By SwopaMay 15 2008 - 5:41pm 
Around the blogs today, there's a good deal of commentary, consternation, and near-confusion over the hallucinatory vision laid out today (and already memorialized in an online ad) by Mr. Double-Talk Express, John McCain, today:
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role. Eric Martin observes at Obsidian Wings that in this effort to substitute fantasy for policy prescriptions, McCain is "employing the Glenn Reynolds Field Manual" ("What should the U.S. do in Iraq now?" "Win."), but there's really more than that going on here.
In my periodic missives on political framing, one of the themes I've explored is the GOP effort to maintain its perceived position (as George Lakoff has famously identified) as the daddy party. McCain's speech is an attempt to reach those voters who, consciously or not, would prefer to be ruled than governed -- to elect not a representative, but a supreme authority whom we need only to obey. The implicit message is that if we elect McCain as our national father figure, the goals he describes will come about by sheer force of his determination, with no further thought or effort on our part.
As I wrote more than two years ago, the rhetorical strategy is to "Remind everyone that they're the strong daddy, and as long as they're in charge, the children (also known as us) shouldn't waste time second-guessing about what they're doing." Of course, I wrote that about our current president, making this stylistic choice another way that -- surprise! -- McCain is turning out to be just a would-be extended version of George Bush.
What to do about it? Well, since this is such a timeworn GOP approach, I've written about that, too, here in early 2007:
The absurdity of such spin after all this time shows us what the antidotes are: facing reality, appropriate derision of those who would rather live in a fantasy... and, above all, communicating to the broader public that they -- we -- are fully equipped to judge reality and determine the best response to it, rather than waiting for some Wizard of Oz-like daddy to tell us what to believe. Still seems like the right answer to me.
(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)
Here in California, in response to a projected $15 billion+ budget deficit, Governor Stupidnator is proposing to "borrow against future profits from the state lottery to help close a $15.2 billion budget deficit." Specifically:
Under Schwarzenegger's proposal, California would sell up to $15 billion in bonds to Wall Street investors over three years. The investors would be repaid with interest using profits generated by the state lottery, which would have to be revitalized to generate more revenue.
Can you think of any move less fiscally responsible than borrowing money against future projected lottery revenue, especially where said projection is significantly higher than the what the lottery actually produces? In a down economy that is shedding jobs?
Sign the petition to recall this ass.
Gotta love the tortured prose the MSM is using to describe the demographic that comes out to vote for Hillary but shuns Obama. They are " ...poor...white, older, with 7 in 10 lacking college degrees, and " who included race as a criterion" in their voting choices.
Oh come on pundits and reporters, there is a name for that: trailer trash. Rev. Wright just needs to pray that God send more tornadoes between now and November, and Obama beats McCain.
Shrubya did personally sacrifice for the Iraq war - he claims to have given up golf to show solidarity with the troops. Shrubya, I feel your pain!
By fubarMay 14 2008 - 9:28am Pssst. Pass it along.
 
By SwopaMay 12 2008 - 9:24am  
The New York Times reported over the weekend from Baghdad:
The Iraqi government and leaders of the movement of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr agreed Saturday to a truce, brokered with help from Iran, that would end more than a month of bloody fighting in the vast, crowded Sadr City section of Baghdad.
. . . The deal would allow the sides to pull back from what was becoming a messy and unpopular showdown in the months leading up to crucial provincial elections. It is not clear who won, how long it would take for the truce to take effect or how long it would hold. But at least for now it would end the warfare among Shiite factions.
. . . The decision to negotiate a cease-fire came as both parties appeared to realize that they were losing ground. Civilians in Sadr City blame both sides for their suffering.
The Iraqi government has done little to ease the crisis and allow medical and other aid to reach people. There has been almost no effort to repair the shattered neighborhood, where burned-out cars and piles of bricks from bomb-damaged houses are common sights..
For the Shiite militias, losses have been rising as well. They are suffering more casualties and are also being blamed for the deaths of some civilians, who frequently bear the brunt of the gun battles. I'm inclined to reprise my analysis from the end of March, when a similar truce occurred in Basra:
For the Team (some-)Shiites government, you had the awful spectacle of intentionally inflicting carnage on one of your own major cities. . . . For the Sadrists, as proud as they may be of their defiant stand, it does them little good to be seen as wanting to draw the government (no matter how clumsy and corrupt it might be) into a civil war. Although some canny analysts frequently cite the Sadr movement's grassroots support, this shouldn't be overestimated -- I don't believe ordinary Iraqis' support for Muqtada extends to violent resistance to keep senior Sadrists from being imprisoned, especially when that means volunteering their homes and families' lives for possible destruction.
That's the box Mookie is in... to maintain his popular political support, he needs to restrict himself to being a political actor. But if he does, the government (and the Americans) will use their official military leverage to whittle away at his ability to act politically.
As for the box the rest of Iraq is in, this plaintive Washington Post story today puts it well:
[Emad T.] Yousif enjoyed some personal prosperity and a whispered, furtive liberty under the Baathist regime [of Saddam Hussein], always striving to avoid any undue attention from the vast intelligence apparatus that helped keep Hussein in power. Balding, oval-faced, eyes slightly downcast, Yousif played the gray man well.
Five years into the U.S. effort to remake his country, Yousif, now 53, plays that role still. If the essence of freedom is the opportunity to assert oneself, Iraq has a long way to go. Now as then, Iraqis who want to survive shrink back into themselves, lie low, let attention find someone else.
. . . Material ostentation draws kidnappers, political engagement invites assassination, and time spent outside the seeming safety of four walls carries the risk of being caught in the middle of horrific violence.
. . . The chaotic aftermath of an invasion intended, in part, to promote democracy has convinced Yousif to stay as far away as possible from power: "We are people not involved in hot issues, which is politics or religion or whatever it is. We are normal, neutral people. I believe most of Iraq is like this. And we got experience from the old regime how we can manage ourselves." The Post's reporter, who met Yousif in 2002, quotes him from a profile written at the time: "The only thing Iraqis can do, [Yousif] says, is wait. They have no influence over the US. They can't change their government themselves. 'We are like cockroaches feeding on sewage,' he says. 'We survive.'" The substitution of one inept-but-brutal regime for another, and the presence of an overextended occupying army, doesn't seem to have changed that underlying, sad reality.
By SwopaMay 10 2008 - 5:18pm An even more-random-than-usual hodgepodge of links found while updating the Needlenose blogroll for the forthcoming WordPress version of the site:
-- Fafblog on the pieing of Thomas Friedman: "Fafblog would like to Officially Condemn this wanton and aggressive misuse of pie, almost as much as we'd like to Officially Condemn how much we enjoyed it."
-- Brian Beutler passes along a photo of a bar in Italy with (I hope) an unclear grasp on what the Ku Klux Klan is.
-- Via Chris Andersen, did you ever notice the "Garfield" comic strip's dark, Beckett-like undercurrents? Well, it helps if you remove Garfield:
-- The King of Zembla reports on the quiet evisceration of the GI Bill, underscoring an important GOP philosophical tenet: "Government programs that work must be watered down, undermined, or dismantled altogether, lest citizens draw the naive and dangerous conclusion that government programs can work."
-- Former Pennsylvania resident Dick Destiny on " codgers and uneducated for Clinton" ( "Barack Obama had it right when he pegged small-town Pennsyltuckians. They just didn't like hearing it. They're poorer than the average, less educated, and they don't like those who tell them so in any form. Like many Americans, they can't take criticism."), as well as Obama Girl's racist hometown and " Republicrat barflies" ( "white men who turn into Republicans the instant they find a candidate on the other side of the fence who seems like a strong and manly daddy-figure").
By SwopaMay 9 2008 - 1:15pm An inadvertently revealing moment -- though revealing of what, I'm not sure -- from the Associated Press today:
Perhaps Barack Obama's competitive juices need new outlets now that he has expanded his lead over Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.
On a five-hour flight from Washington to Oregon late Thursday, the Illinois senator came to the back of his charter plane for a spirited word game against reporters . . .
In "Taboo," a player under time constraints must prompt teammates to guess words or names without using obvious hints. For instance, in giving clues for "equator," the player is penalized if he says "Earth,""center" or "line."
. . . When Obama was giving clues, he ventured: "Thomas Jefferson called for it once in a while." Seeing the blank looks, he admitted, "that's too obscure." He then tried, "the Beatles did a song about it," and a teammate correctly answered, "Revolution." I think it's safe to say that neither Dubya nor John McCain would have had the Thomas Jefferson quote be the first clue that popped into their heads.
By SwopaMay 8 2008 - 4:16pm 
(Image via The Phoenix.)
On the same day that $100 million-plus heiress/candidate spouse Cindy McCain says, "How about never? Is never a good time for you?" with regard to when she'll release her tax returns, the Associated Press profiles the most fearsome financial powerhouse of the 2008 election:
Kriss Riggs isn't one to spend her money on politicians.
"Even the place you can donate a dollar on your taxes, I refuse to do it," says the 60-year-old photographer from Blue River, Ore.
Likewise for Kate Schwartz, a 24-year-old marketing expert from Chicago. Past elections, she says, always seemed far removed from young people.
"A lot of people felt like it wasn't happening in my demographic," Schwartz said.
Not this time.
Riggs and Schwartz are foot soldiers in Barack Obama's 1.5-million-strong army of campaign contributors. Dozens of Associated Press interviews with donors, and an AP financial analysis show how contributions that make only a soft ca-ching by themselves, arriving in increments of $10, $15 and $50, have collectively swelled into a financial roar that has helped propel Obama toward the Democratic president nomination.
Altogether, Obama's campaign has taken in an unprecedented $226 million, most of it contributed online. His donor base is larger than the one the Democratic National Committee had for the 2000 election.
These are hardly political fat cats. Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less, and 41 percent have given $25 or less, according to the Obama campaign. I think I like this contrast on the subject of public accountability -- or, to put it in less jargonesque language, knowing who you work for -- going into the fall campaign. Barack is likely to be the target of whining from the Double-Talk Express if he chooses to opt out of the general-election public financing restrictions, but all he has to do is point out that the purpose of that funding approach was to keep candidates from being compromised by their reliance on who's giving them money.
Then he can add, "If John McCain wants to accuse me of being beholden to the nearly 2 million Americans of all backgrounds who have donated money to my campaign, mostly in amounts ranging from 10 to 100 dollars, my answer is... yes! I'm indebted to them, and those are the people whose interests I'll serve as President."
Go for it, John... I dare you.
(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)
By SwopaMay 7 2008 - 11:20am 
(Barack Obama in Raleigh, NC yesterday, via Reuters.)
By SwopaMay 6 2008 - 11:23pm 
Looks like she's waving goodbye...
In the wake of the primary election results in Indiana and North Carolina -- a barely discernible win in the former, and a substantial defeat in the latter -- Hillary Clinton has reportedly cancelled all public appearances tomorrow, and David Niewert writes at Firedoglake about her "victory" speech:
She vowed to keep fighting on. Florida and Michigan and all that.
But it sure sounded, and looked, and felt like a concession speech. The thank-yous. Bill crying (at least it looked like it from certain shots). The resigned tone. She certainly didn't sound like someone who was fighting any longer. And, as Markos notes (and Greg Sargent documents), her post-results email to supporters doesn't include the usual explicit request for money.
That last item may be the clearest indicator that we won't have Clinton to kick around much longer. You may recall her well-publicized dip into her and Bill's private finances back in January, and it always made me wonder if part of her motivation for staying in the race was to recoup her "investment."
Seen in that light, the most damaging thing about the IN/NC returns isn't that she can't spin the media or superdelegates on a plausible path to the nomination; it's that she can't drum up the kind of fundraising spike her victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania brought. And so, having gotten back as close to even as she's going to get, now might be a good time to withdraw rather than go back to running on her own dime.
Update: Okay, so maybe she's been running on her own dime again for a while. And maybe she's not shutting down her campaign totally, and not withdrawing just yet. But at some point you've got to figure Chelsea will step in and tell her mom to stop spending her inheritance.
|
Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
Anonymous comments are being moderated in order to prevent comment spam. (You can post an anonymous comment, but it will not show up until one of the Needlenose high priests gives it his blessing.)
