be interesting to share a meal with him as well.

2) Emmylou Harris. I have loved her music for 30 years and have loved the times I heard her harmony on other albums. What I have seen of her personal side suggests she would be a lot of fun at the party and would have a lot of stories to tell. If Emmy is busy, I might invite Kasey Chambers or Kathleen Edwards. Kathleen swears a lot, which could be cool. I was thinking of inviting Steve Earle (and he would always be welcome) and I don't think he can finish a sentence without dropping the f-bomb. That guy can swear. He makes me feel rather amateurish about it.

3) Jeff Tweedy. Any dinner party of mine is going to be music heavy, and I am even now trying to decide if I can invite one more. But Tweedy's music is most intriguing to me right now, and interviews with him reveal a thoughtful person. Not only has he battled with addiction, but he thinks deeply about his own celebrity and does not take himself too seriously. Or so it seems. Who knows, he might be a pain, but I also thought I could get him and Emmylou to sing later. With me, of course.

4) Anne Lamott. I need to read more of her stuff, but really miss her regular column. I remember a few from around 2004 that made me feel just a tiny bit better that someone else felt as awful as I did about the Bush admin. She writes thoughtfully about faith and life and I think would be wonderful company at this little meal. I would also invite Barbara Kingsolver here. I remember crying while reading her book Animal Dreams, which isn't normally a problem, but I was sitting in a Colorado brewpub at the time and I think my waitress was starting to worry about me. According to Faludi, Kingsolver took a lot of grief for writing a thoughtful column after 9-11, and I am positive she would add an intelligent discussion to the party.

5) Paul Newman. Man, I have enjoyed this man's work in films like Hud, The Hustler, The Verdict and Nobody's Fool, and many more. But I have also admired his commitment to helping others. And I love his salad dressing (bring some, eh Paul?) and other causes.

6) Jane Fonda. I went back and forth on this last spot. Susan Sarandon and Madeline Albright were contenders and seem like interesting people. But I could not pass on the opportunity to talk to someone so connected both to the Hollywood of old and the anti-war effort of the 60s. I know conservatives hate her, and that is one reason that I think she would be interesting. She also knew John Wayne and I would be fascinated to talk to her about such a conflicted person.

Ok, that is my list. Anyone want to add or subtract? Then do your own damn fake dinner party!

One more

I am reading Susan Faludi's new book on the post 9-11 period, (The Terror Dream). I have read her previous books and think that some of the issues raised by DT and the Fighting Preacher are explained (at least partially) in her last book, Stiffed, where she explores the issue of masculinity in the post-World War II America and how many men have found their role and status diminished.

I am curious how she addresses the post 9-11 world (here is an op-ed with some clues), and have really just started the book. But her introduction included a paragraph on the immediate aftermath of 9-11 that was too good.

It starts with the observation that immediately after, everyone wanted to compare the event to Pearl Harbor and hoped, I think, that this event would bring us all together in some ethic of shared sacrifice. I think most of us thought that. We too thought this might be

"... a long awaited crucible in which self-absorbed Americans would, at long last, be forged into the twenty-first century's stoic army of the latest Greatest Generation. But the summons to actual sacrifice never came. No draft ensued, no Rosie the Riveters were called to duty, no ration cards issued, no victory gardens planted. Most of all, no official moral leadership emerged to challenge Americans to think constructively about our place in the world, to redefine civic commitment and public responsibility. There was no man in a wheelchair in the White House urging on us a reassessment of American strength and weakness. What we had was a chest beater in a borrowed flight suit, instructing us to max out our credit cards for the cause."

I would echo the lack of moral leadership and would further suggest that not only were we not called to think constructively about our place in the world, but were explicitly told not to. Well, unless we were a fat stupid televangelist. Otherwise, any self-reflection on America's role in the world was met with the charge of "blame America firsters" or some such nonsense. Any introspection was bad. There was nothing to learn from how we interacted with the Taliban before, or our role in the developing world. Nothing. Bush instead gave us vapid observations about terrorists hating us for "our freedom," all the while urging his administration to reduce our said freedoms.

It is perhaps the saddest of opportunities lost. A world once united behind us now sees us as one led by a dumb cowboy preacher. Worse, a dumb cowboy preacher who likes to invade countries while swaggering. History will not be kind to this President.

Wow

Obama wins big:

"With 99 percent of the electoral precincts reporting, Mr. Obama had 55 percent of the vote, Mrs. Clinton had 27 percent, and Mr. Edwards had 18 percent."

And his speech is, er, Presidential:

“We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together,” he said. As the crowd cheered, he added: “It’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea — even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country.”

