![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dubya talks to ABC -- displays no sense of self-awareness.
"I'd like to be a president [known] as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace."
Also, he'd like to be known for wanting a pony.
"I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political process."
Mostly because he sold his soul long before that. Pity is, the devil still feels ripped off, having gotten so little in return.
"I came to Washington with a set of values, and I'm leaving with the same set of values. And I darn sure wasn't going to sacrifice those values..."
The highest value was, "Fuck dad." And he's right -- he's never wavered from that. No matter who or how many got hurt in the process.
"I surrounded myself with good people," Bush said. "I carefully considered the advice of smart, capable people and made tough decisions."
He consistently ignored that advice when he made those tough decisions, and prized most highly the people who would subsume their judgement to his own, but hey.
Who conducted this marshmallow of a "tough" interview? His sister.
Read the whole thing -- comic gold.
"I'd like to be a president [known] as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace."
Also, he'd like to be known for wanting a pony.
"I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political process."
Mostly because he sold his soul long before that. Pity is, the devil still feels ripped off, having gotten so little in return.
"I came to Washington with a set of values, and I'm leaving with the same set of values. And I darn sure wasn't going to sacrifice those values..."
The highest value was, "Fuck dad." And he's right -- he's never wavered from that. No matter who or how many got hurt in the process.
"I surrounded myself with good people," Bush said. "I carefully considered the advice of smart, capable people and made tough decisions."
He consistently ignored that advice when he made those tough decisions, and prized most highly the people who would subsume their judgement to his own, but hey.
Who conducted this marshmallow of a "tough" interview? His sister.
Read the whole thing -- comic gold.
...and the most startling gaffe:
Sep. 27th, 2008 01:11 amFrom the transcript:
MCCAIN: So we have a long way to go in our intelligence services. We have to do a better job in human intelligence. And we've got to -- to make sure that we have people who are trained interrogators so that we don't ever torture a prisoner ever again. (emphasis added)
But... But... "This government does not torture people."
Hm.
MCCAIN: So we have a long way to go in our intelligence services. We have to do a better job in human intelligence. And we've got to -- to make sure that we have people who are trained interrogators so that we don't ever torture a prisoner ever again. (emphasis added)
But... But... "This government does not torture people."
Hm.
Reagan's questions
Sep. 4th, 2008 11:51 pmWhen Reagan debated Carter, his first question was picked up a lot.
But I think looking at all of Reagan's questions shows just how disastrous the Bush administration has been for this country.
I agree with Reagan that it's time for, "another choice."
*^*^*
"It might be well if you ask yourself are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe? That we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then I think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."
But I think looking at all of Reagan's questions shows just how disastrous the Bush administration has been for this country.
I agree with Reagan that it's time for, "another choice."
*^*^*
"It might be well if you ask yourself are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe? That we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then I think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."
Naomi Wolf writes in the Guardian about the mechanics of replacing a democratic regime with an authoritarian one -- and how the Bush Administration seems to be following that playbook.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
scalzi responds to the spirit of the piece (if not the specifics), by saying, basically, that it's too impractical, and besides, Bush is too unpopular (which is a subset of the first, really).
jaylake chimes in with his own response -- "(T)hese guys aren't long-term thinkers."
I wrote about this over a year ago, with the rhetorical question, "Why does Karl Rove still have a job?"
See, unlike John and Jay, I think the Bushies do think long term... Just very narrowly. When Scalzi writes, "(A)s I've noted before, the plan for the next eighteen months is a simple one: For Bush and pals to finish out their terms of office without actually admitting guilt about anything, so that when the extent of the damage is finally assessed, it'll look less attractive to punish them because they don't actually have any power any more... The goal now is simply to get out intact."
Here's the trouble with that: I don't think that's an achievable goal. I think a full round-robin of investigations and convictions of Administration officials is now inevitable once the Administration leaves. I think that will happen regardless of which party with the White House, and regardless of which candidate.
I think the Administration is, on the whole, of the same opinion.
These guys aren't acting like they're ever going to leave. They're acting with impunity, and I think that's partly because they think they're not going to be held accountable -- and there's only one way to get that done.
Now, one can say, "Even more practically than that, the military is nowhere near large enough to hold the entire of the United States..." -- as John does. But that's true now, too. One can say because the military oath is to the Constitution and not to The Man, that therefore the military will balk -- as many of Scalzi's commenters do.
But that only means one has to sell such a measure to the military as the Constitutional and legal thing to do. The path to that is fairly clear: It won't be presented as a permanent change of regime, or affairs. It will be presented as a "temporary emergency measure." And, as someone once said, nothing is as permanent as a temporary emergency measure.
If the Bushies are laying the groundwork for such a thing -- and I would argue that I,pecunium, David Neiwert, Glenn Greenwald, and others have been providing documentary evidence for that over a period of years -- then I think to refute that premise there needs to be a better response than, "La-la-la, it can't happen." You need to address specific items like the USA PATRIOT Act, and the superfluous NSA tapping, and the Executive Order of 17 July 2007, and HR 5122 (now PL 109-364), and...
