North . . Dogma

Since Max Cleland has assumed professional victim status (not to be confused with Coretta Scott King’s professional widow moniker), here’s something posited in January:
—————————————-

The blogosphere is chok-full of people ‘fisking’ Paul Krugman.  Sometimes, it’s a little much.  Hey, the guy is an opinion writer in the NYT & anyone who thinks that paper is anywhere near it’s apex of credibility is dreaming.  So I must admit that I rarely read the fellow.  Heck, finding a hyper-partisan lackey who hates the president is about as difficult as scratching my belly and from my experience about the last people who know about the actual workings of how companies budget and how the ‘real’ economy works are economists (sorry to any economists out there); because there’s more substance in actual numbers than economic theories.  His rantings resulted in jack-squat as far as swaying public opinion in ‘02 and there’s no reason to think that he’s doing more than appeasing an audience that is already in agreement.

All that being said, I see that he’s the latest to jump on the bandwagon of faux assertions (otherwise known as lies) regarding the urban legend ofquestioning Max Cleland’s patriotism.  I guess this will have to be a monthly feature here, since there is so much false information out there.  Just in case there are any questions, here’s the commercial in question (thx to Marshall).  Look at it for yourself, instead of relying on what
someone else says.

Now, I’ve said all along that I thought it was stupid to question Cleland’s own campaign theme of "the courage to lead" because anyone who served in a war gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to courage.  However, there’s no rational way (emphasis on ‘rational’) that anyone can discern that Cleland’s patriotism was questioned in the commercial.  I’ve discussed this thing a lot more than I should have to, primarily because the DNC talking points came down in October of ‘03 and thus the campaign of excuses & victimization was underway.  In the past I’ve seen people swear that the commercial morphed Cleland’s face into Osama & Saddam.  I’ve seen people swear that the commercial compared Cleland to Osama and Saddam.  More than
anything else, I’ve seen folks swear that the commercial questions the patriotism of Cleland.  One more time:

• The commercial goes after Cleland’s campaign theme of the ‘courage to lead’


• The commercial shows pictures of our enemies while saying "as America faces terrorists and extremists dictators "


• The commercial does not question anyone’s patriotism, but rather attack Cleland’s theme of having the courage to lead while kow-towing to the union demands for the homeland security department

And before I get inundated with folks saying "it implied" an attack on his patriotism, that is a stretch of monumental proportions.  I could say that Dean questioning Bush’s decision to go to war would be questioning his patriotism since that choice cost American lives.  Or that the DNC attacks on the administration’s post-war plans questioned their patriotism because it involved accusations of cronyism.  I wouldn’t do that because it’d be childish and petulant (well, okay, I cede the notion that it therefore wouldn’t be out of order for one of my entries, but bear with me :>).  There’s such a thing as dirty politics.  If you want to claim the commercial is a cheap shot – fine.  If you want to say that the commercial was over-the-line, fine.  If you want to say that the commercial was ill-timed, fine.  Like I said, I thought it was off-base to target ‘courage’, especially that of someone who lost their limbs in a war (no matter how it happened – yes, I know what occurred), but don’t urinate on me & claim that it’s raining by climbing on top of your ‘I’m persecuted’ horse and riding a crusade of "he questioned his patriotism", because it’s just an out-and-out lie. 

And for my friends on the left who are becoming irate while reading this because they think I’m coming across as a GOP stooge, I type this as a former Max Cleland voter who has simply become fed up with falsehoods in politics.  I’m calling them as I see ‘em & feel free to disagree, but the urban legend is getting old. It was false to state that Max Cleland lacked
courage IMO and it’s false to charge that the commercial questioned his patriotism.  And the kicker: If the election between Chambliss & Cleland were to be held again today, the margin of Saxby’s win would be even wider.

Last week he began a column that I couldn’t finish because he said the administration has turned the country to the ‘far right’.  Since the Taliban is the ‘far right’ and Tom Delay represents the ‘far right/ of actual American politics and keeping in mind that the administration is filled with pro-choice cabinet members, has passed the biggest entitlement program since the great society, signed Ted Kennedy’s education bill into law and has increased non-defense spending more than Clinton could’ve ever dreamed, I now need someone to explain to me why I should read anything by Paul Krugman ever again.  And that is a serious request.

—————————————

I’ll be blunt: The “let’s feel sorry for the crip” staged photo-ops can only be used so many times.

Sorry, Max. You had my vote in the 80s. You lost it, later. Apparently, I’m not alone in feeling that the government would be a better place without you in it. And to think that a war hero has now been reduced to pulling duty on John Kerry’s dirty-work detail…..

Is Conan the Governor just a fluke, or another California trend that will sweep the nation?

A new article in Wired argues that Ahnuld is a real force, and he’s got the approval ratings to prove it (the Political Animal notwithstanding). His star power is part of it, of course, but Schwarzenegger has also been surprisingly effective governor.

I’ve had a good impression of Schwarzenegger since he took office, partly because he’s a social liberal and economic conservative like me. He’s not tied to any special interest or voting block, so he’s free to govern in the best interests of all Californians. But what impresses me most is this paragraph, which I had not known about before:

The best example of Schwarzenegger taking on the political establishment is his determination to drive a stake through the practice of gerrymandering. For decades, politicians in both parties have colluded to create safe electoral districts – areas drawn in bizarre configurations to capture Democrats in one district and Republicans in another. This conspiracy to rig the system has all but killed the competition of ideas. As a result, voters too often face a choice between a well-financed extremist from their own party and a weak, unelectable candidate from the other party. Seats are so safe that contests in all but 30 of the 435 congressional districts in the US can be predicted months before voters go to the polls. In his campaign, Schwarzenegger called for a constitutional amendment that would remap safe districts. The plan: Assign a panel of retired judges to draw boundaries based on geography, not ideology. He’s talking with Ted Costa, the activist who helped put the Davis recall on the ballot, about how to make this happen through a 2006 ballot initiative.

Maybe only a political nerd like me cares about districting, but I believe there is no greater threat to our democratic system. Both parties use modern database technology to draw Frankenstein districts. And Frankenstein districts elect Frankenstein legislators. Voters should pick the representatives, not the other way around.

Iowa, I believe, is the only state where districts are drawn by an independent commission, instead of being drawn for political purposes. Every state should do the same. But how can we expect our politicians to change the system that benefits them?

There are two candidates in this race:

*One has said John Kerry’s service was honorable, one said he comitted atrocities in Vietnam.

*One has said he honors John Kerry’s service, and one has said Kerry engage in war crimes.

*One has said John Kerry should be proud of his medals, the other felt they they merited no more than being throwng away (or was that ribbons? Or was that someone else’s medals?)

*One has been called into question by the mainstream press pertaining to a lack of evidence when claiming WMDs, one has NOT been called into question pertaining to lack of evidence when claiming coordination with the SBVT.

*One has praised Max Cleland’s military service, and one has claimed that the other questioned Max Cleland’s patriotism (without one scintilla of evidence or one question from the mainstream media for the charge).

*One is leading the fight in the war on terror, and one has a band of brothers that follow him around as they talk about the war in Vietnam.

*One has cut taxes on every income group, one promises to raise taxes on selected citizens.

*One pushed for congressional approval to give the authority to go to war, and so did the other one.

*One pushed for congressional approval to pay for the soldiers fighting in the war approved in the item above, and one voted against it (after voting for it).

*One has called for the redeployment of troops located in the Korean peninsula, and so did the other one (for just a short time, now he’s against it).

Much has been made about Kerry’s designation as the most liberal senator. 
The latest being the approved talking points item (it’s obvious that TDS writers are lefty blog readers & Air America fans) is that Kerry is only the most liberal when you look at the last year…but
if you go back a few years, he’s really not.  And there you have a cyber-movement:  someone presents a different way of looking at things that counter-act the facts, a wave of people
link/agree and then they all declare that the issue is discredited and anyone who brings it up is either a liar or a right-wing drone.  So, for all you "Kerry is not the most liberal senator" fans, it’s time to update the scorecard:

In 1998, when Bill Clinton is about to be impeached, "is" means now, not "over the past few years".

In 2004, when John Kerry has wrapped up the nomination & needs to be shown as not so liberal, "is" means "over the past few years", not now.

 

This entry has been given to you by "Diehard Activist Democratic Water Carriers", where moving the goalposts and non-stop word redefinition is a foundation for dishonest party line rhetoric.

If the media is so “liberal,” why won’t they investigate the controversy over Bush’s medals?

Oh, and the Nixon tapes reveal John O’Neill was in Cambodia in Swift Boat.

‘Cuz I almost fell off my chair when I read that Alice freakin’ Cooper is a Republican.

Cooper, whose real name is Vincent Damon Furnier, is reportedly a strong Republican who joins Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at NBA games in Phoenix.

RTWT. The man’s got a pretty good point, too.

[Shaking head] I cannot get the image of Alice Cooper whoopin’ it up with Trent Lott out of my head…

Why is it that so many folks who couldn’t see a connection between Iraq & Al Qaeda (later detailed by the 9/11 commission) are the same people jumping up & down screaming a definitive coordination between the Bush campaign & the SBVT?

We’re all on the same team, guys. By that, I mean AMERICANS, not ideologues. Of course, not all seemingly have that highest on the priority list.

If it’ll make it easier, pretend Bush is Saddam (that should be easily enough done for those folks) and Al Qaeda are the Swifties (even easier, based on their knee-jerk rhetoric). There, maybe then it’ll cause them to put country above party.

Court, who I should link to more often, sez:

Just to recap this campaign so far:

The Republicans are attacking a Democrat on his military service record. The Democrats are defending a war criminal or liar. At the same time, the Republican incumbent is being attacked for war crimes in Iraq that he had little or nothing to do with. At the same time, the Republican barely served but isn’t being attacked about that. Anymore.

The Democrats complain when 527 groups run ads attacking their nominee but say nothing when 527 groups attack the Republican nominee.

The Dem darling, Carter, has given his approval to electronic voting by standing by the results supporting a thug. Meanwhile, Democrats are still up in arms about Florida and the very idea of electronic voting.

The Republican nominee is raising the deficit through the roof while the Democrat is promising to balance the budget.

While clamoring about the PATRIOT Act, the Democratic convention featured gulag style protest areas.

Ron Reagan spoke at the DNC.

Zell Miller will speak at the RNC. Along with a movie star turned Governor.

90% of the delegates opposed the Iraq war. Their nominee voted for it.

More than half voting for the Democrat nominee are not voting for him, but against the Republican.

This has got to be the stupidest election ever.

Don’t forget that this year Democrats are running on the Vietnam war and disparaging those who didn’t serve (so much for the 90s, huh?) while the Republicans are running (in part) on quasi-nation building in the middle east.

James Schlesinger, chairman of the four-member advisory panel appointed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in early May to investigate abuse allegations at Abu Ghraib, said today:

There was sadism on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, sadism that was certainly not authorized. It was kind of ‘Animal House’ on the night shift.

The issue here is not whether members of the military broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with their prisoners. They did. But you can’t hold the entire Abu Ghraib guards responsible for the behavior a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole military guard system? And if the whole military guard system is guilty, isn’t this an indictment of our military institutions in general? I put it to you, James, isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, he can do what he wants to the guards of Abu Ghraib, but I’m not going to sit here and listen to James Schlesinger bad mouth the United States of America!

(25th anniversary edition of Animal House is a must-have for any DVD collection.)

UPDATE - To compare Abu Ghraib to the Delta House is ridiculous, but since Schlesinger talked about sadism in the same sentence, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just doesn’t remember the movie. Yes, Court, this post was a joke—when I read Schlesinger statement, I immediately popped my Animal House disc in the DVD and wrote down the classic scene where Otter defends the Deltas in the student court. (“The issue here is not whether members of the Delta fraternity broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with their female guests. They did. But you can’t…”)

A couple days ago, I blogged about how ridiculous Kerry sounded when he said, as quoted in the New York Times, “Who among us does not love Nascar?” I added:

By the way, can anyone source the Kerry quote? I saw it in the NY Times opinion yesterday, but I couldn’t find the original source. And we all know certain NY Times writers love to use false quotes to embarass Democratic candidates.

I e-mailed the incomparable Daily Howler about it, and Bob Somerby wrote back:

Very shaky. It traces back to a 5/04 guest column for UPI by a comedian named Danny Vermont. He doesn’t say where or when Kerry said it. It may just be a joke.

Then Mr. Somerby e-mailed this comedian’s column (which is the only record of this alleged comment on Nexis):

(more…)