Reply
Tue 27 Dec, 2005 09:02 am
I think there's an odd conundrum for political junkies like us - the present probably always (or damned close to always) seems to have a characteristic of dire import. We tend to feel as if we are sitting on the edge of serious and profound changes that might easily send us hurtling quite out of control and in quite the wrong directions. Our friends and family members fearing for our emotional balance suggest good and comforting reasons why we ought to chill out. Or, less empathetically and fearing for their own emotional balance, they tell us to "shut the fukk up for once!"
The charge or suggestion of pre-clinical paranoid delusion isn't easy to defend against. We know it might be true.
One compelling bit of evidence for this diagnosis is the observation we make of ourselves, if we are honest, that anyone who disagrees with us about the 'tipping-point' acuteness of the present is clearly suffering the reverse disorder - quaaludia, the belief that butterflies and bats would spend their wee hours tripping the moonlight fantastic together like Fred and Ginger if only all our ears were attunded, like the President's, to the voice of the Good Shepard and, of course, if there was a flat-tax system. We think these people are dangerous lunatics and we should admit that we do. Once you've frantically yanked a bat-creature out of your hair and seen with even the briefest glance that it had the same face as Richard Nixon, any notion of benevolent guidance henceforth gains the odor of butterfly landing on a lightbulb.
ISSUE ONE: The imperial presidency.
Whether democracy, in any fullsome sense of that word (ie., the framers' sense of it or your and my sense of it) will survive the accretion of power by the present crowd with attendant loss of balancing institutions, is not certain. Retention of the congress in Republican hands will push this change further. Retention of Republican control of congress and the presidency in 2008 will likely make the matter irretrievable for decades, if ever.
ISSUE TWO: Information control.
The combination of increasingly effective modern marketing techniques deployed in the polical sphere, the already established fact of an entirely and exclusively conservative/Republican media system, the continuation of those factors working to smother a viable independent and critical press (corporatization, fragmentation of audience, Orwellian demands/bullying towards state-sanctioned consensus), along with further damage to FOI access and the certain growth of covert 'news' agents and mis-information/state-controlled propaganda systems will continue to erode citizens' ability to truly understand and effect governance policies.
ISSUE THREE: the promotion of fear within the polity
If you don't grasp this one and how it facilitates oppressive and dicatorial governance then you either haven't read Orwell or you are such a daddy-image loving weenie that you deserve your paternalized and hate-filled future. In Manhattan, the only community to actually suffer an attack from 'terrorists', a full 80+% of the electorate did NOT vote for Bush last election. This ought to provide a clue as to the manufactured nature of the fear and hatred being nurtured in the American psyche.
ISSUE FOUR: war makes for huge corporate profits and peace is an anti-capital growth money-loser
Forget all the rest of Moore's film and keep in view the single segment that covered the meeting of corporate execs in Washington slavering over the huge bucks to be made in Iraq. That happened. You saw it. The great modern growth of privatized military services and mercenary functions along with the traditional weapons manufacturering enterprises and Pentagon budget outlay only adds impetus to the dynamic of profit-making through the happy circumstance of war. Signing onto Kyoto would, we hear, seriously damage the US economy. It would be interesting to compare that projected level of damage to what would result if peace were to break out.
ISSUE FIVE: incumbency inertia
Almost nobody gets voted out of office now. Party manipulation, the huge cost of running for office, big-money investment in the election process, highly sophisticated computer-drawn redistricting along with an understandably apathetic electorate all work to maintain power in the hands of those who hold it.
ISSUE SIX: the stealth campaign (their own wording) to politicize the courts
The Federalist Society has changed the horizon regarding the US court system through organizing and training the conservative/republican leaning lawyers to move into key positions of legal power while being prudently quiet as to their ideologies. They've been very successful. The influence falling out from this project is difficult to predict as these judges aren't ideologues in any sense comparable to the Rove or O'Reilly sort (see Luttig's recent ruling on the Padilla case). But the effects could prove critical on a number of deeply important issues. For example, if Alito still holds the same notions expressed earlier regarding vesting greater power in the Presidency, then ISSUE ONE above will gain even more impetus just as this battle is about to be fought.
