Those with a taste for bitter irony will find it in a Washington Post story today that reports “the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group are getting a second look from the White House and Congress, as officials continue to scour for bipartisan solutions to salvage the American engagement in Iraq.”
Six months ago, after the Republican thumpin’ at the polls, the President had cover to make his bid for posterity by using the Study Group’s report as cover for a compromise. Instead, he treated it like something he had found in an outhouse and doubled down on an insane bet for history’s approval of his course in Iraq.
Now Bush is finally saying he “liked what James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton suggested.”
Too little, too late, but as always, the worst President in American history is beginning to bow to the inevitable only after being driven back to the wall. Next stop, Alberto Gonzales and perhaps at long last, Karl Rove.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Clarence Thomas' Sound of Silence
Since October 2004, according to Supreme Court transcripts, Clarence Thomas has spoken 281 words. At the rate of about a hundred a year, no one would call him garrulous.
In a new book, many people call Justice Thomas many other things: ultra-conservative, unqualified, combative, insensitive, self-pitying, reclusive, a traitor to his race. But the truth is more complicated than that.
Written by two black Washington Post reporters, “Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas” attempts to solve the mystery of a man who became the focus of racial and political rage in America.
When Thomas was nominated to succeed Thurgood Marshall in 1991, it seemed like a bad joke that the first President Bush claimed to have chosen him without regard to race. Replacing the distinguished first African American on the Court with a political hack who had been on any bench for only a year enraged Democrats, black leaders and feminists who believed he was anti-abortion.
Yet televised confirmation hearings went well until opponents brought in Anita Hill, who had worked for Thomas and testified that he had sexually harassed her with remarks about pubic hair in his Coca Cola and a porn star named Long Dong Silver.
The ensuing soap opera of character assassination by both sides was a national disgrace, which ended only after Thomas, who had been deferential until then, expressed his anger over what he called a “high tech lynching.”
Clarence Thomas has been on the high court for a decade and a half now, apparently still scarred by that experience, doing and saying very little, following Antonin Scalia’s ultra-conservative lead. Those who opposed him are still bitter about his appointment.
A magazine for black readers published two covers of Thomas, once wearing an Aunt Jemima headscarf and another as a lawn jockey. The Justice himself has seldom appeared in public, making an exception to officiate at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding.
Of all the players in this racial drama, George Herbert Walker Bush bears the most blame. Thomas was only being himself, and his detractors were justified in their reasons for opposing him, if not always in their methods.
But it was Bush’s cynicism in naming him that has led to the bitter polarization of the Supreme Court nomination process, which culminated in the depths of his son’s choice of Harriet Meirs and consideration of Alberto Gonzales for appointment.
Justice Thomas’ silence is a symbol for the loud and clear cacaphony that both Bushes have brought to American democracy.
In a new book, many people call Justice Thomas many other things: ultra-conservative, unqualified, combative, insensitive, self-pitying, reclusive, a traitor to his race. But the truth is more complicated than that.
Written by two black Washington Post reporters, “Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas” attempts to solve the mystery of a man who became the focus of racial and political rage in America.
When Thomas was nominated to succeed Thurgood Marshall in 1991, it seemed like a bad joke that the first President Bush claimed to have chosen him without regard to race. Replacing the distinguished first African American on the Court with a political hack who had been on any bench for only a year enraged Democrats, black leaders and feminists who believed he was anti-abortion.
Yet televised confirmation hearings went well until opponents brought in Anita Hill, who had worked for Thomas and testified that he had sexually harassed her with remarks about pubic hair in his Coca Cola and a porn star named Long Dong Silver.
The ensuing soap opera of character assassination by both sides was a national disgrace, which ended only after Thomas, who had been deferential until then, expressed his anger over what he called a “high tech lynching.”
Clarence Thomas has been on the high court for a decade and a half now, apparently still scarred by that experience, doing and saying very little, following Antonin Scalia’s ultra-conservative lead. Those who opposed him are still bitter about his appointment.
A magazine for black readers published two covers of Thomas, once wearing an Aunt Jemima headscarf and another as a lawn jockey. The Justice himself has seldom appeared in public, making an exception to officiate at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding.
Of all the players in this racial drama, George Herbert Walker Bush bears the most blame. Thomas was only being himself, and his detractors were justified in their reasons for opposing him, if not always in their methods.
But it was Bush’s cynicism in naming him that has led to the bitter polarization of the Supreme Court nomination process, which culminated in the depths of his son’s choice of Harriet Meirs and consideration of Alberto Gonzales for appointment.
Justice Thomas’ silence is a symbol for the loud and clear cacaphony that both Bushes have brought to American democracy.
Flynt's Fond Farewell to Falwell
As a magazine publisher, Larry Flynt made Playboy’s Hugh Hefner look like a choirboy. First Amendment advocates held their noses while defending his legal right to foist Hustler on sexually retarded readers.
But here is Flynt playing Jerry Falwell’s Marc Antony in the Los Angeles Times to tell us that the porn publisher and the preacher were birds of a feather.
Flynt, who says he was deflowered by a chicken he later killed, now claims a kinship with Falwell: “I knew what he was selling, and he knew what I was selling, and we found a way to communicate.”
The road to friendship was rocky, paved by a five-year $50 million lawsuit over a parody involving Falwell, his mother and an outhouse, which ended with the Supreme Court upholding Flynt’s First Amendment rights. Ten years later,
on the Larry King show, Falwell literally embraced Flynt.
Afterward, the publisher says, the preacher came to his office, proposing they do their act in colleges across the country. They bonded and became a hit team.
“We'd have interesting philosophical conversations,” Flynt writes. “We'd exchange personal Christmas cards. He'd show me pictures of his grandchildren. I was with him in Florida once when he complained about his health and his weight, so I suggested that he go on a diet that had worked for me. I faxed a copy to his wife...”
So, friends and country men, if you have tears, shed them now. As Velma told Roxie in “Chicago” about their working together despite their differences: In show business, “that’s no problem at all.”
But here is Flynt playing Jerry Falwell’s Marc Antony in the Los Angeles Times to tell us that the porn publisher and the preacher were birds of a feather.
Flynt, who says he was deflowered by a chicken he later killed, now claims a kinship with Falwell: “I knew what he was selling, and he knew what I was selling, and we found a way to communicate.”
The road to friendship was rocky, paved by a five-year $50 million lawsuit over a parody involving Falwell, his mother and an outhouse, which ended with the Supreme Court upholding Flynt’s First Amendment rights. Ten years later,
on the Larry King show, Falwell literally embraced Flynt.
Afterward, the publisher says, the preacher came to his office, proposing they do their act in colleges across the country. They bonded and became a hit team.
“We'd have interesting philosophical conversations,” Flynt writes. “We'd exchange personal Christmas cards. He'd show me pictures of his grandchildren. I was with him in Florida once when he complained about his health and his weight, so I suggested that he go on a diet that had worked for me. I faxed a copy to his wife...”
So, friends and country men, if you have tears, shed them now. As Velma told Roxie in “Chicago” about their working together despite their differences: In show business, “that’s no problem at all.”
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Bush, Congress and Box-Office Bombs
As they bicker over Iraq and posture about immigration, Washington’s elected elite bring to mind Hollywood’s legendary disasters. Approval ratings, politicians’ equivalent of movie revenues, keep sinking.
Stooping to self-quotation, this 2006 pre-election post ended with a warning for Democrats:
“’I’ m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!’
“That line, from a 30-year-old movie written by my high-school classmate, Paddy Chayevsky, looks like the key to this election. In ‘Network,’ it was a loony anchorman who inspired people to open their windows and yell. This year, Diebold willing, voters will vent their rage in the booth and give Democrats control of both houses.
“As the scene shifts from Ted Turner’s old movie channel to his other brainchild, CNN, newly elected Dems may want to recall how ‘Network’ ends. When the public doesn’t get what it wants, the hero gets killed on camera.”
Now, the news is sounding like reviews of “Ishtar,” “Heaven’s Gate” and “The Adventures of Pluto Nash,” which one critic compared to “watching 90 minutes of outtakes--deleted scenes randomly assembled by a drunken night watchman at the studio.”
While auditioning new stars for ’08, Washington’s movers and shakers should be getting the message that the public won’t be buying more of the same.
Stooping to self-quotation, this 2006 pre-election post ended with a warning for Democrats:
“’I’ m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!’
“That line, from a 30-year-old movie written by my high-school classmate, Paddy Chayevsky, looks like the key to this election. In ‘Network,’ it was a loony anchorman who inspired people to open their windows and yell. This year, Diebold willing, voters will vent their rage in the booth and give Democrats control of both houses.
“As the scene shifts from Ted Turner’s old movie channel to his other brainchild, CNN, newly elected Dems may want to recall how ‘Network’ ends. When the public doesn’t get what it wants, the hero gets killed on camera.”
Now, the news is sounding like reviews of “Ishtar,” “Heaven’s Gate” and “The Adventures of Pluto Nash,” which one critic compared to “watching 90 minutes of outtakes--deleted scenes randomly assembled by a drunken night watchman at the studio.”
While auditioning new stars for ’08, Washington’s movers and shakers should be getting the message that the public won’t be buying more of the same.
Falwell Backlash
In a time of cynicism about public figures, there has been one curious exception. Death now bestows instant sanctity, as the prolonged TV wakes for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford demonstrated.
When the Rev. Jerry Falwell left us this week, he was extolled by John McCain, who once called him an “agent of intolerance,” followed by Rudy Giuliani rushing in to praise his polar opposite as a man “who was not afraid to speak his mind” and a paean from ever-eager-to-please Mitt Romney.
Before the Republican debate, the moderator headed off candidate gush with a blanket bow, but not before Mike Huckabee off-camera pronounced Falwell "a great man and a great influence for America and for Christ."
After these knee-jerk tributes, second thoughts started to seep out. Charles Gibson became a minor hero for not leading off with the news of Falwell’s death on ABC, and other voices were soon heard.
On CNN, Christopher Hitchens called the preacher “a little toad” who told Americans “the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God's punishment. People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup.”
In today’s New York Times, Frank Rich points out Falwell was “a laughing stock and embarrassment” to the Bush Administration and represented “the brand of religious politics being given its walking papers by a large chunk of the political party the Christian right once helped to grow.”
All evidence shows that in the 2006 election Democrats closed “the God Gap” among evangelical Christians. Why, then, are Republican Presidential hopefuls still pandering to Falwell followers on the theory that they are the key to winning the nomination?
By defying them on abortion, Rudy Giuliani may be onto some larger truth about 2008.
When the Rev. Jerry Falwell left us this week, he was extolled by John McCain, who once called him an “agent of intolerance,” followed by Rudy Giuliani rushing in to praise his polar opposite as a man “who was not afraid to speak his mind” and a paean from ever-eager-to-please Mitt Romney.
Before the Republican debate, the moderator headed off candidate gush with a blanket bow, but not before Mike Huckabee off-camera pronounced Falwell "a great man and a great influence for America and for Christ."
After these knee-jerk tributes, second thoughts started to seep out. Charles Gibson became a minor hero for not leading off with the news of Falwell’s death on ABC, and other voices were soon heard.
On CNN, Christopher Hitchens called the preacher “a little toad” who told Americans “the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God's punishment. People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup.”
In today’s New York Times, Frank Rich points out Falwell was “a laughing stock and embarrassment” to the Bush Administration and represented “the brand of religious politics being given its walking papers by a large chunk of the political party the Christian right once helped to grow.”
All evidence shows that in the 2006 election Democrats closed “the God Gap” among evangelical Christians. Why, then, are Republican Presidential hopefuls still pandering to Falwell followers on the theory that they are the key to winning the nomination?
By defying them on abortion, Rudy Giuliani may be onto some larger truth about 2008.
George W, Godfather?
We may have been underestimating him. All this time, Jon Stewart et al have been portraying our President as a bumbling cluck, an Inspector Clouseau in the White House.
Today a New York Times editorial sets us straight: George W. Bush is actually Don Corleone, whose “warm embrace is really a payoff to yes-men who didn’t challenge his orders or question...policies.”
The President’s hugging of Gonzales and other capos is not out of friendship but loyalty to those who keep their vows of silence. Only George Tenet has breached omerta and gone into witness protection on the best-seller list.
Maybe so, but they still look less like the Mafia than “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.”
Today a New York Times editorial sets us straight: George W. Bush is actually Don Corleone, whose “warm embrace is really a payoff to yes-men who didn’t challenge his orders or question...policies.”
The President’s hugging of Gonzales and other capos is not out of friendship but loyalty to those who keep their vows of silence. Only George Tenet has breached omerta and gone into witness protection on the best-seller list.
Maybe so, but they still look less like the Mafia than “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.”
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Congress Goes Hungry
In our so-sophisticated society, it would be easy to mock what four members of the House are doing this week: trying not to starve on what the government currently provides 26 million poor people in our country.
Representatives James McGovern (D-MA), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Tim Ryan (D-OH) are living on an average food stamp budget--$3 a day--from May 15th to the 21st to show themselves and voters what it really means to be hungry in America today.
They are finding out what it’s like to live on bread, rice and canned tuna, choose between coffee and calories, have a banana for breakfast, scramble an egg so stretched with water that your child tells you it "looks like barf" and, above all, feel tired most of the time. (See their blogs.)
Stunt? Gimmick? Political show-boating? Maybe, but they are trying to drum up support for legislation to add $4 billion to the $33 billion food stamp budget for the coming year, a fraction of what it costs to fight the war in Iraq.
Their effort recalls what happened in the early 1960s when Michael Harrington wrote “The Other America,” a book that prompted President Kennedy and later Lyndon Johnson to launch the War on Poverty, in which he described why the poor have become invisible:
“(T)he very development of the American city has removed poverty from the living, emotional experience of millions upon millions of middle-class Americans. Living out in the suburbs it is easy to assume that ours is, indeed, an affluent society.”
If politicians miss a few meals to make them visible, we’ll all be the healthier for it.
Representatives James McGovern (D-MA), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Tim Ryan (D-OH) are living on an average food stamp budget--$3 a day--from May 15th to the 21st to show themselves and voters what it really means to be hungry in America today.
They are finding out what it’s like to live on bread, rice and canned tuna, choose between coffee and calories, have a banana for breakfast, scramble an egg so stretched with water that your child tells you it "looks like barf" and, above all, feel tired most of the time. (See their blogs.)
Stunt? Gimmick? Political show-boating? Maybe, but they are trying to drum up support for legislation to add $4 billion to the $33 billion food stamp budget for the coming year, a fraction of what it costs to fight the war in Iraq.
Their effort recalls what happened in the early 1960s when Michael Harrington wrote “The Other America,” a book that prompted President Kennedy and later Lyndon Johnson to launch the War on Poverty, in which he described why the poor have become invisible:
“(T)he very development of the American city has removed poverty from the living, emotional experience of millions upon millions of middle-class Americans. Living out in the suburbs it is easy to assume that ours is, indeed, an affluent society.”
If politicians miss a few meals to make them visible, we’ll all be the healthier for it.
Michael Moore Resists Bush Shock and Awe
He is feeling so invaded. Like Iraq. Fearing WMD in the guerilla fighter’s latest foray into the heart of American darkness, the Bush Administration launched a “preemptive action” that has Moore shaken but resolved to resist.
From an undisclosed location, the intrepid filmmaker has issued a communiqué to reassure members of the Resistance that he will not be silenced and is, as we speak, “on my way to Cannes right now, a copy of the movie in my bag."
He is flying there despite the efforts of Bush’s Major Strasser, Fred Thompson, to neutralize him with a scurrilous video impugning his soundness of mind.
Moore’s furtive missive lifts the veil on his unspeakable treatment at the hands of the Bushies.
"Are you saying they might actually confiscate our movie?" he asked his legal aides.
"’Yes,’ was the answer. ‘These days, anything is possible. Even if there is just a 20 percent chance the government would seize our movie before Cannes, does anyone want to take that risk?’
“Certainly not. So there we were last week, spiriting a duplicate master negative out of the country just so no one from the government would take it from us.”
Well done, Commando Moore. If you pass through Lisbon, give our best to Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid.
From an undisclosed location, the intrepid filmmaker has issued a communiqué to reassure members of the Resistance that he will not be silenced and is, as we speak, “on my way to Cannes right now, a copy of the movie in my bag."
He is flying there despite the efforts of Bush’s Major Strasser, Fred Thompson, to neutralize him with a scurrilous video impugning his soundness of mind.
Moore’s furtive missive lifts the veil on his unspeakable treatment at the hands of the Bushies.
"Are you saying they might actually confiscate our movie?" he asked his legal aides.
"’Yes,’ was the answer. ‘These days, anything is possible. Even if there is just a 20 percent chance the government would seize our movie before Cannes, does anyone want to take that risk?’
“Certainly not. So there we were last week, spiriting a duplicate master negative out of the country just so no one from the government would take it from us.”
Well done, Commando Moore. If you pass through Lisbon, give our best to Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid.
The Man Who Owned Napoleon's Penis
Those who think fame has grown grotesque in our time may want to read an obituary in the New York Times last Sunday headlined: John K. Lattimer, Urologist of Varied Expertise, Dies at 92.
Dr. Lattimer was a department chairman at the Columbia University medical school who wrote 375 scientific papers and was the first non-government expert to examine the medical evidence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (He concluded that Oswald did it alone.)
But Dr. Lattimer undoubtedly will be most remembered as the possessor of Napoleon’s penis, allegedly removed by a priest administering last rites, which he bought at an auction in 1969. An avid collector of memorabilia, he also owned Lincoln’s blood-stained collar, Hitler’s drawings and the ampoule that held the cyanide with which Hermann Goring committed suicide.
There were headlines in the 1980s when Michael Jackson was said to have offered $50,000 for the Elephant Man’s skeleton. Now there are thousands of web sites auctioning objects the famous have worn or touched, but apparently no body parts.
Such widespread and intense traffic in celebrity leavings may express a longing to connect with history or immortality, but then again it may simply reflect the inner poverty or perversity of those with the money to buy them.
The seventeenth century scientist-philosopher Blaise Pascal described but did not explain it by observing, “The charm of fame is so great that we like every object to which it is attached, even death.”
Dr. Lattimer was a department chairman at the Columbia University medical school who wrote 375 scientific papers and was the first non-government expert to examine the medical evidence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (He concluded that Oswald did it alone.)
But Dr. Lattimer undoubtedly will be most remembered as the possessor of Napoleon’s penis, allegedly removed by a priest administering last rites, which he bought at an auction in 1969. An avid collector of memorabilia, he also owned Lincoln’s blood-stained collar, Hitler’s drawings and the ampoule that held the cyanide with which Hermann Goring committed suicide.
There were headlines in the 1980s when Michael Jackson was said to have offered $50,000 for the Elephant Man’s skeleton. Now there are thousands of web sites auctioning objects the famous have worn or touched, but apparently no body parts.
Such widespread and intense traffic in celebrity leavings may express a longing to connect with history or immortality, but then again it may simply reflect the inner poverty or perversity of those with the money to buy them.
The seventeenth century scientist-philosopher Blaise Pascal described but did not explain it by observing, “The charm of fame is so great that we like every object to which it is attached, even death.”
Friday, May 18, 2007
The Scrambled Politics of Immigration
America’s two leading Nazis, George Bush and Ted Kennedy...
Sorry, is there some confusion here? The rest of that sentence was to be about the White House and Senate agreeing on a sweeping new bill to reform immigration, but a Lou Dobbs-like voice intervened with the Third Reich reference.
The confusion is understandable, since immigration reform has scrambled polarized American politics beyond recognition.
"I really am anxious to sign a comprehensive immigration bill as soon as I possibly can," the President said after the agreement. “Today we took a good step toward that direction.”
Kennedy agreed, saying the bill “is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."
While the two symbolic figures of the American Divide are in accord, other politicians are all over the place. Republicans praised Kennedy for his efforts, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid expressed “concerns” over the need to “improve the bill.”
Presidential candidates are in similar disarray. John McCain agreed it was “a first step but important step,” while Barack Obama warned that "the proposed bill could devalue the importance of family reunification.”
Mitt Romney called it “the wrong approach.” Ever tactful Tom Tancredo said Bush was so “desperate” that “he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security."
But confusion is a small price to pay for seeing Congress get back to serious debate over an important issue. Maybe “serious” is putting it too strongly. How about “almost grownup?”
Sorry, is there some confusion here? The rest of that sentence was to be about the White House and Senate agreeing on a sweeping new bill to reform immigration, but a Lou Dobbs-like voice intervened with the Third Reich reference.
The confusion is understandable, since immigration reform has scrambled polarized American politics beyond recognition.
"I really am anxious to sign a comprehensive immigration bill as soon as I possibly can," the President said after the agreement. “Today we took a good step toward that direction.”
Kennedy agreed, saying the bill “is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."
While the two symbolic figures of the American Divide are in accord, other politicians are all over the place. Republicans praised Kennedy for his efforts, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid expressed “concerns” over the need to “improve the bill.”
Presidential candidates are in similar disarray. John McCain agreed it was “a first step but important step,” while Barack Obama warned that "the proposed bill could devalue the importance of family reunification.”
Mitt Romney called it “the wrong approach.” Ever tactful Tom Tancredo said Bush was so “desperate” that “he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security."
But confusion is a small price to pay for seeing Congress get back to serious debate over an important issue. Maybe “serious” is putting it too strongly. How about “almost grownup?”
An Inconvenient Senator
It will be news to most Americans that there is a Socialist in the U.S. Senate, and in today’s Washington Post, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has a few things to say about what else is news to them:
“What the media does is decide every single morning--a bunch of people, not very many of them--who sit down at the New York Times and The Washington Post and CBS and NBC and they say:
“'America, this is reality today. Paris Hilton...fighting vigorously to stay out of jail...we're going to cover that extensively. Oh, you lost your job and it's going to China? Not so interesting.
“'We are the only country in the industrialized world that does not have a national health care program and you probably don't know that...we spend twice as much per person compared to any other nation on earth.
“'But...Britney Spears. Now I want to ask you a question. Do you think this comeback is going to work or not? Because I've been really worried about Britney Spears's comeback. But thank God, we have solved...Anna Nicole Smith's paternity problem.'”
Sanders, described by Mary Ann Akers as “a permanently wind-blown curmudgeon,” admits, “I’m being a little facetious here,” then adds: “We are living, in my view, very sadly with the worst administration in the modern history of the United States of America, doing irreparable harm to this country. That's not a laughing matter.”
As an antidote to seeing Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and all those solemn, hangdog faces spouting nonsense on the network news every night, Sanders comes as a fresh breeze.
Millions will be watching the others tonight, but one of the best things about the Web is that anyone who is not captivated by the usual suspects can get a different point of view here.
“What the media does is decide every single morning--a bunch of people, not very many of them--who sit down at the New York Times and The Washington Post and CBS and NBC and they say:
“'America, this is reality today. Paris Hilton...fighting vigorously to stay out of jail...we're going to cover that extensively. Oh, you lost your job and it's going to China? Not so interesting.
“'We are the only country in the industrialized world that does not have a national health care program and you probably don't know that...we spend twice as much per person compared to any other nation on earth.
“'But...Britney Spears. Now I want to ask you a question. Do you think this comeback is going to work or not? Because I've been really worried about Britney Spears's comeback. But thank God, we have solved...Anna Nicole Smith's paternity problem.'”
Sanders, described by Mary Ann Akers as “a permanently wind-blown curmudgeon,” admits, “I’m being a little facetious here,” then adds: “We are living, in my view, very sadly with the worst administration in the modern history of the United States of America, doing irreparable harm to this country. That's not a laughing matter.”
As an antidote to seeing Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and all those solemn, hangdog faces spouting nonsense on the network news every night, Sanders comes as a fresh breeze.
Millions will be watching the others tonight, but one of the best things about the Web is that anyone who is not captivated by the usual suspects can get a different point of view here.
Bolton Charms British
Now that Tony Blair is leaving, someone will have to take up the slack to protect American interests in Britain. Who better than our suavest diplomat John Bolton?
After telling the Daily Telegraph about the urgent need to bomb Iran the other day, Bolton enlightened the BBC yesterday about Wolfowitz, Neo-Cons and unfortunate British tendencies to act superior.
Asked if the Bush Administration was not a "busted flush" after Iraq, Bolton told his interviewer he was “absolutely wrong” and “anti-American” like “many others on the continent.”
When the anchor protested that he was only posing questions, our former UN Ambassador set him straight, "I know, you're a superior Brit, aren't you?"
He rounded out his diplomatic mission in a predictive mode. Asked if Wolfowitz would leave the World Bank, he replied, "I see you're a gravedigger as well. I'm not at all sure I see that demise happening." Adding that he himself was not one of them, Bolton ventured his opinion that the “Neo-Con adventure” was not over.
“You can’t beat brains,” President Kennedy used to say. President Bush seems to rely more on charm.
After telling the Daily Telegraph about the urgent need to bomb Iran the other day, Bolton enlightened the BBC yesterday about Wolfowitz, Neo-Cons and unfortunate British tendencies to act superior.
Asked if the Bush Administration was not a "busted flush" after Iraq, Bolton told his interviewer he was “absolutely wrong” and “anti-American” like “many others on the continent.”
When the anchor protested that he was only posing questions, our former UN Ambassador set him straight, "I know, you're a superior Brit, aren't you?"
He rounded out his diplomatic mission in a predictive mode. Asked if Wolfowitz would leave the World Bank, he replied, "I see you're a gravedigger as well. I'm not at all sure I see that demise happening." Adding that he himself was not one of them, Bolton ventured his opinion that the “Neo-Con adventure” was not over.
“You can’t beat brains,” President Kennedy used to say. President Bush seems to rely more on charm.
What Next for Wolfowitz?
With such a remarkable resume, an executive of his caliber should soon be fielding all kinds of offers. As the architect of Saddam Hussein’s downfall and inspiration for revitalizing the World Bank, Wolfowitz will surely be sought by struggling organizations in dire need of his conceptual talents.
The Republican Party? The George W. Bush Presidential Library? The Karl Rove Defense Fund?
The Republican Party? The George W. Bush Presidential Library? The Karl Rove Defense Fund?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Old New Star of Network News
At 64, Charles Gibson is suddenly “hot.” Today the New York Times, Washington Post and even CBS are agog over the ABC anchor. His scheduled retirement has been put off in the wake of unexpected ratings success.
When something unusual happens, you can count on the media, especially in reporting about itself, to replace overturned conventional wisdom rapidly with newly minted clichés.
After writing off network news as antiquated in the digital era, critics are now citing Gibson for his good old-fashioned journalistic judgment and, by implication, courage in refusing to lead off the news with Jerry Falwell’s demise, as NBC and ABC did.
“You don’t normally lead with obituaries for someone with a legacy that is very positive in some ways, very negative in other ways,” Gibson told the Times. “It was a sense I had that it didn’t rise to the point of the lead.”
It’s sad that sound judgment is seen as bravery in a time when the Radical Religious Right has cowed not only politicians but news people into giving their leaders
more recognition and influence than their numbers would justify.
But Gibson’s success is a plus for older journalists and a source of mild bemusement for younger ones. “He keeps you on your toes,” says ABC correspondent Martha Raddatz, “"and how can you not love an anchorman who calls you 'Toots'?"
When something unusual happens, you can count on the media, especially in reporting about itself, to replace overturned conventional wisdom rapidly with newly minted clichés.
After writing off network news as antiquated in the digital era, critics are now citing Gibson for his good old-fashioned journalistic judgment and, by implication, courage in refusing to lead off the news with Jerry Falwell’s demise, as NBC and ABC did.
“You don’t normally lead with obituaries for someone with a legacy that is very positive in some ways, very negative in other ways,” Gibson told the Times. “It was a sense I had that it didn’t rise to the point of the lead.”
It’s sad that sound judgment is seen as bravery in a time when the Radical Religious Right has cowed not only politicians but news people into giving their leaders
more recognition and influence than their numbers would justify.
But Gibson’s success is a plus for older journalists and a source of mild bemusement for younger ones. “He keeps you on your toes,” says ABC correspondent Martha Raddatz, “"and how can you not love an anchorman who calls you 'Toots'?"
G.O.P. Charisma Gap
Chasm may be more accurate. If Ron Paul is beginning to look attractive to some of them, Republicans may be drowning in mediocrity. The lineup at their last debate resembled the buffet waiting line at a Rotarian lunch.
The waiting list is starting to lose its sparkle, too. For a while, there was some excitement about Fred Thompson, but he doused it with a dull turn in Orange County, and now he is off somewhere emceeing a Michael Moore roast.
The eager trick puppy of the Party is still jumping into every media lap he can find, but Newt Gingrich looks more like a Las Vegas lounge act than a headliner.
With Rudy Giuliani’s 9/11 halo being pelted by rotten tomatoes from the Conservative cheap seats, McCain mummified in an Iraq cheerleading pose, and Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel showing interest in bookings as Independents, the ’08 stage is close to bare.
Even the critics are beginning to run out of bad show business clichés.
The waiting list is starting to lose its sparkle, too. For a while, there was some excitement about Fred Thompson, but he doused it with a dull turn in Orange County, and now he is off somewhere emceeing a Michael Moore roast.
The eager trick puppy of the Party is still jumping into every media lap he can find, but Newt Gingrich looks more like a Las Vegas lounge act than a headliner.
With Rudy Giuliani’s 9/11 halo being pelted by rotten tomatoes from the Conservative cheap seats, McCain mummified in an Iraq cheerleading pose, and Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel showing interest in bookings as Independents, the ’08 stage is close to bare.
Even the critics are beginning to run out of bad show business clichés.
Bush Not-Quite-Ardent-Enough Friends List
The parallels with Nixon just keep coming. Today we learn that the Bush hit list of federal prosecutors metastasized from the eight previously known to at least 26.
In 1971, the Nixon Enemies list started with a modest 20 and ballooned into dozens. John Dean, then White House counsel and now full-time Bush critic, started it all with a memo (no e-mails then):
"This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration, stated a bit more bluntly--how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies."
The original targets included Paul Newman and, ironically, today's chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers Jr., who is leading an investigation of the Rove-Gonzales venture. Conyers' offense had been introduction in Congress of a bill to make Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday.
To be fair, the current crop is not exactly an Enemies List but more of a Not-Quite-Ardent-Enough Friends List.
In 1971, the Nixon Enemies list started with a modest 20 and ballooned into dozens. John Dean, then White House counsel and now full-time Bush critic, started it all with a memo (no e-mails then):
"This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration, stated a bit more bluntly--how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies."
The original targets included Paul Newman and, ironically, today's chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers Jr., who is leading an investigation of the Rove-Gonzales venture. Conyers' offense had been introduction in Congress of a bill to make Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday.
To be fair, the current crop is not exactly an Enemies List but more of a Not-Quite-Ardent-Enough Friends List.
Filthy Rich Candidates Come Clean
A post here yesterday asked a foolish question about the ’08 Presidential contenders: “Why are they so embarrassed about revealing how rich they are?” Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards have just given us the answer.
America’s Mayor earned $16.1 million in the past 16 months, mostly from speaking fees. The champion of the Two Americas’ poor has $29.1 million in assets.
Politics has never paid this well before, at least not in reported earnings, but then again politics has never been this much like show business. Stars do not come cheap.
Giuliani got $100,000 per speech to brighten up dreary business conventions. Edwards collected $479,512 salary from Fortress Investment Group last year for consulting, but it was only a part-time job and, as he assured us last week, it was educational.
No one believes politicians should take vows of poverty, but a nagging doubt persists. If those we may entrust with the fate of our country are worth so much as box-office performers, can we be sure they are up to doing the job?
We have some bad experiences recently with electing a “name.”
America’s Mayor earned $16.1 million in the past 16 months, mostly from speaking fees. The champion of the Two Americas’ poor has $29.1 million in assets.
Politics has never paid this well before, at least not in reported earnings, but then again politics has never been this much like show business. Stars do not come cheap.
Giuliani got $100,000 per speech to brighten up dreary business conventions. Edwards collected $479,512 salary from Fortress Investment Group last year for consulting, but it was only a part-time job and, as he assured us last week, it was educational.
No one believes politicians should take vows of poverty, but a nagging doubt persists. If those we may entrust with the fate of our country are worth so much as box-office performers, can we be sure they are up to doing the job?
We have some bad experiences recently with electing a “name.”
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Funny Mustache Man Wants to Bomb Iran
John Bolton, who makes Dick Cheney seem amiable, couldn’t get himself confirmed as Bush’s Ambassador to the UN. He is so disagreeable that, after losing an argument to Jon Stewart about Lincoln, he has left the country and is now stirring up trouble in Britain.
”We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb” is the headline for a story in today’s Daily Telegraph about an interview with him warning that a nuclear Iran would be as dangerous as “Hitler marching into the Rhineland” in 1936.
The story includes Bolton’s hints that he still has powerful friends in the Administration and his revelation that the “Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for military action and some senior White House officials share Mr Bolton's thinking.”
It might be safer for all of us if Jon Stewart invited him back and gave him a regular slot on the Daily Show.
”We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb” is the headline for a story in today’s Daily Telegraph about an interview with him warning that a nuclear Iran would be as dangerous as “Hitler marching into the Rhineland” in 1936.
The story includes Bolton’s hints that he still has powerful friends in the Administration and his revelation that the “Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for military action and some senior White House officials share Mr Bolton's thinking.”
It might be safer for all of us if Jon Stewart invited him back and gave him a regular slot on the Daily Show.
Money Talks, Candidates Won't
Our would-be Presidents are telling us more than we may want to know about themselves, but on one subject, they are reticent.
For the first time in two decades, all the major candidates but Obama are stalling about releasing their tax returns. Why are they so embarrassed about revealing how rich they are?
John Edwards, who promised last week to tell us how much he was paid by a hedge fund which, among other things, makes predatory loans to the poor, seems to have changed his mind.
Rudy Giuliani is not eager to tell us how many millions he got by parlaying his 9/11 fame into $100,000-a-pop speaking engagements and from a consulting firm with some shady clients.
Both the Clintons are rightly shy about their income. since the former President alone raked in $31 million from making speeches in a five-year period.
Mitt Romney, who will tell us anything we want to know about Mormon attitudes toward polygamy and pre-marital sex, and John McCain, who will talk our ears off about the war in Iraq, are mute when it comes to discussing their incomes.
Only Barack Obama, a relative newcomer to big-league politics, is willing to let us know he and his wife had a total income of $1.67 million last year, mostly from his book royalties and advances.
As they go about making promises to protect the interests of the poor and middle class, our Presidents-in-waiting don’t want us to know how little they are feeling our pain.
For the first time in two decades, all the major candidates but Obama are stalling about releasing their tax returns. Why are they so embarrassed about revealing how rich they are?
John Edwards, who promised last week to tell us how much he was paid by a hedge fund which, among other things, makes predatory loans to the poor, seems to have changed his mind.
Rudy Giuliani is not eager to tell us how many millions he got by parlaying his 9/11 fame into $100,000-a-pop speaking engagements and from a consulting firm with some shady clients.
Both the Clintons are rightly shy about their income. since the former President alone raked in $31 million from making speeches in a five-year period.
Mitt Romney, who will tell us anything we want to know about Mormon attitudes toward polygamy and pre-marital sex, and John McCain, who will talk our ears off about the war in Iraq, are mute when it comes to discussing their incomes.
Only Barack Obama, a relative newcomer to big-league politics, is willing to let us know he and his wife had a total income of $1.67 million last year, mostly from his book royalties and advances.
As they go about making promises to protect the interests of the poor and middle class, our Presidents-in-waiting don’t want us to know how little they are feeling our pain.
Fat Fox Guards the Henhouse
Michael E. Baroody must be a man of remarkable integrity. The Bush Administration has just nominated him to head the Consumer Products Safety Commission, where he will deal with complaints against members of the National Association of Manufacturers, his current employer, who are rewarding him with a $150,000 going-away gift.
“Mr. Baroody has proven leadership abilities,” a White House spokesperson said, “and we believe he will be a valuable advocate on behalf of American consumers.”
No doubt, but valuable to whom? Senate Democrats, who will have to confirm him, are muttering about foxes and henhouses. But they should not be surprised. This is not the first Bush appointment to lay an egg, but this time it’s a golden one.
I know, I know. It’s not the foxes who lay eggs but, in today’s topsy-turvy Washington world, anything is possible.
“Mr. Baroody has proven leadership abilities,” a White House spokesperson said, “and we believe he will be a valuable advocate on behalf of American consumers.”
No doubt, but valuable to whom? Senate Democrats, who will have to confirm him, are muttering about foxes and henhouses. But they should not be surprised. This is not the first Bush appointment to lay an egg, but this time it’s a golden one.
I know, I know. It’s not the foxes who lay eggs but, in today’s topsy-turvy Washington world, anything is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)