Sully points to some other interesting trends here, most importantly that Obama won some 52 percent of the non-black vote under 30. Among those over 60, he won only 15%, suggesting that the racist legacy is fading. I hope so.

And here is hoping that we have some new leadership for this country. The last 8 years have been so bad and the previous 8, while by comparison more stable and with less torture and war, not a great time either. I would love someone new to take us away from this partisan mess.

*****

Speaking of the last 8 years, a few notes. One kind of new and one really not so new. The kind of new (this story will explain) has to do with our President's self-vision. Turns out, our President, in addition to reminding his visitors that the Oval office is really "oval" points them all to his favorite painting.

The myth of Mr. Bush as Christian cowboy is symbolized in his favorite painting, which he calls "A Charge To Keep." The painting appears on the back cover of his official campaign biography, A Charge To Keep, whose title is taken from a hymn written by Charles Wesley in 1762. The President talks about the painting and how it symbolizes him and his administration each time he gives a tour of the Oval Office. Mr. Bush is especially pleased when people tell him he looks a little like the Christian cowboy - who, to be fair, he really does resemble.

Perhaps especially funny given the story that Mr. Bush is actually afraid of horses, but the story gets even better.

Mr. Bush claims the painting depicts a Methodist circuit rider, but "The Slipper Tongue" actually concerned a silver-tongued Nebraska horse thief who winds up fleeing, as depicted in Koerner's painting, from a lynch mob.

Of course, art knows no such singular explanation. The President has every right to see in that painting what he wants. But others can still disagree with how he see himself:

Ah, horseshit. He's riding recklessly up a cliff, believing he's on a God-given mission and enjoying it so much that he does not heed whether his horse is about to get crippled on the slick shale underfoot. The President, in macho mode, cannot imagine the possibility of leading his imaginary Christian nation right off a cliff. And so that is just what happens. As the Good Book says, "They are a nation without sense, there is no discernment in them.... In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them." (Deuteronomy 32:28, 35)

Bush--do we really need a congress?

Or that is how he acts.

Well, I am sure this will fix everything

Rest assured, people. Our FCC is on the case and will protect us from evil.

Sigh.

Friday afternoon stuff--updated

I like clever blog post titles, I just rarely write them. So I must grab them when they appear.

9iu11iani the big loser

****

And while not quite a blog post title, this review of the new Rambo had a great title:

Rambo
HE JUST WANTS TO HAND-FORGE IRON AND BE LEFT ALONE, BUT THEN A BLOND MISSIONARY SHOWS UP.

Hate it when that happens.

Rambo combines an unapologetic return to the grand action-movie tradition of blowing shit up (one explosion is so big, it leaves behind its own miniature mushroom cloud) with a Saw-era interest in close-ups of human viscera. . . .If you like seeing people blown in half, beheaded, and impaled, have a ball (but don't sit next to me on the subway home, please). If you don't, the horror of these images is hardly going to leave you pondering the plight of the Karen in Myanmar. Stallone has said that he hopes the film will raise awareness of the civil war there, but his use of actual news footage of Burmese atrocities as the film opens seems like a pious canard (and an invasion of privacy of the real people whose deaths we witness).

Pass.

****

And while we are at Slate, an interesting essay on the role the feds played in perpetuating the sub-prime mess.

*****

Forgot this little gem:

"'American-Style Torture"
The phrase appears in Asia Times. Sigh."

Sully stole my "sigh." But it fits here. Thanks to Bush, Cheney, we are a torturing people.

The Stimulus Swindle (Commentary)

The Stimulus Swindle (Commentary): "President Bush is undoubtedly pleased. He said he wanted 'stimulus' built primarily on tax cuts and no new public investment--more proof of his desire to win the Most Out of Touch President title from Herbert Hoover (at least Hoover proposed new infrastructure with the tax cuts he claimed would prevent the Great Depression).

Let's be clear: There's nothing inherently bad about Washington interacting with Big Business, and nothing wrong with 'stimulus' as a concept. But as this recession intensifies, there's a big problem with politicians catering exclusively to Big Business and an even bigger problem with converting 'stimulus' into yet another code word for 'swindle.'"

What is more, I suspect that the GOP especially believes that the American people are so easy to buy off that a 300 dollar rebate will suffice. No matter that 700 billion for the war is being ignored. No matter that there is no investment in something for the social good. No matter.

Friday

As I noted in the comments about yesterday's vote in the Senate, I called several Senate offices to voice my opposition to telecom immunity. I am still wondering how anyone with even a bit of moral sense can vote for this. Of course, the Republicans will vote in lemming style. Sigh.

****

Speaking of conservatives, The Washington Note suggests that Huckabee will be the VP nominee of choice fro whoever wins the nomination. Yeah, that's right. A lying racist will be on the ticket to appeal to the "moral" base.

Seriously, I don't get it. The religious conservatives don't mind a racist. Where does that come from in their Bible?

That makes me wretch more than sigh.

*****

Interesting poll at Beliefnet on Evangelical political opinions. Some positive trends there. Most prioritize ending torture and saving the environment. That doesn't explain how they continue to vote Republican when the GOP appears to have the slogan of "Torture a baby seal for Jesus" but it suggests that there is a tide of change there. I hope.

But then I read down and found two disturbing questions. #22 asks if they believe that the "the Constitution established the U.S. as a Christian nation?" That is the American Constitution, I hope, and the same one that doesn't even mention God. 54 percent say yes, suggesting that the idiot David Barton is more effective than Gordon Wood or Mark Noll. Sigh.

#23 asks:

George W. Bush has talked about his faith and how it influences his policy positions. Would you like the next president do more of this, less of this, or about the same?

While split between more, less and about the same, more has the most votes. In what world has Bush's faith discussions been positive? Anyone?

With friends like his....

Reid Clears Hurdle for Bush-Cheney Spying Bill

I called Reid's office this morning and then a few other Senators this afternoon. Reid's office claims that he opposes telecom immunity. Everything I read suggests otherwise. What kind of person suggests that we should issue a blank check for company actions when we don't even know the extent of their misdeeds? Oh, right. That kind.

Feeling jaded and cynical

Reading the news and see that Huck is at it again:

"Mike Huckabee compared America to Nazi Germany. He first implored the audience to renew their 'commitment to Christ' and 'to our nation, to its heritage, as well as to its future,' adding 'do we expect the seculars [sic] to do it? Do we expect the unbelievers to lead us, and if so, how will they lead us and where?'"

See. American needs to be run by a Christian like Huckabee and we shouldn't see that as a call for his version of a theocracy? Oh, and he goes on to compare America to Nazi Germany because of abortion. Nice. I am starting to dislike Huckabee tremendously.

****

Speaking of people I don't like, Republicans in congress once again upheld Bush's veto of the SCHIP program. As I have said to Steve and others on this blog, I understand concern about government programs. This one helps kids who have parents who can't afford health insurance. But Bush won't do it.

****

Speaking of Republicans I loathe, a man named Roger Stone has created a 527 group to mock Hillary Clinton. I won't tell you the name, but just check out the group's initials. And they will be selling T-Shirts. It is enough to make you weep.

****

At least there are some not fooled by Huck.

"Huck's very bright, and he could be a quick study if he applied himself to an in-depth study of policy and political theory. But that's not who he is.
He's spent his entire adult life as a message shaper -- translating ideas into marketable slogans, memorable catch-phrases, and heart-felt passion. He's very good at what he does, but beyond the surface glitter of his rhetoric, there's no there there. This is not a man who can (or would want to) discuss the finer details of Kirkean conservatism; even though he is a seminary-trained preacher, he has little patience for, nor interest in, the complexities of theology that underlie Christian social thought. He's a pragmatist and a technician, not an ideologue or philosopher...
I love the man, but he's almost as superficial as his enemies paint him to be. His destiny is to be, as Ross says, a motivational speaker or talk-show host. It would be wonderful if he broke out of this mold he's created for himself, but don't count on it. That's just not who he is," - a former Huckabee staffer,

****

Under the "not news" for most of us:

The Associated Press reports the study, published on the website of the Centre for Public Integrity, concluded the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretences”.

According to the study, 935 false statements were issued by the White House in the two years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The real question is does anyone care? Has anyone learned a damn thing? Will people make the same mistake if given a chance to bomb another country?

Sigh.

Photo with a thousand words from Hitting Bedrock

And probably unfair to Bush. But during a photo op for MLK day, Bush hugs a child and, well, you can see:

David Brooks on conservatives

He discusses how pragmatic the Reagan admin was by comparison (though of course he forgets much of the bad policy and attacks on government that Ronnie gave us). But then, Brooks, suggests, the party tightened:

"The definition of who was a true conservative narrowed. It became necessary to pass certain purity tests — on immigration, abortion, taxes and Terri Schiavo.

An oppositional mentality set in: if the liberals worried about global warming, it was necessary to regard it as a hoax. If The New York Times editorial page worried about waterboarding, then the code of conservative correctness required one to think it O.K.

Apostates and deviationists were expelled or found wanting, and the boundaries of acceptable thought narrowed. Moderate Republicans were expelled for squishiness. Millions of coastal suburbanites left the party in disgust." [Emphasis mine]

Why are the media ignoring Huckabee

I must say that it has been a while since I agreed with this man, but Chris Hitchens nails it:

Gov. Mike Huckabee made the following unambiguously racist and demagogic appeal in Myrtle Beach, S.C., last week:

You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag. In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole; that's what we'd do.

This is a straightforward racist appeal for the following reasons:

1) The South Carolina flag is a perfectly nice flag, featuring the palmetto plant, about which no "outsider" has ever offered any free advice.

2) The Confederate battle flag, to which Gov. Huckabee was alluding, was first flown over the South Carolina state capitol in 1962, as a deliberately belligerent riposte to the civil rights movement, and is not now, and never has been, the flag of that great state.

3) By a vote of both South Carolina houses in the year 2000, the Confederate battle flag ceased to be flown over the state capitol and now only waves (as quite possibly it should) over the memorial to fallen Confederate soldiers.

The church, the individual, and social justice

Thanks to Natalie, I am reading James K. Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism. Smith is trying to explain how post modernism can influence the church in a positive way. I bought it partially because I am one of those historians who is uncomfortable with theory, and thought this would be a good refresher. But I am finding the discussion on church very interesting. Even as I am just starting this book, I found this great discussion about the difference between the individual and the "church."

Page 29. While discussing the problems of the "modern" church, Smith says:

Within the matrix of the modern Christianity, the base "ingredient" is the individual; the church, then is simply a collection of individuals. Conceiving of Christian faith as a private affair between the individual and God--a matter of my asking Jesus to "come into my heart"--modern evangelicalism finds it hard to articulate just how or why the church has any role to play other than providing a place to fellowship with other individuals who have a private relationship with God. With this model in place, what matters is Christianity as a system of truth or ideas, not the church as a living community embodying its head. Modern Christianity tends to think of the church either as a place where individuals come to find answers to their questions or as one more stop where individuals can try to satisfy their consumerist desires."

Perhaps it is this obsession with the individual which holds us back? I am not completely sure how to connect all the dots, but this consumerist tendency that is now central to the church as well, certainly keeps us from addressing larger social and moral issues. I know a lot of Christians who do a lot of "good" in their community. They feed the hungry and donate money and clothes to the poor. They are concerned to help their neighbor during a crisis, and might be some of the first to stop and help someone clearly in need.

Yet, those same Christians, in my opinion, often vote in ways that actually perpetuates some of the social ills. I am sure they would dispute this, but it seems inconceivable to me that Republican tax and economic policies are congruent with their heart for helping people in need. Not that Democrats offer some magic solution, mind you, but voting for tax cuts and a system that rewards wealth and opposes health care for the middle and lower classes seems contradictory.

I think one of the key issues might be individualism and the ability for so many to compartmentalize their lives from that broader context. Individualism, after all, is the rallying cry for the GOP. Moral issues become mostly sexual or drug and alcohol use--economic choices and systemic problems are just "policy." When faced with a person lacking an individual meal, they respond. When faced with a system that rewards corporations who exploit those in need--they are unsure what to do. Compassion, then, competes with the cold, hard, capitalist ethos. Hungry, and I will feed you. But if you are harmed by policies that help me, I will do little. Or perhaps more accurately, I don't know how to do anything because it means asking questions about how I have what I have, and how I live my life.

Bono, in the endorsement for Jim Wallis' new book says:

I had always been skeptical of the church of personal peace and prosperity ... of righteous people standing in a holy huddle while the world rages outside the stained glass.

Bono and Wallis think the tide is changing. I hope they are right.

Opening my Sojourners and I see a review of The Missing Class which explores those who are

the “near poor” or “missing class”—households that fall between the stable middle class and the impoverished. Their household incomes range from $20,000 to $40,000.

Our “missing class” neighbors don’t qualify for, in the words of Newman and Chen, the “dwindling government-provided benefits for the truly poor,” such as public day care, Medicaid, and welfare. But they also lack the means to afford their own quality child care and services. They may have higher incomes, but the stability of homeownership and significant savings eludes them. Those with health insurance are “weakly insured” and have inferior health options. While they may not receive direct subsidies, their security is woven closely to the quality of government spending and institutions—human services, neighborhood schools, libraries, policing, and economic development."

Where is the church discussion about these "near poor?" Where is the framework to talk about how individuals work their asses off and lose ground in a system that values and rewards individualism? How do we have a discussion about the contradictions between a belief system that says we are all equal because of what God thinks of us and an economic system that pits us against each other?

I think the church, as a community, can do much on this and other issues. But it will require a sea change to do so.

Saturday night dinner and a movie

We worked tonight on two dinners--one for tomorrow night and one for tonight. French Onion soup (courtesy of Cooks Illustrated--a cooking magazine we cannot recommend enough) and an ad-libbed recipe for chicken tacos that I threw together for tonight.

And a film. SOF picked this one out, and it really caught us both off guard. I believe our friend SD recommended it, though we are a bit unsure. Once is a bit of a musical and mockumentary about an Irish singer (played by Glen Hansard of The Frames) and Czech girlfriend (played by Marketa Irglova--another musician) who perform several songs together in the film. Understated and wonderful, some of the songs are simply magnificent. We watched them again a few times over. And over. The story is simple and actually fades behind the songs.

We have not seen the Huck's low yet--updated--updated again

Or that is how it feels. He raises a dog killing son; cuddles up to the odious John Hagee; opposes evolution even as he clearly doesn't understand basic science; and tries to rewrite his own stance on female submission; said that he wanted to rewrite the constitution to make it line up with God's standards; and I almost forgot continues to claim to have a theology degree that he really doesn't have; and finally told South Carolina racists not only that they should keep their Confederate flag, but should shove a flag pole up the rears of anyone who objected:

"In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do," Huckabee said.

All bad stuff, right? Well, at least for those of us who value basic honesty and have evolved (sorry, Huck) beyond simple racism this guy is a train wreck waiting to happen. But we have not found bottom yet, or at least I fear. Turns out that our friend and former Baptist Minister Mike Huckabee is also a fan of the racist Council of Conservative Citizens:

"Indeed, well before he was a nationally known political star, Huckabee nurtured a relationship with America's largest white supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens. The extent of Huckabee's interaction with the racist group is unclear, but this much is known: he accepted an invitation to speak at the group's annual conference in 1993 and ultimately delivered a videotaped address that was 'extremely well received by the audience.'

Descended from the White Citizens Councils that battled integration in the Jim Crow South, including at Arkansas' Little Rock High School, the Council (or CofCC) has been designated a 'hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In its 'Statement of Principles,' the CofCC declares, 'We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.'"

Here is hoping that the video surfaces so we can see just what kind of weasel this man is. Even Peggy Noonan sees the problems with this group:

Former Reagan speechwriter and conservative pundit Peggy Noonan pithily declared that anyone involved with the CofCC "does not deserve to be in a leadership position in America."

Huck will fan racism, shout Jesus, and hope that real Christians don't pay attention. The last 7 years suggests that he can get away with it. I still want to believe that conservative Christians are not going to be fooled again. We shall see.

Update: This just in, not only is Huckabee a scumbag, but his denomination is more than willing to look the other way. They
like him:

"“South Carolina should present a real good opportunity for Huckabee because the evangelical community is not only very large, but it’s dominated by Baptists — especially Southern Baptists.” Page, the Southern Baptist president, who has endorsed no candidate, agrees. “Huckabee is surging. He is a humble man. He is a compassionate man, and his message is making an inroad into many hearts.” “My guess, and it’s certainly a guess, is that Huckabee will win,” Page says."

Southern Baptists like the racist liar. Not that I needed any help in my cynicism. But I was foolish enough to believe that the SBC had moved beyond some of this. The fact is, their problem with Bush is not that he tortured--they like that. They didn't mind drowning Katrina, and they certainly don't mind saber-rattling toward more war--they love war (as long as their taxes don't go up). But Southern Baptists, if they have any problem with Bush--it appears--is that he didn't hate the gays enough and wasn't openly racist enough.

I am beyond disgusted.

Updated again
Looks like McCain edged the Huck in SC. I am not sure what to think about that, but Melissa Rogers has more on the early exit polling. Looks like evangelicals and people who say that they have to elect someone who shares their values chose the Huck. General Protestants, Catholics and non-evangelical Christians chose McCain. Evangelicals don't help themselves, do they?

Pro-confederate flag group supports the Huck

So glad to see who supports the Huck:

"'Gov. Huckabee understands that all the average guy with a Confederate flag on his pickup truck is saying is, he's proud to be a Southerner ... Mike Huckabee understands we value our heritage, and why. He says it's up to us to decide how. Sen. McCain may have decided that his ancestors, as he puts it, 'were on the wrong side of history when they wore gray.' But in South Carolina, we're proud to be Southerners.'"

Christianity in America

Anglican has an amazing graphic showing the geographical distribution of different denominations.