Buck Naked Politics

Krugman on the Impossible Dream

by Damozel | Here's Paul Krugman in The New York Times, still trying to convince me that a presidency which strives to govern to the center and achieve bipartisan goals is the impossible dream:

Yesterday The Times published a highly informative chart laying out the positions of the presidential candidates on major issues. It was, I'd argue, a useful reality check for those who believe that the next president can somehow usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation.

For what the chart made clear was the extent to which Democrats and Republicans live in separate moral and intellectual universes.(The New York Times)

I've already said what I have to say on this.

Paul Krugman: "Progressives, to Arms!" A Call for More...Partisanship?

by Damozel | Is more partisanship just what this country needs?  Paul Krugman thinks that progressives need to "take on the movement than brought Bush to power." (Slate via Memeorandum)  Though in a way I think this is what we do here at BN-Politics every day, I have never thought of myself as a progressive.  I have a progressive agenda, all right, but I don't believe that the way to make lasting changes is to shove it down other people's throats.  At the same time, my goal is certainly to do all I can to promote what I'd call progressive values.  Which makes me....I don't know what it makes me, even when I read Krugman's definition of these labels.

Everyone seems to have their own definitions; mine involves the distinction between values and action. If you think every American should be guaranteed health insurance, you're a liberal; if you're trying to make universal health care happen, you're a progressive.  (Slate)

Random Round-up

by  D. Cupples |  With Christmas just two days away, many of us are understandably focusing on last-minute shopping, meal planning, and traveling.  This seems a good time to survey what's been on some bloggers' minds lately.

Satirist John Swift -- whose hilariously incisive blog just turned two (happy birthday) -- is reminiscing about his last two years on the blogosphere. 

Fact-esque discusses the widening income-gap in America and includes a table from a recent Congressional Budget Office report.  She advises, "But don't call it a class war because that's just rude."

*New York Times* Portrays Huckabee as a Liberal in Wolf's Clothing

by Teh Nutroots |  Matt Yglesias:  "Conservative pundits really, really, really don't care for Mike Huckabee."   And I am laughing my ass off at  their desperate attempts to control the Huckabee-loving portion of the"base," many of whom are doubtless "salt of the earth" types who sincerely believe that the GOP is God's party, where their family values and wish to introduce Jesus retroactively into the Cosntitution will be implemented  and who don't read blogs.  Many of them---primarily women, it seems---want a nice president who not only says nice things about Jesus, but also appears to believe that Jesus wants people to "act nice to each other," as my grandmother used to say.

Sadly---because I am enjoying the spectacle---Rush Limbaugh is now aiming his big old cannon of inflammatory rhetoric at Huckabee; and The New York Times has administered what will surely  (?) be the kiss of death.   

Meyerson on Christian Hard-liners in the GOP

by Damozel | A note at The Sideshow prompted me to write a quick piece on Harold Meyerson's WaPo op-ed, "Hard-liners for Jesus."  Though it's political, my own take on it incorporates a certain amount of current and past personal experience (and I don't want this to be where I blog about my religion).  So I address the article (which---a comparison so inflammatory that the people to whom it's addressed are going to use outrage to avoid looking at Meyerson's uncomfortable arguments---equates hard-liners to the KKK).  Read more:   The Passing Show:  the Uses of Prayer, the British Spongebob, Sideshow, and the Church of Christ without Christ

Telecom Shamnesty (Better a Nutroot than a Wingnut)

Posted by Teh Nutroots | Little Malkin is all agog and filled with glee at what she chooses to call: Blue-on-blue catfight: Kos turns on Harry Reid; Update: Dodd stymies Reid on FISA bill, nutroots cheer.  This is because Malkin and her ilk are obsessed with being Right rather than right, so that they march in lockstep and can't cope with dissent within the ranks. 