So, that's how fukked up the scene looks to me. But there are some good signs too.
GOOD SIGN ONE: Patrick Fitzgerald. There are people in positions of responsibility who actually have integrity and who give a **** beyond gaining power and wealth for themselves and buddies. Judge Luttig, the conservative judge who just slapped down the administration for its cavalier manipulation of the court system; the Republican judge in Pennsylvania who pushed back against the ID movement with astonishing clarity of mind and integrity.
GOOD SIGN TWO: Jack Abramoff. This wonderful scandal (wonderful in that it has blown open) has the potential to at least somewhat inform the broad electorate as to the level of corruption that the modern Republican machine has achieved. This is NOT an equal opportunity matter, it is overwhelmingly a Republican scandal. It has the potential to gather up people like Norquist and Reed who, as key Republican power-brokers and organizers, have made fortunes for themselves and for their party while fundamentally undercutting the democratic process in the US. It also has the potential to reach up into the Republican congress and the White House and strip away the deceits and the spin and reveal, once again, that trusting politicians to be working for YOUR best interests is delusional and they need to be watched and that requires a real transparency of operation and an independent press.
GOOD SIGN THREE: Iraq
In 1992, the neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute wrote a paper wherein they postulated that a Pearl Harbor type of incident would provide the necessary catalyst for re-instituting government of the sort they thought real spiffy. This group includes all the architects of the War on Iraq and most of the key players in this administration. They got 9/11 and they ran with it and still are.
What those of us who think those men dangerous nuts have now been bequeathed is the disaster in Iraq for which they are responsible. This hair-ripping outcome has but one good facet...the extremism, hubris, unilalateral idiocies, and cavalier war-mongering (where war is fought by others and other people's children, NOT by them) has become increasingly evident to the US electorate.
GOOD SIGN FOUR: polls
As absolutely depressing as it has been to see Bush's poll numbers decline this slowly, they have finally declined and it is difficult to imagine anything bringing them back up. He's dead as far as any hope the Republicans had that he might become another Reagan. The polls also show an increasing perception by the electorate that the policies and ideas of this administration and its conservative supporters has been both extremist and misdirected. Thank god, I say.
Blatham
Blatham, I've always been impressed with your understanding of American politics, but you've outdone yourself with your warnings of what is to come if American citizens, and the Press, don't wake up---fast!
Thank you.
BBB
These are the times that try men's souls---Thomas Paine.
Blatham
Blatham, I fear that the public and the Press will focus on the wrong issue of Bush's secret spying on citizens. It's not the fact that he violated Federal Law by not getting warrants from the FISA Court that should concern us the most. It is the Bush-Cheney plan to weaken the Congress and strengthen the Presidency.
I hope enough Republicans with a bit of their integrity left, will lead the fight to put the brakes on the Bush-Cheney plan. The Democrats cannot do it by themselves. Are there any Republicans left who will put their country before their party? We are in trouble if the Republican Libertarians don't rise to meet the danger.
BBB
Re: Blatham
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Blatham, I fear that the public and the Press will focus on the wrong issue of Bush's secret spying on citizens. It's not the fact that he violated Federal Law by not getting warrants from the FISA Court that should concern us the most. It is the Bush-Cheney plan to weaken the Congress and strengthen the Presidency.
I hope enough Republicans with a bit of their integrity left, will lead the fight to put the brakes on the Bush-Cheney plan. The Democrats cannot do it by themselves. Are there any Republicans left who will put their country before their party? We are in trouble if the Republican Libertarians don't rise to meet the danger.
BBB
Tah, for the ealier.
Your first paragraph matches my evaluation too. This single issue is but one manifestation of Cheney's drive for moving the Presidency into unbalanced power (a project he admits to being engaged in since he worked with Ford, post Nixon). Scowcroft, as we know, said he doesn't know this fellow any longer. I think him somewhat mad. Don't know if you saw the extended interview a week or so past with Bush on the PBS newshour (probably archived). Any notion that this man has either the intelligence, the necessary knowledge of the world, or even the strength of character to actually be in charge of Cheney and Rumsfeld is delusional. Bush isn't running the show.
I suppose I should have added one other good sign above relating to your last paragraph. The coalition of conservative voices and the previous discipline in working together with a single voice is coming apart now, for a bunch of reasons. But one of those reasons is that Cheney's goals do not align with the libertarian goals.
Blatham
Blatham, Democrats must form an alliance with Republican Libertarians. Hillary Clinton is good at this, but I haven't heard anything from her yet that indicates she is going to make such efforts. I'm sure Bill Clinton would urge her to do so.
I also think that we must form alliances with Independent Libertarians. The Democrat leadership must attempt to reach out---fast!
In addition to Democrat pundits, the Media must start paying more attention to Libertarian pundits who recognize the danger of the Bush-Cheney plan.
BBB
What I'm about to say will send some folks here over the edge, if they bump into the thread.
The latest Harper's has an article which makes a compelling case for Bill Clinton heading up the UN after Kofi. I'd give an arm for that. One proposition he optimistically advances is that Republicans ought to approve as it would keep Bill (who remains exceedingly popular) away from Hilary's expected campaign and away from the WH (his popularity helping her out). It's a good read.
Quote:AGGRESSIVE FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT IS THE NOBLEST SPORT THE WORLD AFFORDS."
...wording of the plaque that sits on Donald Rumsfeld's desk.
And wouldn't the families of dead and mutilated American soldiers be pleased at Don's "sport"
Is that right, he has got this plaque?
Strange statement from a man most of whose colleagues would not do military service.
Evidently an armchair "sportsman".
Oh yeah? Well try this one on for size!
I think Clinton would be an EXCELLENT leader for the UN. He is smart, charismatic, and despite what some will say, has the best interests of the US first.
McTag: I really hope you don't always judge a person by whom they work with or for, but instead judge the person for whom they are.
The man has a very distinguished career.
NH Republicans Drift from National Party
NH Republicans Drift from National Party
By Rick Klein
The Boston Globe
Monday 26 December 2005
Delegation breaks on major issues.
Washington - With signs pointing to a resurgent Democratic Party in New Hampshire, the state's all-Republican congressional delegation is becoming increasingly at odds with the national Republican Party in a state that was long a GOP bellwether, according to an analysis of votes and other actions in Congress over the past year.
Congressmen Jeb Bradley and Charles Bass voted for expanded stem cell research and opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and Bradley notably declined to endorse Bush's Social Security plan.
Senator John E. Sununu opposed Bush's plan for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, joined a filibuster to insert civil liberties protections into the USA Patriot Act, and voted against his party leadership on several major spending bills.
Even the state's senior senator, Judd Gregg, who is a member of the GOP leadership and generally backs the party's priorities, voted against the transportation bill and the massive energy bill that grew out of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.
The senators and congressmen say they are acting in the tradition of the state's libertarian brand of conservatism, even if the national GOP moves in a different direction. But Democrats and some independent observers, pointing to the fact that Senator John F. Kerry beat President Bush in New Hampshire, and that Governor John Lynch , a Democrat, is the most popular official in the state, say the Republican senators and congressmen are trying to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular national GOP.
This is particularly true of Bass and Bradley, who were up for reelection next year in districts being targeted by the Democrats, said Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire's Granite State Poll.
"They've stepped up the visibility of some of the things where they differ from the national Republican Party," Smith said. "Looking at recent elections and the demographics of the state, that makes a lot of sense for them. This is not a Republican state like it used to be."
In the House, Bass and Bradley have done more than just oppose the party leadership on environmental issues; each has been at the forefront of efforts to prevent wildlife refuge drilling, a top energy priority for national Republican leaders. Their opposition forced Republican leaders to strip drilling from the budget this year, and another attempt to tack it onto the Defense bill failed last week in the Senate.
Both House members have also publicly distanced themselves from Representative Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader who is under indictment; Bass is calling for new leadership elections to replace DeLay, and Bradley returned $15,000 in campaign funds he received from DeLay's political action committee.
Bass joined Sununu last year in breaking with his party by opposing a constitutional ban to gay marriage.
Sununu, the junior senator who won a hard-fought race in 2002 with 51 percent of the vote, also voted against adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, one of the president's signature accomplishments.
Sununu said the defections from the party line result from the delegation's strong beliefs in the widely held New Hampshire convictions of limited government and fiscal responsibility. None of their votes represent a shift in position, or an attempt to run from the side of the president or GOP leaders, he said.
"Our Republican Party, and the Democratic Party, from time to time has run afoul of those principles," Sununu said. "Members of the party who are comfortable with who they are are going to stand up for what they believe in."
Democrats have a different view.
"I think they're scared. They can read the polls," said Kathy Sullivan, the chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.
By supporting Kerry by a one-point margin last year, New Hampshire was the only state in the nation that switched from red to blue in the presidential election. Democrats have now carried the state in three of the last four presidential elections, after a streak where Republicans won six straight.
Democrats have also won four of the past five governor's races - the governor is on the ballot every two years in the state - after Lynch edged out single-term incumbent Craig Benson last year. Last month's Granite State poll pegged Lynch's approval rating at 71 percent - easily the highest of the state's major political figures.
Some older residents who have traditionally voted Republican are turned off by the conservative direction of the national party and are beginning to vote for Democrats, said Dante Scala, a politics professor at St. Anselm College in Manchester.
"There are a good number of Republicans in New Hampshire who wonder what happened to their party," Scala said.
Although many new residents moving from the Boston area are fleeing higher Massachusetts taxes and voting Republican, many transplants from mid-Atlantic states who are drawn by the state's booming economy bring their liberal predilections with them, said Smith.
"New Hampshire is the last New England state to not go Democratic, and I think it will soon," Smith said.
That would be a surprise for the all-Republican New Hampshire delegation in Washington. Sununu scoffed at suggestions that New Hampshire is leaning in the direction of the Democrats. He attributed Kerry's win to the fact that the Massachusetts senator was already well-known to New Hampshirites who watch Boston TV stations.
And last month, even as Democratic candidates fared well in races across the country, the Democratic mayor of Manchester - New Hampshire's largest city - lost to a Republican challenger.
"Has the electorate shifted significantly to the left or the right? No," Sununu said. "New Hampshire has always been a center-right, independent-minded, and somewhat libertarian electorate. Period."
Bradley allowed that he and his colleagues have significant areas of disagreement with the national party. He said votes that buck the party line are in areas where they are reflecting the desires of their constituents, he said.
"I represent New Hampshire in Washington, and I take that the most serious of all the things that I look at," Bradley said. "People want to see frugal government, low taxes, a 'Live Free or Die' attitude. People want to balance the need to have a growing economy while protecting our environment."
The latest Granite State poll showed that the state's members of Congress have reasonably high approval ratings. But Bass and Sununu were viewed unfavorably by a greater portion of respondents than at any point since the poll was first taken in 2001.
Bass was viewed unfavorably by 25 percent of respondents in his district, and Sununu by 29 percent statewide. That suggests that they're being harmed by their association with GOP leaders in Washington, Smith said.
McTag wrote:Quote:AGGRESSIVE FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT IS THE NOBLEST SPORT THE WORLD AFFORDS."
...wording of the plaque that sits on Donald Rumsfeld's desk.
And wouldn't the families of dead and mutilated American soldiers be pleased at Don's "sport"
Is that right, he has got this plaque?
Strange statement from a man most of whose colleagues would not do military service.
Evidently an armchair "sportsman".
The plague sits on his desk at the D of D.
McGentrix wrote:Oh yeah? Well try this one on for size!
I think Clinton would be an EXCELLENT leader for the UN. He is smart, charismatic, and despite what some will say, has the best interests of the US first.
McTag: I really hope you don't always judge a person by whom they work with or for, but instead judge the person for whom they are.
The man has a very distinguished career.
McG
You know I like you. The reason is that once every 100 posts, we agree.
As you said in your introduction Blatham, paranoia run amuck.
The unknown future is always filled with risk, especially when it is beyond your control and is rushing toward you like a runaway frieght train. When the engineer at the throttle holds political views you personally detest, it is easy to forget the train is on tracks and can't be easily driven in a 360 degree circle. It is true that a train can be derailed by an unseen bridge that has failed, or if a sudden curve is taken too fast.
Any little factoid, or opinion, can be blown up into a catasclymic future. Once in panic mode, even overwhelming evidence that your fears are overblown can easily be dismissed as the mad ravings of idiots. Strange that everyone, and its quite a large crowd, who disagree with your fears are all either idiots, or willing conspirators in a vast conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution. So far no one has directly accused me of being an idiot or a traitor to the Constitution, and I presume that there are other perfectly intelligent, sane conservatives who don't fit your prejudiced definition either. BTW, I realize there are as many paranoids on the right as there are on the left. The great majority of our citizens are slap-dab in the middle and retain pretty good sense. Trusting the People is sometimes hard to do, but they usually muddle through.
For over two hundred years every Party out of power has bemoaned the sad state of affairs and predicted the imminent downfall of the Republic. Over our political history there have been some real challenges to the Constitution and to the survival of the nation, but we have always survived. There have been grossly incompetent Presidents, and some whose behavior in office might easily have been the end of Consitutional government. Some of those are still regarded as "heros" like Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. Others are mostly forgotten, like Buchannan, Pierce, Arthur, Harding, etc. This President is not much different from the average Presidents of our past. He is better than some and worse than others, but any useful valuation of his administration lies far off in a future that is beyond our kin.
Congressional elections are coming up, this is an opportunity for those who share your alarm to elect representatives who will presumably not go along with the grand conspiracy. My guess is that the Democrats may increase their representation in Congress, but that it will make little difference in national policy. President Bush is a lame duck, and you folks on the left will have an opportunity to make Hillary the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. You will need all the luck in the world, because I don't think she's electable even if the GOP were to run Daffy Duck against her. I'd like to see the GOP run either John McCain or Collin Powell. Either one would win in a landslide against anyone the Democratic Party could come up with.
Reported possible candidates
Reported possible candidates
Rumours have recently surfaced that former U.S. President Bill Clinton and current Chilean President Ricardo Lagos have set their sights on becoming Secretary-General. Also a possible candidate is Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, the current President of Latvia, who would be the first female Secretary-General. However, it is generally considered to be Asia's turn to fill the post and both Clinton and Lagos have denied that they have aspirations to hold the job. No announcement has been made, but behind the scenes China is already pushing the candidacy of Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who also seems to have U.S., Russian, and ASEAN support. Jayanta Dhanapala of Sri Lanka is also considered a strong candidate. Dhanapala is well reputed in UN circles especially for his contribution to disarmament issues.
Another possible candidate is Aleksander Kwaśniewski, the outgoing President of Poland.
We are riding on a railroad, singing some else's song
Forever standing by the cross road. Take a side and step along.
There's a man up here who claims to have his hands upon the reins.
There are chains upon his hands and he's riding upon a train.
Nothing to fear but fear
Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself
Nothing to fear but fear
Villagers scurry like ants at
the howl of the chimera
and the griffon's call.
Nowhere to hide from the hydra,
the centaur, or the dragon.
Man-eaters one and all.
One man alone will stand his ground
and, like a mountain,
bars the way.
The stance, the face, the attitude.
All say he fears nothing but fear.
We visited his grave today.
---Adam Gibbs
There's a plague on Rumsfeld's desk? Things are looking up already!
:wink:
McTag wrote:There's a plague on Rumsfeld's desk? Things are looking up already!
:wink:
That is the second time I've made that unconscious error in one week. But I am living with a Freudian analyst.
There are nine more to go.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace