Let's get one thing straight. The moveon.org ad didn't kill more than 2,700 US troops in Iraq. It didn't injure the more than 27,000 others who left that country disabled. It didn't attract an active al qeda insurgency. It didn't mire the country in a civil war. It didn't cause acid rain, global warming and the decline of western civilization as we know it.
It doesn't even cause whiter teeth or fresh breath.
You'd think it did all those things if you listened to the rhetoric spewing from war supporters this week.
The left leaning activist organization and website with the same name, moveon.org this week took out a full-page ad in the New York Times where it mocked Gen. David Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us. MoveOn called it factual and sticky. But the political right came unglued.
Rudy Guliani, denounced it, while taking out his own ad. Republican candidates tripped over each other to portray the ad as a disrespectful attack on a good man...and the military. The fever pitch built this week to the point that the president felt the need to weigh in and a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage. Let me repeat that: a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage.
All this commotion for an ad? An ad?
This, my friends, is the politics of distraction. Having trouble defending the substance of the good general's testimony? Put the messenger in the cross hairs. His supporters seem to suggest that he is so thin skinned that any strident disagreement is over the line. A decorated general who is fighting in a war zone where sniping and road side bombs are the order of the day can't take a shot from an advertisement?
Gen. Petraeus is a public figure, not just reporting out on the state of affairs but making a recommendation on the path forward. He's lending his voice and expertise to a national debate on the future of our country. To the extent that he uses any facts or figures to back them up, they should be open to scrutiny. And if they don't hold up under scrutiny, then he ought to be prepared to have them called into question. And if it appears he is knowingly misleading the country, we ought to be able to point that out too. Even if it is in an ad.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Sen. Larry Craig is not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that?
Sen. Craig is not gay. The way the Seinfeld bit goes, you’re supposed to immediately follow with “not that there’s anything wrong with that."
Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.
Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.
His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.
He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.
Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.
His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.
He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Both Democrats and Republicans want Clinton. Shouldn't one of them be concerned?
GOP activists root for Clinton win - Jonathan Martin - Politico.com
Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.
In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.
On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?
In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.
Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.
So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?
Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.
In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.
On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?
In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.
Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.
So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Hey Hillary, WE knew
There's a line from Sen. Obama's speech at the Take Back America event this week that I really like:
"We knew..."
Here's exactly what he said:
This, of course, is a jab at Sen. Clinton's oft repeated line, "if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for the way."
That line has always been troubling to me because I knew then. It seemed so obvious that the president was taking the country into a war of choice. It seemed transparent that they were presenting selective evidence to make their case. It seemed clear that they were being impatient when they tried to convince us that we were under an imminent threat.
I never read any classified CIA reports or received top secret briefings. I don't think I'm much smarter than the average bear. But I knew that the adminstration was determined to wage war, no matter what.
That's why it always strikes me as a bit disingenuous to hear politicians like Sen. Clinton say that they didn't know. Why not? Is your judgment worse than mine? Are you less smart than the average bear? Neither of those alternatives instills much confidence in you as the next commander in chief.
With all the signs, you still didn't know. I have to wonder... Why didn't you?
WE knew.
"We knew..."
Here's exactly what he said:
“We knew back then this war was a mistake,” Obama said at the Take Back America conference. “We knew back then that it was a dangerous diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th. We knew back then that we could find ourselves in an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. “
“So many of us knew this back then, even when it wasn’t popular to say so,” he added.
This, of course, is a jab at Sen. Clinton's oft repeated line, "if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for the way."
That line has always been troubling to me because I knew then. It seemed so obvious that the president was taking the country into a war of choice. It seemed transparent that they were presenting selective evidence to make their case. It seemed clear that they were being impatient when they tried to convince us that we were under an imminent threat.
I never read any classified CIA reports or received top secret briefings. I don't think I'm much smarter than the average bear. But I knew that the adminstration was determined to wage war, no matter what.
That's why it always strikes me as a bit disingenuous to hear politicians like Sen. Clinton say that they didn't know. Why not? Is your judgment worse than mine? Are you less smart than the average bear? Neither of those alternatives instills much confidence in you as the next commander in chief.
With all the signs, you still didn't know. I have to wonder... Why didn't you?
WE knew.
Bloomberg, money can't buy love after all
If Michael Bloomberg were to believe the latest poll, his money isn't buying him a lot of love from Americans.
CNN reports that a Pew Research Poll indicates more than half of Americans wouldn't consider supporting Bloomberg for president. Only 9 percent of voters who have heard of the mayor say they would likely vote for him. Only 23 per-cent say there is some chance they would back his candidacy. More than half of those polled, 56 percent, say there's no chance they would vote for Bloomberg.
Of course all this comes after Bloomberg announced he is leaving the Republi-can party, fueling speculation that he is setting himself up for a presidential bid. Absent a grass roots movement urging him to run, he will need to do a whole lot of courting. Can the American public be bought? Bloomberg has got a billion dollars that thinks we can.
CNN reports that a Pew Research Poll indicates more than half of Americans wouldn't consider supporting Bloomberg for president. Only 9 percent of voters who have heard of the mayor say they would likely vote for him. Only 23 per-cent say there is some chance they would back his candidacy. More than half of those polled, 56 percent, say there's no chance they would vote for Bloomberg.
Of course all this comes after Bloomberg announced he is leaving the Republi-can party, fueling speculation that he is setting himself up for a presidential bid. Absent a grass roots movement urging him to run, he will need to do a whole lot of courting. Can the American public be bought? Bloomberg has got a billion dollars that thinks we can.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
What do Don Imus and Tony Soprano have in common?
If Don Imus is surprised by the reaction to his controversial comments about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, he should have been paying atten-tion during the season opener of The Sopranos last Sunday night.
Don Imus, of course, is the political shock jock who finds himself embroiled in controversy after referring to the student athletes in a derogatory manner.
The whole situation reminded me of a scene during Sunday night’s episode of the Sopranos. Tony Soprano, the mob boss, is eating dinner with his wife, Carmella; his sister, Janis, and Janis’ husband, Bobby. Bobby works for Tony and is one of his right hand men.
Fans of the show know that Tony and his sister, Janis, share a love hate rela-tionship. So, as he often does, Tony begins launching into a series of jokes about Janis referring to her as what might be euphemistically known as a “ho.”
Bobby, Janis’ husband, is visibly annoyed and complains to Tony that he’s crossed the line. Tony agrees and apologizes. Then Tony launches into a song that carries on the derogatory theme about Janis.
Out of nowhere, Bobby slugs Tony across the jaw. A nasty fight ensues and doesn’t end until Tony is lying flat on his back, practically unconscious.
As I watched the brawl between the Black community and Don Imus on Monday morning, it struck me as similar.
Don Imus has poked the Black community before and apologized. Almost always he has launched into continued derogatory “fun.” The proverbial right cross he got in response seems to have caught him off guard but it shouldn’t have.
Of course, Imus has since apologized and accepted a two-week suspension. But the offended community wants to keep the fight going, not satisfied until they have knocked him flat on his back, unconscious.
As the situation plays itself out, Black leaders say nothing short of a dismissal will right the wrong. Imus, pleads his case that he is a good man who said a bad thing.
I saw a couple interesting lessons. First what struck me as interesting in the range of responses was how much each group was willing to forgive their own sins.
I’m sure this is an overgeneralization but I heard many white people coming to Imus’ defense that he deserves forgiveness. To the observation that rap and many Blacks often use the same language against each other, many of the Black leaders seemed willing to treat the inward assaults as a lesser offense than Imus’.
The lesson is that we won’t have a true opportunity for healing until we judge ourselves honestly. It’s hard to expect other people to feel strongly about a cause you selectively enforce.
The second and probably more obvious teaching moment should be that you can’t continue to poke someone in the eye and not expect a retaliation at some point.
Tony should have seen that coming.
Don Imus, of course, is the political shock jock who finds himself embroiled in controversy after referring to the student athletes in a derogatory manner.
The whole situation reminded me of a scene during Sunday night’s episode of the Sopranos. Tony Soprano, the mob boss, is eating dinner with his wife, Carmella; his sister, Janis, and Janis’ husband, Bobby. Bobby works for Tony and is one of his right hand men.
Fans of the show know that Tony and his sister, Janis, share a love hate rela-tionship. So, as he often does, Tony begins launching into a series of jokes about Janis referring to her as what might be euphemistically known as a “ho.”
Bobby, Janis’ husband, is visibly annoyed and complains to Tony that he’s crossed the line. Tony agrees and apologizes. Then Tony launches into a song that carries on the derogatory theme about Janis.
Out of nowhere, Bobby slugs Tony across the jaw. A nasty fight ensues and doesn’t end until Tony is lying flat on his back, practically unconscious.
As I watched the brawl between the Black community and Don Imus on Monday morning, it struck me as similar.
Don Imus has poked the Black community before and apologized. Almost always he has launched into continued derogatory “fun.” The proverbial right cross he got in response seems to have caught him off guard but it shouldn’t have.
Of course, Imus has since apologized and accepted a two-week suspension. But the offended community wants to keep the fight going, not satisfied until they have knocked him flat on his back, unconscious.
As the situation plays itself out, Black leaders say nothing short of a dismissal will right the wrong. Imus, pleads his case that he is a good man who said a bad thing.
I saw a couple interesting lessons. First what struck me as interesting in the range of responses was how much each group was willing to forgive their own sins.
I’m sure this is an overgeneralization but I heard many white people coming to Imus’ defense that he deserves forgiveness. To the observation that rap and many Blacks often use the same language against each other, many of the Black leaders seemed willing to treat the inward assaults as a lesser offense than Imus’.
The lesson is that we won’t have a true opportunity for healing until we judge ourselves honestly. It’s hard to expect other people to feel strongly about a cause you selectively enforce.
The second and probably more obvious teaching moment should be that you can’t continue to poke someone in the eye and not expect a retaliation at some point.
Tony should have seen that coming.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Nonbinding sanction for symbolic progress
Only in the folly of Washington can a nonbinding resolution be passed off as meaningful progress.
After years of complaining that the president misled the country into war, poorly prosecuted the same war, and now is escalating some of the original mistakes, the Democrats primary response is a symbolic one.
Even more incredible, Republicans are filibustering to prevent the symbolic gesture from the force of the gavel.
This is what we've come to. Thousands of Americans dead and dying. A war that most admit has gone tragically wrong continues down the same wayward path, and both sides of the political process are wrangling over a meaningless sanction.
God bless America.
After years of complaining that the president misled the country into war, poorly prosecuted the same war, and now is escalating some of the original mistakes, the Democrats primary response is a symbolic one.
Even more incredible, Republicans are filibustering to prevent the symbolic gesture from the force of the gavel.
This is what we've come to. Thousands of Americans dead and dying. A war that most admit has gone tragically wrong continues down the same wayward path, and both sides of the political process are wrangling over a meaningless sanction.
God bless America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)