It never occurs to her that this is the way the political process is supposed to work: by argument and dissent, not partisan reflex.  Telecom shamnesty---to borrow Malkin's favorite word---encourages the notion that it is all right for an industry to engage in illegal or potentially illegal acts if the executive branch (including any executive branch after this one is gone) asks them to do so.  That's not a precedent we ought to set.   

Hillary Clinton's Crisis & Althouse's Commentary

Posted by Damozel | The lovely and talented Ann Althouse thinks that Hillary should have done something more during the temporary hostage crisis than "make ineffectual phone calls" and leave the police to get on with it.  Althouse herself would doubtless have donned a fetching velvet cape, swooped down upon the hostage-taker, and in a trice reduced him to a puddle of grease with the sheer force of her censorious stare. 

Why the War Hawks Fail to Persuade (Part 2)

Posted by Damozel |  In response to Charles Krauthammer's recent piece, I argued that the existence or nonexistence of progress in Iraq doesn't change the imperative to end our commitment of blood and money.  Krauthammer was arguing, as all right wingers are currently arguing, that there are signs of progress (which of course pleases me), even though they are not the signs we were told to expect.  To which my reply remains:  "And.....?"

Rove & Rose

Posted by Damozel | At the end of his Wednesday night interview with Karl Rove, Charlie Rose asked Rove, "What makes you so evil?"  Inquiring minds want to know!  But Rove didn't seem to know.  Instead, he blamed the internets. (The Raw Story)

"Well I can’t answer that completely....I do have a theory though about the Internet. I think the Internet grants people a pseudo-anonymity that allows them to say things that they would never say to somebody in person and never put in a letter but would feel comfortable saying as accepted political discourse on the Internet, and after awhile it becomes ingrained in accepted practice.”  (The Raw Story)

To which Rose replied:  "It seems to go deeper."  Yes, that's right.  But poor old Rove said the answer is "beyond him."  I am sure.

Christopher Hitchens on the News from Iraq

Posted by Damozel  | After much incautious vaunting of their certainties prior to and well into the invasion , Hitchens (for whom I have a grudging affection) and others for whom I have no affection at all are clearly desperate to be proved right about something, even if they have to move the goalposts to win a point.  As I've said, any news from Iraq tending to suggest that it won't prove quite the disaster that it might have been is good news.   

But even hawkish Hitch isn't certain that the good news is genuine or that any gains are lasting.  He says:

Ann Coulter: Vindicating Sen. Joseph McCarthy

Posted by Damozel |  You all know I love Ann Coulter, right?  Right.  She and her kind have caused many sane actual conservatives whom I know and love---desperate not to be associated with her sort of "conservatism"--- to vote for Democrats.  Some have jumped ship altogether. 

As all her admirers and detractors know, Coulter gets her living by endlessly crying havoc on all her fellow citizens who dare to differ with her.  She is always threatening to ride us down and crush us beneath her iron stilettos.   And why?    

Why Not Give Back Mr. Rove's Dignity? [Updated]

Posted by D. Cupples |  I can't help feeling sorry for former White House advisor Karl Rove, having read his op-ed in today's Opinion Journal.  The man isn't even on salary anymore, yet the unnamed they are making him publicly drool nonsense, like my great aunt used to do at the Thanksgiving table after she'd exceeded her sherry limit.

Isn't it enough that Mr. Rove spent six years making the public believe that he had no grasp of foreign policy, economics or military affairs?  True, Mr. Rove dodged the Vietnam war draft, so he probably doesn't know much about military stuff, but do they have to make it so obvious?  Isn't it enough that they made him spend years creating and repeating neat-sounding phrases that made their creator appear terribly ignorant or deceptive?

Mr. Rove has paid his dues, so you'd think they would let him take a stab at reclaiming his dignity and self-respect.  Apparently not.  In today's op-ed, for example, they made him write:

"Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees."

Mr. Rove knows the polls show that the public dislikes and distrusts congressional Republicans even more than Dems ( BN-Politics-1). And yet, the unnamed they made him appear embarrassingly unaware. 

In another paragraph, they made him...

Neocons Killed US Influence Abroad?

  Posted by Damozel | Did the jackbooted power fantasies of American neoconservatives---dreams which the Bush Administration attempted to implement---bring about the permanent collapse of the US's influence over foreign nations?

In "Bush's Old World Disorder," Sidney Blumenthal argues that it may have done exactly that.

Every aspect of Bush's foreign policy has now collapsed. Every dream of neoconservatism has become a nightmare. Every doctrine has turned to dust. The influence of the United States has reached a nadir, its lowest point since before World War II, when the country was encased in isolationism....Gone are the days when the stern words of a senior U.S. official prevented rash action by an errant foreign leader and when the power of the U.S. served as a restraining force and promoted peaceful resolution of conflict. In the vacuum of the Bush catastrophe, nation-states pursue what they perceive to be their own interests as global conflicts proliferate....The neoconservative project is crashing....

"Cheney in a Pant Suit"

Posted by Damozel | Courtesy of One Good Move ("I Thought These Things Might be Clues") ---my favorite source for  video clips---I located this clip from Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher.   During it, you can hear Andrew Sullivan call Hillary "Cheney in a pant suit" and General Wes Clark trying to school Bill on the subject of  Iran and sternly shutting down any attempted interruption.  I can't help wondering how the world would be different if he'd got the nomination instead of John Kerry. What was it they didn't like about Clark again?  Oh yes: he didn't blink often enough.  Remind me why that was supposed to be a bad thing?

Anyway, Sullivan scoffs at Clark's "Clintonism" and voices are raised....

See other Real Time clips here.

Jim Hightower Has a Way of Putting things

Posted by D. Cupples   |  I began reading Jim Hightower a few years ago, after reading Molly Ivins' glowing mentions of him. Last night, I saw Hightower at a speaking engagement. No doubt, he has a way of putting things, complete with a Texas twang that coordinates perfectly with his cowboy hat.

Speaking of cowboy hats, Hightower speculated that President Bush's hat (the one he wears for photo-ops at the former pig farm known as the Crawford ranchette) was purchased at Nieman's in Dallas. Hightower's comment: "It's a thousand-dollar hat on a 10-cent head."

Hightower read from a 2002 news article that cited President Bush saying he is the commander and doesn't have to answer to anyone.  Hightower's comment:

"Wouldn't you like to buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth?  You could finance a whole war with that."

Hightower then asked: where are Jenna, Barbara and Bush's numerous nieces and nephews -- all of whom are of prime age to enlist in the military?  Hightower's comment:...

Rush Limbaugh Auctions Off Crucial Historical Document (for Charity)

Posted by Damozel | Ha ha ha ha!  Rush Limbaugh is offering a crucial historical document for sale on ebay!  He is challenging each of 41 Senate Democrats to match the winning bid.  Can you guess what the document is?   Can you?  Well, can you?  Here's a hint: as South Dakota Moderate says, it's right up there with the Constitution.   The winning bid on this one-of-a-kind not-to-be-missed document is $45,100 and there are three days left.  Step up, my Dems!   Besides, it's for charity!  And freedom!  And the First Amendment!   And Jesus!

The Church of Ann Coulter, Perfected Christian

Posted by Damozel | Donny Deutsch and other Jewish people shouldn't assume that Ann Coulter's views on Christianity are held by most Christians or even Ann Coulter herself.  I cherish the madness of Ann Coulter and all she has done to promote the cause of liberalism, and I don't want to be uncharitable, but I still boggle every time she claims to be espousing the religion of Jesus.  I am pretty familiar with the Gospels, and I'm pretty sure that Christ wouldn't have endorsed certain statements attributed to Coulter (which I gleaned from this October 2001 column at the Washington Monthly.

Ann Coulter Says the Darndest Things

Posted by D. Cupples |  Last week, Anne Coulter declared that women shouldn't vote. Of course she doubts their voting abilities: Coulter, herself, was investigated after voting in the wrong Florida precinct last year (USA Today).

Memeorandum has multiple mentions of Coulter's newest declaration: that Jews should become perfected by becoming Christians ( Editor & Publisher and Media Matters).  How inconsiderate --  overburdening our nation's satirists while the Bush Administration has them doing overtime.

Coulter's book sales must be slumping. How many people can remain riveted by titles like How to Murder Democrats and Avoid Jail Time?

I think of Coulter as a blond Bill O'Reilly in a mini-skirt.  My co-blogger Damozel thinks of her this way:

"What other media icon do you know of (...other than those on Fox or Clear Channel) who is so willing to make a fool of herself in public just to ensure that people will keep listening to her make a fool of herself in public?"

Given Coulter's irreversible association with the GOP, the Democratic leadership should send her a decent bottle of wine.

Ann Coulter. She's so outrageous.

Posted by Damozel | Do you get the feeling that Ann Coulter's days of media relevance are drawing to a close?  I do, and it makes me (an acknowledged Democrat) a little sad. I adore her, ridiculous as she is, because it is increasingly clear that she, like the mean girl in sixth grade, will say or do anything---anything---to make liberals pay attention to her, from insulting the 911 widows, to mocking the grief of parents who have lost a child, to saying that women are too stupid to be allowed vote. To clarify, I love her because she is so ridiculous and because I know that my liberal love is like kryptonite to Coulter.  She must know her shelf life is running out, and that our tolerance for/indifference to anything she says or does is increasing, because latterly her remarks certainly risk upsetting not only her "hated" liberals but also those conservatives (if any; see John Cole at Balloon Juice and the recent consternated note in The Wall Street Journal on the GOP's loss of its business "base") who are (1) still Republicans; and (2) sane.

To a sane person, recent polls might suggest that the immoderate, liberal-baiting sort of media Republican may be a contributing factor in the ongoing alienation and desertion of much of the former "base."  But does Coulter realize this?  Does she even care about the party's base at this point?  As everyone knows, Coulter's raison d'etre is to attract attention to herself and---especially---to get people to buy her books, most particularly her new one (look it up on Amazon if you want it; she doesn't need my help in marketing it).  To make money and get job satisfaction from doing so, she must rattle your cage/be invited onto Fox/see her big face---and it is a big, though very, very glamorous--face plastered all over the internet.  Won't some caring soul stage an intervention behind the scenes when the cameras are switched off (assuming Ann even exists when the cameras are switched off)?  She's turning the wheel too hard.  Soon she won't be able to make anyone take her seriously enough to care what she says. 

Bill O'Reilly Says: "Racism is Dumb" -- and Proves it!

posted by Damozel | All Bill O'Reilly wanted to do was to demonstrate to Fox viewers (and give him his props for recognizing they might need it) that racism is "dumb."   He can't imagine why African-Americans are offended and why he's taking a pasting from formerly "respectful" (his word) CNN.  Why would anyone mind that he "couldn't get over the fact" that the fine people of Harlem were very nice? While dining out with Al Sharpton (*O'Reilly's treat), he realized that black society is really just like white society nowadays.   Why, not one of the persons of color dining out at Sylvia's or working there spoke to him in hip hop or addressed him as "mofo" (to his face)! 

Naturally he wanted to share this joyful insight ("Black people:  more civilized than advertised!")  with the Fox news viewers.   And, to be honest, I think it's kind of sweet.  You can see why he's hurt:  there he was, bringing the "Ebony and Ivory" to the Fox News demographic, and instead of getting the praise he deserved for passing on the good news, he's been reviled.   Honestly, I feel sort of sorry for him.  But of course he doesn't need my pity.  As a right wing male, his M.O., particularly in moments of discomfort, is rage. So he's whipped himself up into a lather.

Watch here: