A Few Interesting Points

Continuing on with the Shirley Sherrod story, lets get some comments from Jeffrey Lord (quoted by Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo), who has come down on Sherrod like a ton of bricks. Apparently a relative was beaten to death with a blackjack for racial reasons which she has described as a lynching. Jeffrey Lord doesn't agree.

Certainly the image in my head of a lynching is rope around the neck," Lord told me. "And when we really got into this, it was quite apparent to me that there was all sorts of other things. That there has to be a mob -- mob action. Well what is a mob? Is it two people? Is it three people?

This is an interesting tack to take. Basically because Sherrod described her relative being beaten to death for being black as a lynching she's a racist.

Beyond that, Lord doesn't understand that Southern Racists were conservatives and after integration they defected to the Republican Party en masse. Or to be more precise he probably does understand it but is pretending not to.

Daily Howler also has some important comments on the Sherrod situation; mostly asking how stupid we liberals are.

Blame Fox News for this whole affair, while underplaying the awkward fact that the Obama Administration and the NAACP reached the same damn-fool conclusion. Insist that this proves that Fox is racist, while failing to mention the gross bad judgment shown by the other two groups.

I wish he were wrong about this, but he's really not.

What is our Message

The Daily Howler is a website I've been a fan of for a long time and they are on fire this week. They are asking a simple question; why are Democrats so bad at messaging, while Republicans are so good at it (among other conclusions, the Democrats are beholden to the same moneyed interests that the Republicans are defending).

He then suggests two counter messages, that we Democrats might pick up.

But if we ever do build such a narrative, it would probably turn on these points:

First, it would turn on some well-crafted statement of an obvious fact: Big Moneyed Interests will try to loot you. They’ll do it every time—till they’re stopped.

Second, it might turn on a second obvious fact: Big Moneyed Interests will send tribunes out to deceive you. They will lie in your faces—till they’re stopped.

I think he's right; these are clear statements of fact. The reason we need a well-regulated capitalism (and I'm in favor of capitalism) is because the moneyed interests will do exactly what he says they are doing. And they are doing it right now, and we seem powerless to stop them. I don't know what the answer is, but part of it as to be explaining to the American people exactly how they are getting screwed and pledging to help them.

A Persistent Question

The Daily Howler has a tendency to settle on a theme and then bang on it for a quite a little while. Sometimes it's annoying but right now, it's asking a pretty good question.

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
United States: $7290
Japan: $2581

. . . In fact, the Japanese system provides health care at vastly lower cost! Per capita, the Japanese spends barely one-third what we Americans do! But last Thursday, readers of the New York Times didn’t wonder why that is. Arnquist seemed to work rather hard to keep that fact from their view.

On a per capita basis, the United States spends vastly more than other developed nations. Again and again, we’ve marveled at the way the mainstream press seems to keep hiding this fact. The spending data are simply stunning—and readers are constantly shielded from them.

Yeah it's worth thinking about. Why are Japanese paying less for better care?

The Shape of Things to Come

Nina Mays clumsy article referenced earlier is just one of many signs that the Republicans don't intend to take it easy on Barack Obama. Paul Krugman over at the New York Times, who's not a Obama supporter, notes this trend and predicts it will continue.

. . . I know that both the Obama campaign and many reporters deny that he has received more favorable treatment than Hillary Clinton. But they’re kidding, right? Dana Milbank, the Washington Post national political reporter, told the truth back in December: “The press will savage her no matter what ... they really have the knives out for her, there’s no question about it ... Obama gets significantly better coverage.”

If Mr. Obama secures the nomination, the honeymoon will be over as he faces an opponent whom much of the press loves as much as it hates Mrs. Clinton. If Mrs. Clinton can do nothing right, Mr. McCain can do nothing wrong — even when he panders outrageously, he’s forgiven because he looks uncomfortable doing it. Honest.

Bob Somerby of the media-criticism site dailyhowler.com predicts that Mr. Obama will be “Dukakised”: “treated as an alien, unsettling presence.” That sounds all too plausible.

Daily Howler is a great site, and neither it nor Krugman are wrong. The right wing will have to do quite a little tap dance, both attacking Obama for being sort of like a Muslim and avoiding charges of bigotry (and if they get on other aspects of his race, it will be even worse). But they will attack the hell out of him; it's what they do.

The Fair Tax Debunked

This Fair Tax is getting a fair amount of play right now, particularly because Governor Mike Huckabee is making it a big part of his run for the Presidency. But in fairness the idea has been around for a while; essentially the idea is to get rid of the IRA and impose a national sales tax. Anyway conservative economist Bruce Bartlett has written an article for the Wall Street Journal taking it apart. I particularly like the bit where the Federal Government will end up paying the Fair Tax on purchases they make.

Under the Linder-Chambliss bill, the federal government would have to pay taxes to itself on all of its purchases of goods and services. Thus if the Defense Department buys a tank that now costs $1 million, the manufacturer would have to add the FairTax and send it to the Treasury Department. The tank would then cost the federal government $300,000 more than it does today, but its tax collection will also be $300,000 higher.

This legerdemain is done solely to make revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are, so that its supporters can claim that it is revenue-neutral.

Yeah that doesn't sound entirely right. Anyway it's well worth checking out.

Found this article via the Daily Howler, which is always worth checking out.

David Limbaugh vs. Glenn Greenwald vs. David Brooks. Also appearing, the Daily Howler and Christ Matthews

Talk about a battle of the titans! Nah - there's only one titan in this particular fight, and it isn't the brother of Rush Limbaugh. David Brooks, in the New York Times, wrote about a visit to the President, in which he said this (unfortunately from behind the firewall so I can't link to it).

But Bush is not blind to the realities in Iraq. After all, he lives through the events we're not supposed to report on: the trips to Walter Reed, the hours and hours spent weeping with or being rebuffed by the families of the dead.

Rather, his self-confidence survives because it flows from two sources. The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: ''It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist.''

Glenn Greenwald picked up on that language in what is described as a fawning tribute to our "great leader" and wrote this.

This has been the great unexamined issue of the Bush presidency -- the extent to which Bush's unwavering commitment to Middle East militarism is, as Bush himself has made clear, rooted in theological and religious convictions, not in pragmatic or geopolitical concerns.

. . . At least in large part, Bush sees the "battles" he is waging in epic theological and religious terms, and as a result, political constraints and pragmatic limits are irrelevant to his actions. It is such an uncomfortable reality -- that religious fervor drives our wars and other foreign policy -- that it has been ignored almost completely over the last five years, even though ample evidence exists proving that it is true, beginning with his own continuous statements.

Daily Howler noted that this striking passage was not commented on in the letters the Time posted in response to the article, and suggested a reason why.

Our speculation: The Times did get letters about Bush’s statement; they got a lot of letters about it. But uh-oh! At the Times, it isn’t polite to discuss this pol’s religion—to let conservatives even imagine that you’re painting Bush as a “religious nut.” And so, the editors chose to ignore this striking part of Brooks’ column. Seven letters discuss Brooks’ piece—and its most startling passage is AWOL.

Is that what happened? We don’t know. But Greenwald surely wasn’t alone in his reaction to Brooks’ column. In truth, David Brooks provided a service when he quoted the commander in chief making this religious statement. But darlings! It simply isn’t done! That is where the discussion will end!

Chris Matthews was asked about this statement on the Tonight Show, and said, "Well, if he was going to play Joan of Arc, we wouldn't have elected him. Getting whispers from heaven is scary business. The guys we're fighting say that, too."" To which David Limbaugh had a response.

While I can't prove a negative, I am confident Bush never said that God is on our side in this war -- though it wouldn't bother me if he had -- or that God directed him to attack Iraq. He has said he continually prays for divine guidance and reads the Bible every day. That is wise, commendable and utterly no different from what Abraham Lincoln and many, probably most presidents in our history did.

This is not a distinction without a difference. Matthews is unequivocally implying that Bush has claimed to get his marching orders directly from God and that that is scary -- as if he's in some kind of spiritual trance. It simply isn't true, and Matthews is distorting the truth in suggesting it is.

Thank you for playing Mr. Limbaugh. But from what I hear, from David Brooks, that Bush, speaking from a theological perspective believes that history is moving in his way. That doesn't really sound all that different from saying that God is on his side.

Let's Burn some Faggots

Don't worry - apparently I'm talking about bundles of sticks, not homosexuals.

"I was going to have some comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word faggot -- so I am kind of at an impasse."

Don't worry - apparently Ann Coulter might have been comparing John Edwards to a bundle of sticks, and it's not fair to judge her until we know which version of the term she meant. Or that's what a caller to Washington Journal apparently said, showing that some people will stoop to any depth to get what they want.

This is from a typically brilliant post over at The Daily Howler - in which he talks about what Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd have in common. Here's a hint - they both think Democrats are Girly-Men.

Framing

I am going to point to todays article over at the Daily Howler, with slight disagreement. His first article criticizes AMERICAblog and Atrios for misreading an AP report in order to make Hillary Clinton look bad. So far so good, he makes a convincing case. And there has always been the danger that in battling monsters we could become monsters.

But then he says this which I find a bit more difficult to swallow.

As we said a few days ago, we want to see Clinton, Edwards or Obama elected. (Or Gore, if he enters the race. Or Richardson, Biden, Kucinich or some other, if a miracle occurs.) Without intending any disrespect, none of the Big Three is the candidate we would design in a lab. But you go to election with the hopefuls you have, not the ones you can dream or imagine. Franklin D. Roosevelt won’t be running this year. We need to win with the hopefuls we’re given.

And frames will be built around these candidates—frames which can later be used to defeat them.

I agree with him on this point - it's self evident - but I disagree with the obvious conclusion. The obvious conclusion is that we should take it easy on Clinton (and Obama and Edwards) because any mud we sling at them will still be there for Republicans to use in the general election. That's true, for what it's worth. But that's what a primary season is all about. What kind of Democratic Party do we want to be? If Hillary Clinton represents your idea of what this party needs to be, than fight for her. But there are obviously plenty (particularly among the grassroots political active left) who don't see her as an ideal candidate. They are going to continue pointing out what they see as her deficiencies because they don't want her to be our standard bearer - you might disagree with them, but that's what a primary fight is all about.

And I don't think we should hold back because our labels might be used later in ways we don't like.

A Very Cynical Attitude

Paul Weyrich, determined to become a prophet with honor, has written a new article about the Democratic field of candidates. As is standard forh im, he tries to take a very scholarly route, so it's not as fun to write about as say "Why Liberals Hate Christians."

Instead he says that Conservatives don't like Clinton, which is not a shocker, and that they think she's cold and divisive. I think she's divisive at the very least (for which I will be chided by The Daily Howler (see below)). He gives Edwards and Obama marks for not being the front runner and therefore having the opportunity to move up.

Front runners have only one place to go - down. Whereas Obama or Edwards, reasonably close to Hillary in the latest Fox Poll, can look forward to going up if they gain traction.

He notes that Bill Richardson is a strong candidate and will probably be Clinton's pick for Vice President (assuming we get that far). And he takes Biden to task for not being interesting enough on the senate floor.

He does praise Nancy Pelosi on the other hand - a safe move considering she's not running for anything.

Turning back to Hillary Clinton and divisiveness, The Daily Howler went on a bit of an extended discussion about this very issue yesterday.

Is anyone dumber than our Dem Party activists? In fact, even as these party stalwarts spoke, Newsweek released another national poll. This poll, conducted last Wednesday and Thursday, showed Clinton leading McCain by six points (50-44) and Edwards leading McCain by four (48-44). In fact, it was the third straight Newsweek poll, in a span of two months, which showed Clinton ahead of McCain; she also leads Giuliani by three in this latest survey (49-46). But so what! Nothing stops us liberals and Dems from reciting the types of defeatist points which reporters then rush into national papers. Hillary Clinton is unelectable! Because of “her political baggage!” (Sometimes, we’re such perfect tools that we say it’s because she’s “too polarizing.”) In short, the RNC doesn’t need to exist. We liberals and Dems are now quite pleased to recite their talking-points for them.

. . . We’ll discuss other spins this week and next, including the utterly matchless spin-point: Hillary Clinton is soooo polarizing. But then, we’ve even seen major Dem Party strategists repeat that bromide on the air! Could we possibly get any dumber? Could our “leaders” be any more clueless?

I'm a big fan of the Daily Howler, and have been for a while now, but I'm not sure I agree with their analysis here. I do agree that we shouldn't say that Hillary Clinton is unelectable. But I do think those polls aren't the whole story. What I've always said, is that the campaign of Hillary Clinton will energize the Republican Base to fight meaner and uglier than they have in the past (and it's not like they held much back in the last two elections). But her grass roots support is not that strong.

I also don't understand why he is so upset that we describe Hillary Clinton as a polarizing figure. It strikes me as the simple truth. Now I happen to live in the south, where perhaps resentment of her is a bit higher. And if it is the truth, why shouldn't it be said? Particularly at this juncture, when we are deciding who will represent us in the 2008 election. If one sees flaws in Hillary Clinton (and I do, both from a political and from a governance stance), why shouldn't one express them?

Somerby promises to get back to this subject, so perhaps a more complete analysis will be forthcoming.

Being Wealthy is only Shameful if you are a Liberal

Daily Howler is quite good these days, and I was struck by a post he wrote on David Brooks writing on Nancy Pelosi.

Was Nancy Pelosi "chauffeured [i.e., driven] to school as a child?" We don't have the slightest idea. (A Nexis search on "Pelsoi AND chauffeur!" failed to produce any meaningful matches. Other searches got us nowhere.) But Brooks' crafting is sadly familiar; he pictures Pelosi as a pampered child, just as his class contrived to do, in various ways, to Gore and Kerry before her. Indeed, this very image-the image of the child being driven to school-was often used, in precisely this way, to drive the image of rich, pampered Gore. We weren't told that he was "driven to school" (at St. Albans) by a DC transit bus. Over-class craftsmen chose their words well-and we rubes were encouraged to conjure.

In this passage, Brooks conflates Pelosi's wealth as a married adult with her life as a child-when she lived in Baltimore's (working class) Little Italy, with her father, then Baltimore's (working class) mayor. Was Pelosi a child of the pampered rich-the image one takes from Brooks' paragraph 2?

What strikes me about this is how angry Rush and them get when we start talking about taxing the rich - then it's all about how we shouldn't punish or resent the wealthy for being wealthy. But when it's a Democrat wealthy person, than all bets are off. Then they didn't earn their money and they are out of touch and don't understand America in the slightest.

Or to put it another way, it's funny how Rush's wealth doesn't distort his vision, at least according to him.

Oh and apparently I'm not changing the look of the blog after all, it looks like the feeds are working again.

Why Comment on Coulter?

We've gone through a round of Coulter commentary which regularly prompts the question "Why do you focus on her?" Prominent Liberal Bloggist Kevin Drum asked this question (not directed at me, who, I assume, he's never heard of) this week, and the Daily Howler responded to it. And in my opinion, nailed it out of the park.

Why would someone “bother to comment” on Coulter? Because she’s one of the most influential writers in the country? Because the landscape is crawling with people who don’t know they’re being played by her books? Because her message is getting out? We’d ask an obvious question ourselves: If we don’t bother responding to number-one New York Times best-sellers, what exactly do we respond to? What exactly are we saving our precious fluids for?

Damn straight.

Coulter Coulter Coulter

The New Republic, which used to be a liberal magazine, has published a loving tribute by Elsbeth Reed to Ann Coulter for being pugnacious and having a grain of truth in her lies (Reed's analysis not mine). She then inexplicably turns Ann Coulter's success into a cautionary tale about Liberals and Gender Issues.

All wrapped up in liberals' snarky comments about her hair is a wellspring of latent guilt for judging her by her hair. Even after all those gender studies classes in college, even after having known/befriended/dated/been That Girl who Doesn't Shave Her Pits, after pretending to like Ani DiFranco, liberals still can't get over her hair. I love Ann Coulter because, in her, I see a loudmouth on the assembly line, fighting not to be squished and whittled and boxed into the shape Washington seems to think fits a girl just right.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, exactly. For the record I think Ani DiFranco ha done some quite fine music (and some very annoying polemics). To The Teeth is a damn fine album, for example. I don't have to pretend to like her and my liking her doesn't come from some sort of liberal guilt.

By the same token, I don't like Ann Coulter because she's pretty much insane. Her goal is quite simply the elimination of liberals. And given her comments in the past, I have to assume that she would be willing to support quite extreme methods to achieve that goal.

Neither of these opinions is based on any kind of guilt or desire to be a good feminist or whatever else she's referring too here.

At any rate I'm far from the only one who found this article a bit crap. The Daily Howler did quite a number on it, "It’s hard to get dumber than this piece by Reeve, but her flat-out inability to reason is the raw meat on which Coulter feeds." Lance Mannion also wrote on the article pointing out the sort of society Ann Coulter and others are trying to create.

What's not "kind of" true but all true is that it has been the Bush Administration and its flunkys and apologists in Congress and in the Media who have been using emotional responses to 9/11 to shut down debate.

Criticize the President and you're a traitor giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

Object to the Radical Christian Right's attempts to outlaw freedom of choice and women's autonomy, replace science in school with superstitious twaddle, deny gay people status as citizens, and generally force a backwards cult of male authoritarianism they call Christianity on the whole country, and you're Godless.

Suggest in any way that the Republican Right wing agenda's not a boon and a gift to the nation and you're a liar, a malicious slanderer, who can only be properly argued with while holding a baseball bat.

That's Ann Coulter's shtick in a nutshell.