...and if you say there were incremental, reasonable concerns that each of these measures addressed, and the collective picture doesn't mean much...
You've proved my point.
Insert your own Pastor Niemoller paraphrase here.
scalzi responds to the spirit of the piece (if not the specifics), by saying, basically, that it's too impractical, and besides, Bush is too unpopular (which is a subset of the first, really).jaylake chimes in with his own response -- "(T)hese guys aren't long-term thinkers."I wrote about this over a year ago, with the rhetorical question, "Why does Karl Rove still have a job?"
See, unlike John and Jay, I think the Bushies do think long term... Just very narrowly. When Scalzi writes, "(A)s I've noted before, the plan for the next eighteen months is a simple one: For Bush and pals to finish out their terms of office without actually admitting guilt about anything, so that when the extent of the damage is finally assessed, it'll look less attractive to punish them because they don't actually have any power any more... The goal now is simply to get out intact."
Here's the trouble with that: I don't think that's an achievable goal. I think a full round-robin of investigations and convictions of Administration officials is now inevitable once the Administration leaves. I think that will happen regardless of which party with the White House, and regardless of which candidate.
I think the Administration is, on the whole, of the same opinion.
These guys aren't acting like they're ever going to leave. They're acting with impunity, and I think that's partly because they think they're not going to be held accountable -- and there's only one way to get that done.
Now, one can say, "Even more practically than that, the military is nowhere near large enough to hold the entire of the United States..." -- as John does. But that's true now, too. One can say because the military oath is to the Constitution and not to The Man, that therefore the military will balk -- as many of Scalzi's commenters do.
But that only means one has to sell such a measure to the military as the Constitutional and legal thing to do. The path to that is fairly clear: It won't be presented as a permanent change of regime, or affairs. It will be presented as a "temporary emergency measure." And, as someone once said, nothing is as permanent as a temporary emergency measure.
If the Bushies are laying the groundwork for such a thing -- and I would argue that I,
pecunium, David Neiwert, Glenn Greenwald, and others have been providing documentary evidence for that over a period of years -- then I think to refute that premise there needs to be a better response than, "La-la-la, it can't happen." You need to address specific items like the USA PATRIOT Act, and the superfluous NSA tapping, and the Executive Order of 17 July 2007, and HR 5122 (now PL 109-364), and......and if you say there were incremental, reasonable concerns that each of these measures addressed, and the collective picture doesn't mean much...
You've proved my point.
Insert your own Pastor Niemoller paraphrase here.
Ms Clinton and Mr Bush
Jul. 12th, 2007 05:38 pmFrom Charlie Rose's show on Fri, 6 July 2007. I can't give you a pointer, because I'm clipping this from Factiva, as provided from my local library. But see if this reminds you of anyone you know:
*^*^*
CHARLIE ROSE: And what is (Hillary Clinton's) greatest liability?
DON VAN NATTA: I think it`s -- I think she has trouble admitting mistakes. She does play fast and loose with the facts. I also think her devotion to secrecy is quite troubling. We quote somebody in the book saying, "She`s closer to Bush world than she is to the Clinton White House."
CHARLIE ROSE: Or more Cheney like.
DON VAN NATTA: Yes, yes. I mean, the loyalty...
CHARLIE ROSE: Where does that come from? Does it come from simply protective?
{{...}}
DON VAN NATTA: Yes, she feels she has been unfairly criticized for years. And the way to handle that, the way to deal with it is to just try to silence critics and to have pure loyalty among her people. Hillaryland really is this idea that if you speak out of turn, if you say something to a reporter and you are caught, your career is over.
CHARLIE ROSE: With her?
DON VAN NATTA: With her.
*^*^*
On this, I'll agree with the Republicans -- it's not the ideology, it's character. Hillary Clinton's character is all too close to Bush or Cheney.
(Note: "The book" is Her Way, by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta.)
*^*^*
CHARLIE ROSE: And what is (Hillary Clinton's) greatest liability?
DON VAN NATTA: I think it`s -- I think she has trouble admitting mistakes. She does play fast and loose with the facts. I also think her devotion to secrecy is quite troubling. We quote somebody in the book saying, "She`s closer to Bush world than she is to the Clinton White House."
CHARLIE ROSE: Or more Cheney like.
DON VAN NATTA: Yes, yes. I mean, the loyalty...
CHARLIE ROSE: Where does that come from? Does it come from simply protective?
{{...}}
DON VAN NATTA: Yes, she feels she has been unfairly criticized for years. And the way to handle that, the way to deal with it is to just try to silence critics and to have pure loyalty among her people. Hillaryland really is this idea that if you speak out of turn, if you say something to a reporter and you are caught, your career is over.
CHARLIE ROSE: With her?
DON VAN NATTA: With her.
*^*^*
On this, I'll agree with the Republicans -- it's not the ideology, it's character. Hillary Clinton's character is all too close to Bush or Cheney.
(Note: "The book" is Her Way, by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta.)
Speaking of things I've been meaning to post, and since they don't appear to be picking it up, here's a letter I sent to the Seattle Times:
*^*^*
To the editor:
How fascinating to read that the Bush Administration (and Mr. Cheney especially), wanting to pry ever more deeply into Americans' private matters, obstinately insists on creating more and more secrets for itself. You'd think this self-proclaimed faith-based Administration had never heard of the Golden Rule. To remind them: If you want citizens to be more open, the Administration itself must be forthcoming. If the Administration is needlessly secretive, it only fuels speculation "secrets" are being created to cover-up deeds that are illegal, unethical, embarrassing, or all three. As supporters of the NSA spy program remind us, If the Administration has done nothing wrong, it should have nothing to hide.
Sincerely,
etc.
*^*^*
To the editor:
How fascinating to read that the Bush Administration (and Mr. Cheney especially), wanting to pry ever more deeply into Americans' private matters, obstinately insists on creating more and more secrets for itself. You'd think this self-proclaimed faith-based Administration had never heard of the Golden Rule. To remind them: If you want citizens to be more open, the Administration itself must be forthcoming. If the Administration is needlessly secretive, it only fuels speculation "secrets" are being created to cover-up deeds that are illegal, unethical, embarrassing, or all three. As supporters of the NSA spy program remind us, If the Administration has done nothing wrong, it should have nothing to hide.
Sincerely,
etc.
Inevitability
Jan. 2nd, 2006 09:26 amIn a comment thread at David Sucher's City Comforts, we've been talking about the administration's domestic spying program. One person said this:
"I was always dissatisfied with prior liberal complaints that we civilians had no sacrifice that we had to bear. I always thought that it was a crock, that the inevitable erosion of liberty in wartime was real sacrifice and that victory demanded such sacrifices as we temporarily acquiesce to the state powers that should be stripped of it in peacetime."
Leave aside the premise as to whether we are "in wartime" (Here's H.J.Res.114, which is the act authorizing force in Iraq. Look at Section 3, and tell me if we've achieved those things. If we have, any other use of force is unauthorized, folks. Which was Rep. Murtha's point. But I digress.)... As I say, leave that aside. The other premise bothers me even more. That is, that in wartime, an erosion of liberty is "inevitable."
I don't believe it is, at all. I'm squarely with William Pitt on this one: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
Now, if you want to say it's more difficult to fight a war while upholding liberty, I'd agree with that. But you know what? We're Americans. I think we're tough enough, and we can rise to the challenge. If you want to say this president is too weak to do the job correctly, I'd agree with you that far.
John Kerry had a great line in the first presidential debate, back on Sept. 30, 2004. It was this:
"Just because the president says it can't be done... doesn't mean it can't be done."
I thought Kerry should have hammered home on that in the close of the campaign. Just because Bush has said he has to break the law to fight terrorism, doesn't mean that someone better couldn't do the job legally. It only means this president couldn't manage to find the gumption to do it.
Here's what I really think: I think it's easy to stick to your principles when times are easy. I think it's hard to stick to your principles when times are hard.
I think that's why they call some times "easy," and some times "hard."
I think that as soon as times became hard, Bush lacked the character to stick to American constitutional principles.
But that doesn't mean it was, "inevitable." It just means this particular president failed.
It doesn't mean it can't be done.
"I was always dissatisfied with prior liberal complaints that we civilians had no sacrifice that we had to bear. I always thought that it was a crock, that the inevitable erosion of liberty in wartime was real sacrifice and that victory demanded such sacrifices as we temporarily acquiesce to the state powers that should be stripped of it in peacetime."
Leave aside the premise as to whether we are "in wartime" (Here's H.J.Res.114, which is the act authorizing force in Iraq. Look at Section 3, and tell me if we've achieved those things. If we have, any other use of force is unauthorized, folks. Which was Rep. Murtha's point. But I digress.)... As I say, leave that aside. The other premise bothers me even more. That is, that in wartime, an erosion of liberty is "inevitable."
I don't believe it is, at all. I'm squarely with William Pitt on this one: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
Now, if you want to say it's more difficult to fight a war while upholding liberty, I'd agree with that. But you know what? We're Americans. I think we're tough enough, and we can rise to the challenge. If you want to say this president is too weak to do the job correctly, I'd agree with you that far.
John Kerry had a great line in the first presidential debate, back on Sept. 30, 2004. It was this:
"Just because the president says it can't be done... doesn't mean it can't be done."
I thought Kerry should have hammered home on that in the close of the campaign. Just because Bush has said he has to break the law to fight terrorism, doesn't mean that someone better couldn't do the job legally. It only means this president couldn't manage to find the gumption to do it.
Here's what I really think: I think it's easy to stick to your principles when times are easy. I think it's hard to stick to your principles when times are hard.
I think that's why they call some times "easy," and some times "hard."
I think that as soon as times became hard, Bush lacked the character to stick to American constitutional principles.
But that doesn't mean it was, "inevitable." It just means this particular president failed.
It doesn't mean it can't be done.
That was what Casey Stengel used to ask, watching the hapless Mets play baseball.
I've used it before, when talking about Los Amigos Arbusto.
Well, there's reason to bring it out again. In the new (to me) blog firedoglake, they have a post pointing out the Pandora's Box opened by the NSA wiretaps, when it comes to prosecutions.
Brief summary: Just about every defense lawyer for any terror-related suspect can now at least claim the evidence against their client was obtained illegally. This may or may not be true, but it essentially puts the various US Attorneys in question on the defensive in every single case.
Had the Bushies just, you know, followed the rules, this wouldn't be a problem at all. But, as it is...
So I guess there's no real reason for the administration to be upset about the lack of an extension to the USA PATRIOT Act. Turns out the NSA wiretaps are a stealth repeal of the act, for all practical purposes.
It's almost enough to make you Google the term "failure", with "I Feel Lucky" turned on.
I've used it before, when talking about Los Amigos Arbusto.
Well, there's reason to bring it out again. In the new (to me) blog firedoglake, they have a post pointing out the Pandora's Box opened by the NSA wiretaps, when it comes to prosecutions.
Brief summary: Just about every defense lawyer for any terror-related suspect can now at least claim the evidence against their client was obtained illegally. This may or may not be true, but it essentially puts the various US Attorneys in question on the defensive in every single case.
Had the Bushies just, you know, followed the rules, this wouldn't be a problem at all. But, as it is...
So I guess there's no real reason for the administration to be upset about the lack of an extension to the USA PATRIOT Act. Turns out the NSA wiretaps are a stealth repeal of the act, for all practical purposes.
It's almost enough to make you Google the term "failure", with "I Feel Lucky" turned on.
Late comment on Reagan
Jun. 21st, 2004 09:49 pmI was always ambivalent about Reagan. As a small-c conservative, I never thought replacing "tax and spend" with "spend and borrow" made much sense. On the other hand, he did have that famous line from the debates:
"(A)re you better off than you were four years ago?"
But an awful lot of current day "conservatives", when they bother to pay attention to Reagan at all, tend to quote that line by itself. In the recent rush of Reagan articles, I saw the whole paragraph Reagan said at the time, and you can readily see why supporters of the man I call the Anti-Reagan, George W. Bush, tend to avoid it:
"Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls... and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago?"
As far as I can tell, Dubya is 0 for 6 on Reagan's checklist.
"(A)re you better off than you were four years ago?"
But an awful lot of current day "conservatives", when they bother to pay attention to Reagan at all, tend to quote that line by itself. In the recent rush of Reagan articles, I saw the whole paragraph Reagan said at the time, and you can readily see why supporters of the man I call the Anti-Reagan, George W. Bush, tend to avoid it:
"Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls... and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago?"
As far as I can tell, Dubya is 0 for 6 on Reagan's checklist.
The Bad CEO
May. 9th, 2004 09:05 pmKevin Drum has a post that takes Dubya at his word back when he assumed power -- that Dubya wanted to be "the CEO President".
Back when the recession (and my joblessness) seemed interminable, one of my lines was, "These guys said they'd run the country like a business. Trouble is, nobody paid attention to how bad they were at running businesses."
Anyway, Mark Schmitt takes the image and runs. Choice excerpts:
"Kevin strengthens my instinct that this is exactly the right way to understand the Bush presidency. Rather than trying to understand Bush in terms of his father, Nixon, Reagan, Harding, Taft, Grant, or some other presidential model, the books to read are the accounts of the failures of great American companies at the hands of incompetent leaders, like David Halberstam's The Reckoning or the books about the savings and loan crisis or the failure of IBM. And keeping the Bad CEO imagine in mind will be the way to defeat Bush. It's a familiar archetype to Americans, and it's exactly right. It helps you understand that he's not so much a born liar as a guy in so far over his head that he starts making things up to keep the stock price high. And he's not a moron, just a guy who would have made a perfectly competent regional vice president, but somehow had the right patrons and played golf at the right clubs, and wound up in the big office on the 35th floor instead."
*^*^*
"Understanding Bush as "the bad CEO" will have a positive effect on Democrats' language. Take, for example, a pet peeve of mine: The use of the phrase "failure of diplomacy" to describe Bush's pre- and post-war behavior, the phrase Daschle used. I think "failure of diplomacy" concedes far too much. The good CEO might be guilty of failures of diplomacy, of having a vision for change and pushing hard. The strong leader breaks some china, as they say. Diplomacy is namby-pamby and superficial. But if you think of Bush as the Bad CEO, you don't hesitate to call it what it is: a failure of leadership. Leaders persuade others, and leaders also absorb information and other points of view. They change direction in order to find the smoothest path to their goals. They react quickly to changes, to get ahead of them."
Back when the recession (and my joblessness) seemed interminable, one of my lines was, "These guys said they'd run the country like a business. Trouble is, nobody paid attention to how bad they were at running businesses."
Anyway, Mark Schmitt takes the image and runs. Choice excerpts:
"Kevin strengthens my instinct that this is exactly the right way to understand the Bush presidency. Rather than trying to understand Bush in terms of his father, Nixon, Reagan, Harding, Taft, Grant, or some other presidential model, the books to read are the accounts of the failures of great American companies at the hands of incompetent leaders, like David Halberstam's The Reckoning or the books about the savings and loan crisis or the failure of IBM. And keeping the Bad CEO imagine in mind will be the way to defeat Bush. It's a familiar archetype to Americans, and it's exactly right. It helps you understand that he's not so much a born liar as a guy in so far over his head that he starts making things up to keep the stock price high. And he's not a moron, just a guy who would have made a perfectly competent regional vice president, but somehow had the right patrons and played golf at the right clubs, and wound up in the big office on the 35th floor instead."
*^*^*
"Understanding Bush as "the bad CEO" will have a positive effect on Democrats' language. Take, for example, a pet peeve of mine: The use of the phrase "failure of diplomacy" to describe Bush's pre- and post-war behavior, the phrase Daschle used. I think "failure of diplomacy" concedes far too much. The good CEO might be guilty of failures of diplomacy, of having a vision for change and pushing hard. The strong leader breaks some china, as they say. Diplomacy is namby-pamby and superficial. But if you think of Bush as the Bad CEO, you don't hesitate to call it what it is: a failure of leadership. Leaders persuade others, and leaders also absorb information and other points of view. They change direction in order to find the smoothest path to their goals. They react quickly to changes, to get ahead of them."
Baa Baa Meme Sheep
Apr. 15th, 2004 06:37 pmI want everyone who reads this (and feels up to it) to ask me 3 questions, no more, no less. Ask me anything you want. Then I want you to go to your journal and copy and paste this in, allowing your friends (including myself) to ask you anything.
Further thoughts on last post:
Feb. 25th, 2004 01:28 pmI was thinking (yeah, yeah, I know, the Administration discourages that)...
You know all those "Defense of Marriage" laws that have been passed in the last few years?
Again, the only reason one would need a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (or something similiar) would be if you already acknowledge that they're all unconstitutional. That same-sex marriage really is not just allowed, but mandated under the Constitution as it currently stands, and that without modification all those damned bills are going to be thrown out by the courts.
So, this is what today's headline of yesterday's speech by Bush should be:
BUSH CONCEDES GAY MARRIAGES LEGAL
Calls For 1st-Ever Amendment To Strip Current Rights
...not that you'll see it that way, of course.
You know all those "Defense of Marriage" laws that have been passed in the last few years?
Again, the only reason one would need a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (or something similiar) would be if you already acknowledge that they're all unconstitutional. That same-sex marriage really is not just allowed, but mandated under the Constitution as it currently stands, and that without modification all those damned bills are going to be thrown out by the courts.
So, this is what today's headline of yesterday's speech by Bush should be:
BUSH CONCEDES GAY MARRIAGES LEGAL
Calls For 1st-Ever Amendment To Strip Current Rights
...not that you'll see it that way, of course.
Just faxed to the White House
Feb. 24th, 2004 02:46 pm24 February 2004
To the White House staff:
I am dismayed by President Bush's call for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, if not surprised.
But something that doesn't get talked much about the issue is this: Most people's objection to same-sex marriages boils down to a religious one. The objectors believe it is "sinful". Supporters of same-sex marriage believe there is no "sin" involved.
Using the power of government to enforce one group's vision of sin upon another is exactly what the First Amendment's clauses regarding Congress making, "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," are about.
This is why the President has to insist on a Constitutional amendment.
But if the amendment passes, it is the death-knell of religious freedom in this country. What will be next? An amendment banning all religions save the President's own?
That is the real issue here.
I used to consider myself a Republican. The party’s belief that Americans have the right to run their own lives without government interference was paramount to me.
After today, Mr. Bush has made me a Democrat. To protect religious freedom in this country, and to protect the Constitution itself from him.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Hal O’Brien
To the White House staff:
I am dismayed by President Bush's call for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, if not surprised.
But something that doesn't get talked much about the issue is this: Most people's objection to same-sex marriages boils down to a religious one. The objectors believe it is "sinful". Supporters of same-sex marriage believe there is no "sin" involved.
Using the power of government to enforce one group's vision of sin upon another is exactly what the First Amendment's clauses regarding Congress making, "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," are about.
This is why the President has to insist on a Constitutional amendment.
But if the amendment passes, it is the death-knell of religious freedom in this country. What will be next? An amendment banning all religions save the President's own?
That is the real issue here.
I used to consider myself a Republican. The party’s belief that Americans have the right to run their own lives without government interference was paramount to me.
After today, Mr. Bush has made me a Democrat. To protect religious freedom in this country, and to protect the Constitution itself from him.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Hal O’Brien
Comparisons
Feb. 13th, 2004 10:04 pmBill Altreuter, of the blog Outside Counsel, points to an interesting side-by-side timeline of Dubya's war record vs. Kerry's in Mother Jones.
He also observes this: "One of the things that puts it in perspective, I think, is that Kerry opposed the war, and went, while Bush says he favored it, and took the rich boy way out."
And, "In a funny way the fact that Bush lay low for Vietnam forshadows his initial response following the September 11 attack. He went to ground both times, as far as I'm concerned."
Exactly. My fear that day, hearing Jorge was flying to Offutt AFB in Omaha, the former HQ of the Strategic Air Command, was that he was going to start lobbing nukes. After all, he was safe.
*^*^*
On the lighter side (or tawny-chocolate, or something), Bill points to a recipe for Janet Jackson breast cupcakes. (N.B.: Link includes a blow-up of the "wardrobe malfunction", as a model of what the chef was going for. Just so you know.)
He also observes this: "One of the things that puts it in perspective, I think, is that Kerry opposed the war, and went, while Bush says he favored it, and took the rich boy way out."
And, "In a funny way the fact that Bush lay low for Vietnam forshadows his initial response following the September 11 attack. He went to ground both times, as far as I'm concerned."
Exactly. My fear that day, hearing Jorge was flying to Offutt AFB in Omaha, the former HQ of the Strategic Air Command, was that he was going to start lobbing nukes. After all, he was safe.
*^*^*
On the lighter side (or tawny-chocolate, or something), Bill points to a recipe for Janet Jackson breast cupcakes. (N.B.: Link includes a blow-up of the "wardrobe malfunction", as a model of what the chef was going for. Just so you know.)
There he goes again.
Feb. 10th, 2004 01:56 amDavid Brooks has another dismal column in the New York Times today. But it ends on a hook that gives me a chance to go out on a limb.
Brooks does a poor-man's variant on a Bill Safire device, that of re-writing someone's speech, or trying to get inside their thoughts. I kind of understand why Safire likes this device, as he's a former speechwriter. If Brooks was a former novelist it might make a bit more sense. But as it is...
So the re-write in question is of Jorge's tongue-tied to the point of stream-of-consciousness interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. Here's Brooks' last paragraph, speaking as Bush:
"I could lose this election. I don't know whether the American people are with me or not. But I know our hair-trigger reputation has jolted dictators in Libya, North Korea and elsewhere. I know that if in 20 years Iraq is free and the Arab world is progressing toward normalcy, no one will doubt that I did the right thing."
Oh, yeah. God knows Bush's behavior has caused a jolt in behavior North Korea. So much so that history may well write, "George W. Bush -- Father of the North Korean Bomb".
But, as readers of this LJ know, I had a success rate of 63% when I made 8 predictions regarding the war in Iraq. The big score there: I predicted we would never find any WMD, because the Administration's behavior makes it clear that not even they believe the weapons existed.
So, here's that limb, complete with saw: Iraq will not be free in 20 months, let alone 20 years. 20 months would be... October 2005. Yeah, that sounds safe.
By October 2005, there will be one of four outcomes in Iraq:
* A weak but basically authoritarian regime is still in power, propped up by US troops. (The current status quo.)
* US troops are out, and there's an Islamic theocracy. (This is the "democratic" option, and why, rhetoric to the contrary, we're butt-scared about democracy breaking out in Iraq.)
* US troops are out, and there's another Hussein/Mubarak/Somoza/arap Moi/Marcos/Diem/Musharraf mostly-"friendly" dictator installed.
* US troops are out, and Iraq has broken up into three countries -- Kurdistan, "Iraq" (the Sunni enclave), and... Let's call it Basrastan (the Shi'ite enclave). Basrastan would be an Islamic theocracy (again). Kurdistan may or may not be at war with Turkey. "Iraq" would have no oil, probably be secular, and possibly authoritarian again.
I'll tell you the truth -- I'm not sure which one is the "best" scenario here. But it's where we're going, as of this writing.
Now, all things are provisional, pending better data. It's possible that somehow the Administration will start treating the situation with finesse and competence, and actually figure out a way to rebuild Iraq so that the Iraqis like and cooperate with us. To put John Kerry's spin on it, they might stop fucking up.
What I see as more likely, though, is another Vietnam... But not the way that's usually meant. I think what will happen is that regardless of the final outcome, we have so alienated the Iraqi people that some few will immigrate to the US and become incredibly prosperous, while the remainder stay at home and refuse to have anything to do with us for at least 20 years. Just like Vietnam. Or Iran. In fact, I think the US withdrawal from Iraq, if it happens before the election like so many seem to think it will, will look spookily like the withdrawal from Vietnam, people clinging to helicopters and all.
Brooks does a poor-man's variant on a Bill Safire device, that of re-writing someone's speech, or trying to get inside their thoughts. I kind of understand why Safire likes this device, as he's a former speechwriter. If Brooks was a former novelist it might make a bit more sense. But as it is...
So the re-write in question is of Jorge's tongue-tied to the point of stream-of-consciousness interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. Here's Brooks' last paragraph, speaking as Bush:
"I could lose this election. I don't know whether the American people are with me or not. But I know our hair-trigger reputation has jolted dictators in Libya, North Korea and elsewhere. I know that if in 20 years Iraq is free and the Arab world is progressing toward normalcy, no one will doubt that I did the right thing."
Oh, yeah. God knows Bush's behavior has caused a jolt in behavior North Korea. So much so that history may well write, "George W. Bush -- Father of the North Korean Bomb".
But, as readers of this LJ know, I had a success rate of 63% when I made 8 predictions regarding the war in Iraq. The big score there: I predicted we would never find any WMD, because the Administration's behavior makes it clear that not even they believe the weapons existed.
So, here's that limb, complete with saw: Iraq will not be free in 20 months, let alone 20 years. 20 months would be... October 2005. Yeah, that sounds safe.
By October 2005, there will be one of four outcomes in Iraq:
* A weak but basically authoritarian regime is still in power, propped up by US troops. (The current status quo.)
* US troops are out, and there's an Islamic theocracy. (This is the "democratic" option, and why, rhetoric to the contrary, we're butt-scared about democracy breaking out in Iraq.)
* US troops are out, and there's another Hussein/Mubarak/Somoza/arap Moi/Marcos/Diem/Musharraf mostly-"friendly" dictator installed.
* US troops are out, and Iraq has broken up into three countries -- Kurdistan, "Iraq" (the Sunni enclave), and... Let's call it Basrastan (the Shi'ite enclave). Basrastan would be an Islamic theocracy (again). Kurdistan may or may not be at war with Turkey. "Iraq" would have no oil, probably be secular, and possibly authoritarian again.
I'll tell you the truth -- I'm not sure which one is the "best" scenario here. But it's where we're going, as of this writing.
Now, all things are provisional, pending better data. It's possible that somehow the Administration will start treating the situation with finesse and competence, and actually figure out a way to rebuild Iraq so that the Iraqis like and cooperate with us. To put John Kerry's spin on it, they might stop fucking up.
What I see as more likely, though, is another Vietnam... But not the way that's usually meant. I think what will happen is that regardless of the final outcome, we have so alienated the Iraqi people that some few will immigrate to the US and become incredibly prosperous, while the remainder stay at home and refuse to have anything to do with us for at least 20 years. Just like Vietnam. Or Iran. In fact, I think the US withdrawal from Iraq, if it happens before the election like so many seem to think it will, will look spookily like the withdrawal from Vietnam, people clinging to helicopters and all.
Explanation
Jan. 3rd, 2004 07:49 pmUlrika says she thinks that Harper's Index post is bit too inscrutable on its own. So, to tell you what I mean by it:
* I have no idea why, but we're clearly in an era where the electorate prefers to vote for governors for president. Now, as Rene Dubos once said, trends are not destiny, but that's why I was saying back before the Iraq assault that Dean was the most likely nominee for the Democrats. He's the only governor running. It's not impossible for the rest of the field, but it's the way to bet. Interestingly, this also makes him the most "electable", at least going by recent trends.
* I'm not the only one who believes this. Jeb Bush is almost certainly going to run for president in 2008. He's already a governor. And the Administration has appeared to be almost single-minded in its pursuit of taking sitting Republican governors off the board by appointing them to Federal office, from where they're very unlikely to run. That greatly reduced the risk of any maverick primary challenges this cycle, and clears the way for Jeb next cycle.
The spooky part about this, of course, is that it's clearly been part of the plan all along. There was Dick Cheney, interviewing the VP hopefuls and getting all their dirt from them -- for purely "defensive" reasons, you understand, to rebut the press when they ran {cough} -- and then he pulls his switcheroo and becomes the Veep candidate himself. The shade of J. Edgar Hoover must've been so proud.
* I have no idea why, but we're clearly in an era where the electorate prefers to vote for governors for president. Now, as Rene Dubos once said, trends are not destiny, but that's why I was saying back before the Iraq assault that Dean was the most likely nominee for the Democrats. He's the only governor running. It's not impossible for the rest of the field, but it's the way to bet. Interestingly, this also makes him the most "electable", at least going by recent trends.
* I'm not the only one who believes this. Jeb Bush is almost certainly going to run for president in 2008. He's already a governor. And the Administration has appeared to be almost single-minded in its pursuit of taking sitting Republican governors off the board by appointing them to Federal office, from where they're very unlikely to run. That greatly reduced the risk of any maverick primary challenges this cycle, and clears the way for Jeb next cycle.
The spooky part about this, of course, is that it's clearly been part of the plan all along. There was Dick Cheney, interviewing the VP hopefuls and getting all their dirt from them -- for purely "defensive" reasons, you understand, to rebut the press when they ran {cough} -- and then he pulls his switcheroo and becomes the Veep candidate himself. The shade of J. Edgar Hoover must've been so proud.
Harper's Magazine homage
Jan. 3rd, 2004 01:33 amLast presidential election won by a sitting member of the House of Representatives: 1880 (James Garfield)
Last presidential election won by a sitting member of the Senate: 1960 (JFK)
Last time the powers of the presidency were conferred upon a sitting governor: 2000 (G.W. Bush)
Presidential elections recently won by sitting or former governors: 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980, 1976
Presidential elections where even the losing older party candidate was a sitting or former governor: 1988, 1980
Number of sitting or former governors running for the Democratic nomination: 1 (Dean)
Number of sitting or former governors appointed by G.W. Bush to his cabinet: 5 (Thompson HHS, Ridge DHS, Whitman EPA, Leavitt EPA, Ashcroft DOJ)
Number of sitting or former governors appointed by G.W. Bush as ambassadors: 1 (Cellucci, Canada)
Number of sitting governors interviewed by Dick Cheney under the color of a search for G.W. Bush's running mate in 2000, who reportedly had to go through a top-to-bottom disclosure of their past: 3 (Ridge of PA, Keating of OK, Pataki of NY)
Number of sitting Republican governors in 2000: 25
Percentage of then-sitting Republican governors appointed by G.W. Bush to Federal office: 20%
Last time a sitting cabinet secretary ran for president: n/a
Number of siblings of G.W. Bush who are a sitting governor and eligible to run for president in 2008: 1
Last presidential election won by a sitting member of the Senate: 1960 (JFK)
Last time the powers of the presidency were conferred upon a sitting governor: 2000 (G.W. Bush)
Presidential elections recently won by sitting or former governors: 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980, 1976
Presidential elections where even the losing older party candidate was a sitting or former governor: 1988, 1980
Number of sitting or former governors running for the Democratic nomination: 1 (Dean)
Number of sitting or former governors appointed by G.W. Bush to his cabinet: 5 (Thompson HHS, Ridge DHS, Whitman EPA, Leavitt EPA, Ashcroft DOJ)
Number of sitting or former governors appointed by G.W. Bush as ambassadors: 1 (Cellucci, Canada)
Number of sitting governors interviewed by Dick Cheney under the color of a search for G.W. Bush's running mate in 2000, who reportedly had to go through a top-to-bottom disclosure of their past: 3 (Ridge of PA, Keating of OK, Pataki of NY)
Number of sitting Republican governors in 2000: 25
Percentage of then-sitting Republican governors appointed by G.W. Bush to Federal office: 20%
Last time a sitting cabinet secretary ran for president: n/a
Number of siblings of G.W. Bush who are a sitting governor and eligible to run for president in 2008: 1
Given that it's somehow become "unpatriotic" to, um... use those rights we affirm for ourselves in that pesky Constitution, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show came up with an interesting thing: A Debate between the Governor of Texas, and the man wielding the powers of the Presidency.
Great stuff, but NB: The video file on that page requires Real Player.
{swiped fromplanetnikita}
Great stuff, but NB: The video file on that page requires Real Player.
{swiped from
planetnikita}Separated at birth?
May. 6th, 2003 01:11 amHere are two images:
One shows a campaign stunt from 1988. Another shows a campaign stunt from a few days ago.
In one, the press roundly tore the campaigner to shreds for his fakery, despite the fact that he seemed to be a hopelessly earnest person who may well have been just trying to learn something.
In the other, the press praised to the skies the acumen of the campaigner, despite his showing utter contempt for the fighting men and women of the Navy ship that had been at sea for the longest deployment in US history by holding them back from their loved ones for 48 hours so he could get a personal photo op. This leaves aside the issue of his sincerity, given his record of dodging wartime service.
Can you tell which is which?
Curse that liberal press!
One shows a campaign stunt from 1988. Another shows a campaign stunt from a few days ago.
In one, the press roundly tore the campaigner to shreds for his fakery, despite the fact that he seemed to be a hopelessly earnest person who may well have been just trying to learn something.
In the other, the press praised to the skies the acumen of the campaigner, despite his showing utter contempt for the fighting men and women of the Navy ship that had been at sea for the longest deployment in US history by holding them back from their loved ones for 48 hours so he could get a personal photo op. This leaves aside the issue of his sincerity, given his record of dodging wartime service.
Can you tell which is which?
Curse that liberal press!
