BILL KILLS

"Apparently, Bush did not know about this whole ports thing until the story broke in the newspapers. You know, you could say Reagan was asleep at the switch. At least he knew there was a switch." -- Bill Maher

FLIP-SLOP

Bush job rating falls to all-time low: poll
Mon Feb 27, 11:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush's job rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent (the lowest approval rating of any two-term President since Nixon during the height of Watergate), amid strong opposition to the Dubai Ports World deal and increasing pessimism over the war in
Iraq, according to a CBS News poll released on Monday.

Bush's overall job approval fell eight points from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's performance on the job, the poll found.
Bush's previous low job approval rating of 35 percent came last October, a month after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to the Gulf Coast and shortly after the U.S. death toll in Iraq reached the 2,000 mark, CBS said.

Long among his strongest suits, ratings for Bush's handling of Iraq fell to a new low of 30 percent, down from 37 percent in January, the poll found.

In addition, 62 percent of Americans said they think U.S. efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq were going badly compared with 36 percent who said things were going well.

In recent days, the Bush administration has faced increasing sectarian violence and fears of civil war in Iraq as well as strong bipartisan congressional opposition to a deal allowing an Arab state-owned company to operate six key U.S. ports.

According to the poll, 70 percent believe the Dubai Ports World transaction should not be allowed to go through while only 21 percent did not see the ports deal as a problem.

One surprising bright spot for the administration in the polls was that Americans appeared ready to move on after Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident. Seventy-six percent said it was understandable that the accident could happen.

However, media coverage of the accident may have made the public's generally negative view of Cheney a bit more so, CBS said. The poll found that 46 percent hold a negative view of Cheney and 18 percent hold a favorable view, down from a 23 percent favorable rating in January.
The telephone poll of 1,018 adults was conducted February 22-26 and had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

But remember, polls are just a snapshot in time - never mind that those snapshots are amounting to an increasingly bleak (and bleakly funny) scenario for Scdrumya.

A CRIME (NOT ?) SHIT TO BE NAMED

This post will make explicit an observation I implicitly made in the last post.

Under our Constitution, when a law singles out a particular class of individuals that does not constitute a "suspect class" (the Supreme Court has only recognized the following as suspect classes: race, religion, national origin, ethnicity and color), the law, to pass muster, need only survive "rational basis review," that is, it need only be "rationally related" to a "legitimate governmental interest." The Court, in dicta, has defined the rational basis test so as to make any law pass it: under this test, if a reason could theoretically be articulated at ANY point at time between now and infinity for the law - i.e. if a reason could theoretically be articulated that shows that the law is rationally related to the interest - then the law is OK - even if the government cannot articulate the interest now.

The Court cannot - or more accurately, does not, seriously mean this The Court has struck down several laws under the rational basis test, devised in the '70's (see, e.g, Cleburne, Moreno, Romer, Lawrence v. Texas). If the Court took its dicta (which some of its members believe to be holding) seriously, these cases would have been sent back to the lower courts, or the writs for cert. would have been dismissed as improvidently granted, on the theory that the cases were not yet "ripe" for adjudication, since the government had yet to have the opportunity to let eternity pass to show that SOME reason theoretically could be articulated showing a rational relationship.

The Court should, in its next rational basis case, overrule this dicta, to the extent it has claimed reliance upon it as holding, because the Court has not ACTUALLY relied upon it, or else Cleburne et al would never have seen the light of day.

So, what actually did motivate the court to decide the above-decided cases the way it did? The cases were decided over a period of three decades, but the nine berobed weasels in each case essentially said, without HOLDING as much, that the laws in each case were passed solely out of irrational animus toward a non-protected group. "Irrational," in that the government's professed concern for the group/others who might come into contact with it was not empirically validated; "animus" in the sense that the court found, either in the legislative history directly, or by negative implication, that animus was the only valid reason for the passage of the law. Moreover, in each of the four cases, even assuming the interest was legitimate (denial of food stamps in Moreno; ensuring that construction does not occur on property that might flood in Cleburne; freeing up state resources so the resources could be used for non-homosexual causes in Romer; preservation of state morals in Lawrence); the Court found that the manner in which the laws related to the interest was so irrational as to defy description. For example, in Moreno, the Court struck down a federal law denying food stamps to hippies (yes, that was the law). The Court held that assuming, arguendo, that the interest in preservation of government resources was a legitimate one, the law employed to further this interest, out of the 100,000+ laws that could conceivably legitimately be used to further it, made about as much "rational" sense as denying food stamps to people born on Tuesdays. Only animus against hippies could have motivated the law, just as the Court concluded that only animus against the mentally retarded animated the law in Cleburne, and that only animus against gays animated the laws in Romer and Lawrence

What the Court did not say in any in these four cases explicitly, but should have, given how it presented the facts in each case, and what it made of them vis a vis the respective holdings, is if the only conceivable basis for the passage of a law is animus wherein the the law relates to the interest in such a manner as to defy description, the law must be struck down.

Justice Blackmun's dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick is instructive here (by the way, Michael Bowers, Georgia's Attorney General, openly admitted in pleadings in a subsequent case to committing the crime of fornication): "Like Justice Homes, I believe that "[i]t is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the gronds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past" Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv.L.Rev. 457, 469 (1897). I believe we must analyze Hardwick's claim in the light of the values that underlie the constitutional right to privacy. If that right means anything, it means that, before Georgia can prosecute its citizens for making choices about the most intimate aspects of their lives, it must do more than assert that the choice they have made is an "'abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians.'"

How sad indeed was the fact that the quite conservative Georgia Supreme Court (in 1998) struck down the statute under which Hardwick was prosecuted, by a vote of 6-1, before the Supreme Court decided Lawrence in 2003.

Florida's law barring gay individuals or gay couples from adopting is the direct result of the bigot-mongering of Anita Bryant and her ilk in the mid-to-late 1970's. Only "blind imitation" of that past has kept this law alive, not that the grounds for its passage were ever solid (Bryant claimed that if children were left in the hands of gay schoolteachers or gay adoptive parents, untrammeled molestation would result - the first claim has not been empirically borne out, and the second claim has not been given a chance to be tested in Florida, but has been disproven in 49 other states. The 11th Circuit shamefully upheld the law in the latest round of litigation by stating that "We must respect the Florida legislature's judgment that children have the right, by the state's ensuring that they be placed with non-practicing homosexuals, to be "part of the mainstream." Never mind that the legislature did not define what "mainstream" meant, and that this phrase is an expression of bigotry by any other name. See also Justice Jackson's great quote in West Virginia v. Barnette ("If there is one fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no government officer, however petty or mighty, shall prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of faith or social affairs or politics, or compel citizens to state their belief in such orthodoxy") (not an exact quote, but a good replica). The state has no business describing "mainstream" since to do so is to stigmatize and to provide the official imprimatur of bigotry.

FIGHTING THE BIGGIES WITH THE SNIGGIES

Sometimes, the only way to combat bigotry (after all, some times, we must laugh, so that we may not cry), is to snicker and snigger at their intolerance, as one Ohio lawmaker is now doing:

Plan would bar Ohio adoptions by GOP
By Carl Chancellor
Beacon Journal staff writer
If a Youngstown lawmaker's proposal becomes Ohio law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.
State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to ``introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents.'' The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship.
On Thursday, the Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.
Hagan said his ``tongue was planted firmly in cheek'' when he drafted the proposed legislation.
However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.
Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.
``We need to see what we are doing,'' said Hagan, who called Hood's proposed bill blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive. Hagan called Hood and the eight other conservative House Republicans who backed the anti-gay adoption bill ``homophobic.''
Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.
To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that ``credible research'' shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing ``emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.''
However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.
Just as ``Hood had no scientific evidence'' to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.
``It flies in the face of reason when we need to reform our education system, address health care and environmental issues that we put energy and wasted time (into) legislation (Hood's) like this,'' continued Hagan, who has been in the Ohio Senate nine years. Before the Senate, he served 19 years in the Ohio House.

DOESN'T BODE WELL, PART II

February 26, 2006

The President and Mr. Miller
Tom Watson

Bode Miller was the perfect candidate for the packaged American Hero, a good-lucking lad who played the rebel to perfection for the image-makers, and ran with the hype and the credit card ads to the 2006 Olympics. Miller was a portable symbol of American lone rangers, the guy who did it his way and reached for the gold. Except he didn't reach. He turned up hollow and empty and unwilling to sacrifice. He skiied off the course, and he skiied off the story-line.
Just as the Bridge to Nowhere is the perfect metaphor for rudderless national leader of the Republican Party, so the ski bum Bode Miller and his devil-may-care attitude toward spectacular failure on the world stage makes a fine stand-in for the President of the United States.
Compare the scorecards. Downhill, Combined, Super-G, Giant Slalom, Slalom ... 5th, Disqualified, Did Not Finish, 6th, Did Not Finish. Spygate, Iraq, Katrina, Torture, Port Security. Or pick your own issues, any issues. No medals, folks - just ignominy and embarassment before the world. What Bode Miller is to Olympic triumph, George Bush is to Presidential history, flopping off the slick course of national politics like James Buchanan in Team USA spandex.
Of course, it's one thing to be an over-hyped, overweight slalom slacker hanging out till all hours in the bars of Turin, letting down your sponsors, your teammates, and your fans. To me, athletes never really let their countries down - that nationalistic stuff is just for T-shirt sales. The Olympic movement is about as idealistic as the Nike advertising budget. In the end, Bode Miller really disgraced no one but himself. His stupid little episode will fade, and his moment on the public stage is nearly at an end. George Bush's incredible failure will be with us for many, many years. Increasingly isolated (if that's possible) and with his dream team riddled by buckshot and scandal, our national ski bum has the country on the icy, dangerous downhill towards disaster.
George Bush in the flight suit on that carrier was Bode Miller in the Nike ads before the Olympics, all image and promise. No substance and sacrifice, no guts and inner fire. Here's what Mr. Miller told the (obviously angry) team at NBC Sports:
"The expectations were other people's. I'm comfortable with what I've accomplished, including at the Olympics ... I wanted to have fun here, to enjoy the Olympic experience, not be holed up in a closet and not ever leave your room. I got to party and socialize at an Olympic level ... I just did it my way. I'm not a martyr, and I'm not a do-gooder. I just want to go out and rock. And man, I rocked here."
Replace Olympics and Olympic with Presidency and Presidential, and how far are you really from the life and times of George W. Bush - who, after all, can always say he got to party and socialize on the Presidential level after a life partying and socializing on the silver spoon circuit.
Bode Miller is right. He is not a martyr. And he has absolutely nothing in common with the American men and women who are dying in our name in the streets of Iraqi cities as the Bush-triggered civil war rages. He has nothing in common with the 2,500 killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is nothing like the young Americans in military hospitals in Germany and Maryland and Texas and elsewhere, kids missing limbs and suffering paralysis and blindness, young people who time and time again tell the politicians and reporters who come around their beds: "I just want to get back to my unit."
Bode Miller is just another selfish American, another potent symbol of our self-satisfied society, but at least he doesn't ask more from others than he is willing to contribute himself. His failure is his own.
George Bush's failure is ours

DOESN'T BODE WELL

An ugly snapshot of MillerFebruary 25, 2006

Editor's note: Rutland resident Marci Francis, a member of the U.S. National skeleton team, will file periodically from Turin, Italy during the Olympic Games.

Last night it was utter chaos at the "Irish Igloo," a bar in Sestriere, Italy, that is honored with the designation of being the official "U.S. Ski Team House."It is a favorite hangout for the athletes and less-glam crowd, except for the Irish Team, who protest going there because being Irish doesn't qualify them as VIPs. No matter how many times they refer to the sign "Irish Igloo" above the door and point to the Irish flag on the jackets, they are still left to stand in line with the rest of us unlucky charms.On this particular night, the line was longer than ever, and as I stood watching Tom Green interview a U.S. ski team member, none other than Bode Miller marched quickly out the door with a friend in tow. Not far from the bar now, Miller stood talking with the friend in the street. Promising my sisters a picture if I saw him, I decided to seize the opportunity.Hoping to not draw attention to myself or Miller, I nonchalantly approached them and said, "Excuse me, would you mind? I promised my sisters that if I saw you I would get a picture with you."Miller's friend, obviously on the defensive front-line of the Miller Madness, took my camera, and said "Sure, I'll take a picture of you" and was about to take a picture of just me, when Miller stopped him with his reply:"Would I mind? Would I mind? Do you know how many (expletive) pictures I just took in there? That's all anybody wants is their picture with me. I must have taken at least a hundred pictures just now!"By now, boisterous Bode had commanded a crowd. In an attempt to pacify the situation, I replied, "I know, I understand it must be tough, but I only asked for one picture."Miller: "This sucks, I can't go anywhere without people hounding me for my picture. That's all everyone wants — just one picture. Do you know what I think? I think every picture people take of me takes a piece of my soul."Trying not to laugh, I replied "Really." Instead of a picture, now I was getting "Deep Thoughts by Bode Miller", which I must admit got me thinking, too."You know, my husband was an Olympic medalist in speed skating, and he takes pictures with people all the time," I said, trying to find some common ground with Miller."Well, speed skating doesn't get one hundredth of the attention that we do," he replied sarcastically.Wow, I thought to myself. He seems to be as good at math as he has been about performing during these Games."Actually, speed skating is very popular here in Europe," I said, a little bit defensive. "You know, I can't believe I wanted my picture with you to begin with."As I took my camera and began to walk away, I cringed as a group of unsuspecting picture-seekers approached Miller with the same request.Miller's tangent ensued. "Are you (expletive) crazy? No, I'm not taking a picture with you. I just told her I wouldn't take a picture, and she's cute!"Determined to get the last word in, I turned and shouted back, "And American, you (expletive)."Perhaps Miller should have thought about the sanctity of his soul before he signed major endorsement deals with Nike and Barilla, and appeared on countless magazine covers and television shows prior to the Games.Miller himself had been one of the major driving forces behind the mania that now follows him, yet seems unwilling to accept the responsibility of becoming a household name. Before long, his 15 minutes of fame will wane, and he too will find himself waiting in the back of the line, behind me, at the Irish Igloo.

TORINO-VER

Last night, the books were closed on the 2006 Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy. I admit to not having watched the Closing Ceremonies. Watching this event has proven to be just too painful an experience for me, in past years, so why subject myself to the trauma again?

In Star Trek VI, Spock's otherwise Spartan quarters contained an elaborate painting depicting the Biblical expulsion of man from Paradise. "Why keep [this] in your quarters?" he was asked. "It is a reminder to me that all things end." Sometimes, one doesn't need the reminder when there is no chance one will ever forget the certitude. Of course, I taped the Closing, and will watch it one day - that way, I'll still have a piece of the games to watch, and will be able to watch it when my despondency about the games being over has subsided.

And, of course, there are still 18-odd tapes of material that I taped, the contents of which I have yet to view, during the course of the Olympics, that represent Olympic programming, that must now be put onto DVD. (I need the VCR tapes to tape other things). So, there's always more to watch.

I don't like believing in absolutes (see the previous post about being forced to become acquainted with "the ways of the world"), and while technically, event X or experience Y may be "over," the memory that it represents often lives long beyond the milk carton expirtaion date, in a way that makes the amount of time our minds spend musing over how we REMEMBER the event never over. Life is grand in this way.

THE SANCTIMONY OF LIFE

I've blogged about this one before:

By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 23, 8:38 AM ET
PIERRE, S.D. - South Dakota moved closer to imposing some of the strictest limits on abortion in the nation as the state Senate approved legislation that would ban the procedure except when the woman's life is in danger.

The bill, designed to spark a courtroom showdown over the legality of abortion, passed 23-12 Wednesday. On Thursday, it was headed back to the House, where lawmakers already approved similar legislation.
Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on an abortion ban if it would "save life."
Under the measure, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion. The only exception would be for women who need abortions to save their lives.
"In my opinion, it is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Sen. Julie Bartling (D-Spinster), the bill's main sponsor.

The legislation targets, Roe v. Wade 'the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Opponents say it is too extreme and unconstitutional.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure if it become law.
"South Dakota's ban is the most sweeping abortion ban passed by any state in more than a decade," Planned Parenthood Federation of America lawyer Eve Gartner said in a written statement. She said the organization would do everything it could to ensure that women and their doctors, not politicians, made their health care decisions.
Supporters say an anonymous donor has pledged to provide South Dakota with $1 million to help defend the law in court.
The recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade now, Bartling and other supporters said (nice to know the bill was passed for "humane reasons," not political ones).

"It is a calculated risk to be sure, but I believe it is a fight worth fighting," said Sen. Brock Greenfield, a Republican who also is director of South Dakota Right to Life.

Some senators, including Republicans, were concerned that the legislation did not include exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest.

Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein said it would be "a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota" to make a woman bear a child if she becomes pregnant as the result of rape. (Apparently, incest in South Dakota is still the opposite of savagery- perhaps that is the purpose of this bill - to encourage incest!)

The Legislature passed a similar bill two years ago, but Rounds issued a technical veto because it would have wiped existing restrictions off the books while the bill was involved in a court challenge. (:-)

*******************************************************************************

Listen, you fucking morons! You only have one abortion clinic on the whole state, and only one doctor licensed by that clinic.

Hey Planned Parenthood, here's an idea: do the reverse of what the abortion doctors in Poe v. Ullman did. In Poe v Ullman (the case that eventually became Griswold v. Connecticut), the Court held that the case was not ripe for adjudication because the law banning contraceptives had not been enforced for years, and that there appeared there was no reasonable chance that it would be.

So, Planned Parenthood, start a pledge drive, collect some money, and use that money to help fund the abortions of the ten or so women who have an abortion in S.D. each year, only make sure that they have it in another state, in a Planned Parenthood facility at that state, ensuring their travel expenses are paid for. (Keep the S.D. facility open, but don't use it to provide abortions).

Guess what will then happen if this scheme works? South Dakota will have no one to apply its law to, and if someone attempts to challenge it, the person will lack standing, since there is no reasonable chance the law will be enforced against anyone. Thus, no case, no conotroversy. Even if someone wanted to get an abortion in S.D., she couldn't and thus she has no standing (to have standing, one must have intent and capability). (Also, the only person against whom the law could be enforced who wouldn't otherwise be guilty of a crime already is that one single doctor; PP, if it was really serious about making sure no court ever heard this case, would make sure that this doctor found some other kind of gainful employment - which could easily happen, especially if he is an OB/GYN).

And, of course, South Dakota can't seek a declaration from a court that the law is constitutional, unless it does so in the context of another party. The result: a useless law, left on the books, created by a useless state, for a pointless purpose. If the state hadn't already bent over backwards to make abortion illegal, who knows? The law may have gotten to the Supreme Court.

But no. S.D. had to have its cake and now, eat SHIT, too.

FINK "L" STEIN

When most people who follow American political strategy and tactics are asked to name the man most responsible for the Republicans' ability to effectively "frame" issues so as to scare voters/demonize their opponents/oversimplify things, they would answer "Frank Luntz," and with good reason. Mr. Luntz, a Republican pollster for several decades, has a peerless ability to take shit and turn it into shinola.

Let us not forget, though (as much as one would want to) the contributions made to the Republicans' peerless framing ability by Republican ad man Arthur Finkelstein. Finkelstein's strategy was simple. Whenever a Republican candidate was running low in the polls, or whenever he was stuck in the debates, just throw out the "L" word (no - not that "L" word - that's Karl Rove's job) - liberal. Finkelstein and the phrase "liberal, liberal, liberal" become synonymous by the mid '80's in political circles. For a while, his strategy proved quite successful (see the 1988 election) - never mind the fact that he used the label where it did not apply, and that his reductive power to poision political discourse made his a worthy predecessor to Karl Rove.

But then, a great thing happened: in the early '90's, Finkelstein dropped dead - literally. In terms of Presidential elections, at least, it no longer sufficed to tar someone as a liberal and expect a landslide in return. The effort to paint Clinton as a "lib-rul" failed twice. Gore won the popular vote while being called a "li-brul." Although Kerry got less votes than Bush (a landslide 2.4%), Kerry was ideologically similar to Michael Dukakis (indeed, he was his Lieutenant Governor) - the fact that Kerry got 60 million votes - the most ever received by a Democrat - shows that, although the Democrats lost, it was not because Kerry was too "li-brul," as Bush constantly kept saying. Indeed, Bush's use of the "L" word made him look like the caricature of the past that he was trying to paint Kerry as being. Even now, as people are talking about the Congress going into permanent Republican control, let's get something straight: during the '60's-'80's, the Democrats controlled the House by margins of 60-80. Now, the Republicans control it by 30. The Democrats' control of the Senate during these times frames was as high as a margin of 15. All of this went on while the "L" word was being tossed around with abandon.

Republican wins today have more to do with invoking a melange of meaningless arguments: "flip-flopper"; "waffler"; "intellectual"; "someone without clear principles."

Yet there are those who have willingly taken up Arthur Finkelstein's mantel. Putting the "man" in mantel is first and foremost Mann Coulter, who has said the word "liberal" more than anyone has ever acted "liberal." Arianna Huffington prostate-slapped her last night:

February 21, 2006
Arianna Huffington Outmaneuvers Ann Coulter And Sean Hannity. She’s A Top Dog!

Arianna Huffington teamed up with Alan Colmes last night (2/20/06) and finally delivered the Hannity & Colmes moment I have been waiting for: confronting Ann Coulter on her hate-speech and confronting Sean Hannity for not distancing himself from it. That, plus Huffington’s deft control of the conversation while maneuvering around Hannity’s gotcha questions, earned her our best in show ribbon.

In a clever effort to address the Dick Cheney controversy without talking about Dick Cheney, Hannity & Colmes framed the discussion with Huffington and Coulter around Alec Baldwin’s comments about Cheney on Huffingtonpost.com.

In what I erroneously thought was a bad omen of things to come, Alan Colmes opened the discussion with Huffington by focusing on Baldwin. "Was Alec Baldwin over the top, does that put liberals in a good light?"

Huffington adroitly maneuvered the focus right back to Cheney by saying he has “inflamed terrorism" and that "he has created more terrorists than he has ever destroyed and that's a damning enough statement."

Colmes brought the focus back to Baldwin. “Rather than focus on the issues, (Baldwin’s comments) give enough rope to someone like Ann Coulter to say, 'you liberals. This is the way you liberals think.’ This defines what liberals are like."

“Boombox” Coulter sat with glassy eyes and a goofy smile that grew even goofier as Colmes mentioned her name. She leaned toward Colmes (who did not lean toward her) in one of her habitually childish attempts at flirting with Colmes.

In fact, the 44 year-old Coulter looked a little haggard and long in the tooth as she said that Cheney’s “bumbling” ended up making the Democrats look bad. “Liberals so hysterically over-react," she declared glibly.

I almost screamed at my TV when Colmes didn’t challenge that remark, especially coming from someone who would have no career at all were it not for her own over-reactive hysteria. Instead, he patiently explained that Republicans as well as Democrats have criticized the way Cheney handled the incident.

Arianna summed it up perfectly. "The bottom line is that this story became a metaphor for the way this administration has handled much more serious issues - for the secrecy, the stonewalling, the refusal to level with the American people…This was not just liberals, this was conservatives, this was across the board."

Hannity broke in to say "Arianna, you're making a mountain out of a molehill." Then he began a harangue about the really important news of the day: Alec Baldwin. Hannity’s voice was heavy with Hanctimony. “I’m asking, do you want Alec Baldwin on your website to call OUR Vice President a terrorist?

Huffington stuck to her guns (pun intended). “The bottom line is that what Alec Baldwin was saying is that this administration’s follies have inflamed terrorists.”

Hannity’s voice got louder as his attempt to change the subject was foiled. He demanded to know if Huffington was proud of what Baldwin wrote.

But canny Huffington didn’t allow the gotcha question to take her off message. She quickly answered that she didn’t have to agree with everything written on her website. “The bottom line, though, is that the essence of what he’s saying is that this administration’s policies have made us less safe, they have inflamed terrorism everywhere in the world. Even Don Rumsfeld said that.”

Poor Hannity! Unable to rattle Huffington, his only recourse was to attack Democrats. Turning to Coulter, Hannity called Democrats unhinged appeasers with a pre 9/11 mentality, weak on national security. Coulter nodded with glee while they both conveniently overlooked Bush’s recent decision to outsource the operation of six major ports to the United Arab Emirates, a country with troubling ties to terrorism.

“(Democrats) do have affection for these terrorists,” Coulter quipped.
“Oh, please.” Colmes interrupted in a tone that was clearly not amused by her wit and which immediately redeemed him from any and all disappointments earlier in the segment.
“It seems you’ve become unglued in this hatred you have for the president,” Hannity condescendingly told Huffington.
Huffington immediately threw a Hannity question right back at him. “Do you agree with your guest, Ann – do you agree that Democrats have an affection for terrorists? … Yes or no?”
Coulter, an ostentatious cross dangling from her neck, said with un-Christian delight, “I’ll cite examples. I’m ready to back that up.” However, as is usually the case with Coulter, she was unable to make a coherent argument when challenged. Democrats should do it more often. This time she gave some half-baked jibes about Robert Reich’s editorial in the New York Times, in which he expressed sympathy for the Muslim rioters. “Everybody wants to be black… This is affection for the people rioting and carrying on.”
“No, it’s not,” Colmes said.
Huffington cleverly put Coulter and Hannity back in the hot seat. “You’re just completely exaggerating what Robert Reich wrote in the column and Sean is not backing you up.”
After the break, Hannity harped on Baldwin again. Huffington, without losing her composure responded, “How many times are you going to say that? Would you like to go through a litany of the toxic statements made by your other guest, Ann Coulter, with which I’m sure you don’t agree? You know what? For you to be suddenly so, so, so hypersensitive about what Alec Baldwin said when you’ve allowed Ann Coulter to be on your show and say things that are so unbelievably toxic... Sending liberals to Guantanamo, having televised torture, sending Daisy Cutters to the Middle East… And I have not seen you distancing yourself from these toxic and (unintelligible) statements.”
Coulter giggled like a schoolgirl at the attention.
Hannity, another conservative more adept at bullying than debate, launched into another attack on the “unhinged” Democrats – Gore, Pelosi, Dean, etc.
Huffington gave it right back to him. She rattled off a list of Republicans distancing themselves from the Bush Administration – Walter Jones, Chuck Hagel, Pat Buchanan, etc. “This is, unfortunately, the kind of friendly fire that this administration is getting while at the same time being defended by the likes of Ann Coulter and the horror show of Mary Matalin on Meet The Press yesterday which clearly could not have done the Vice President any good.”
Then Alan Colmes confronted Coulter, too. He asked how her comments such as “Democrats are sympathetic to terrorists” are any different “in the level of extremism than what you’re criticizing?... That’s as extreme and as wrong-headed as what you’re accusing Alec Baldwin of doing.”
Coulter was obviously nonplused by the question. Finally, she mustered up a lame response. “Because I can back mine up.”
“You haven’t backed it up,” Colmes told her.
“Wh, wha, what the New York Times is promoting here.” She rattled off something incomprehensible about “Muslim’s bi-polar rage over some cartoons.” Then, complaining that she thought she was supposed to be discussing Osama Bin Laden, she treated the audience to some of her clever remarks that she had obviously prepared in advance. “He’s tougher on Sadaam Hussein than liberals are! …Liberals haven’t gotten to that stage yet.” Then the same woman who recently bought a house in Democratic-majority Palm Beach County for $1.8 million, tried to pass herself as a heartlander. “I will say the one great thing about the Dick Cheney accident is it’s so adorable watching Democrats pretend they know something about hunting. THAT’S been a hoot.”
Colmes said, “I thought the great thing about the hunting accident is that Dick Cheney finally got some combat experience.”

HOW DO YOU LOCK THE TERROR OUT....

"How do you lock the terror out..... When you've already... INVITED IT IN!," the ads for 1992's "Single White Female declared. (The movie also featured Jennifer Jason Leigh uttering the immortal line to Bridget Fonda, uttered to explain why the Leigh character dispatched the Steven Weber character with a stiletto heel blow to the head: "he came in my mouth, and then he tried to beat the shit out of me." She lied about the second part. (Notwithstanding this seemingly important fact, if the order of these events were reversed, would she still have killed him? Just asking).

Anyway, the bungalow bonobos at the White House are doing their very best to copy the ad copy of SWF by outsourcing the inspection and security of six of our eastern seabord ports to, I kid you not - the government of the United Arab Emirates, a patron and a patron saint of terrorists. Two of the September 11th hijackers were from UAE (the others were from our other "ally," Saudi Arabia). UAE is one of the three countries on Earth to (still) recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It refused to cooperate with even the pitiful attempts we made to investigate Osama bin Laden's finances in the wake of the catastrophe. The list goes on.

So, why are these petty thugs now set to be in charge of port security? Well, until a few days ago, Bush didn't even know they were supposed to be, until word leaked from Congress that the contract was about to be sealed. The government department that awards such contracts (this department actually consists of 11 agency heads) apparently didn't know about the deal either; Donald Mamserfeld claimed that he just found out about the deal a few days ago, when the story that the deal was about to go through broke. Some Presidencies are run so badly that a person in Washington can feel like he's waiting for a bus that will never arrive. This Presidency is run so badly that people in Washington are no longer even sure if Washington even has a bus line.

Bush, on the defensive, tried to justify the selection of UAE by using the typical circular logic: "We wouldn't have selected them unless they are capable. And they are capable. So we selected them." He also made a risible anti-discrimination plea: "It's not fair to discriminate against countries that are fully capable of doing the work." Yeah, I guess that, given there are maybe four or so rich nations on Earth, and that we've not alienated maybe only these four, it's not a good idea to piss them off too - er, "discriminate" against them.

ICE STURM UND DRANG

More Olympic, and Olympic-size, snippiniess, plagued what was heralded as, and what nearly ended up playing out as being, the most exciting showdown of the 2006 Winter Olympics:

In one corner, the tall, 28 year-old Texan from Houston, Chad Hedrick, who was the first American to win a gold at these games, in the mens' 5000 m. Hedrick was described coming into these games as "the exception" (no, not to being either a steer or queer - I've figured out that if you're from Texas, you can be neither, but that the expression "steers and queers" may stem from the fact that both are storngly associated with the emission of shit, as are Texans generally - just kidding!!) because he skates neither by the rules of the ice rink nor the rollerblade arena. (He was given this nickname by mens' 2002 1500 gold medalist Derek Parra, whom we now know to have inspired Hedrick to become an Olympian). Hedrick was also described as a "loudmouth Texan" (he was not the one who came up with this seemingly redundant name - kidding again!) Finally, he has een described as intensely driven, a scrapper, extremely competitive (these words seemingly would be de riguer labels for Olympians, but given some of the performances we've seen thus far, one is not sure), and is described with one of the most despicable phrases in the English language, other than "they hate us for our freedom": "he works hard and plays hard."ac Assuming, arguendo (for the sake of argument) that a person can do both, such a person is to be properly loathed, because in order to work truly hard and to play truly hard - to become ritualistically shitfaced and oversexed - two activities neither of which have met my acquaitance - one must be able to get by on little sleep. Such people are, as a favorite film critic once said about dinosaurs, "Of this earth, but out of this world" - I cannot relate to them, and am frightened and repulsed by them, and am insanely jealous of them, all at once, assuming their hard work and their hard playing eachieves the results they intend them to.
Hedrick is lily-white, and while I knoweth not his socioeconomic status, can make the following observation: Olympic commentators have noted, without exception, when an American Olympian is poor. Therefore, I am quite assured that he is not. He also already has numerous endorsement deals from the usual sports companies the significance of which athletes poo-poo when they are not actually saying things like "Fuck Reebok. Never supported me. Never have." (Y'all know what movie that line's from, right?)

In the other corner: 23 year-old African-American Shani Davis. His name is pronounced "shaunie." He grew up on the south side of Chicago, and his mother, who raised him alone, still lives there. His affection for her and for her nurturing his ambitions seems genuine (as much as can be discerned through the ether). I like how he recounted how he took in stride the catcalls and jeers of fellow students growing up when they saw him wearing a sweatshirt with Bonnie Blair's face on it. I get the sense that Chad Hedrick would never do something so "uncool" (although Hedrick did cry the day before his first race because he knew that the day of that race would be the 13th-year anniversary of his grandmother's death from cancer. These tears, too, displayed on the date of the race -that he won - seemed genuine, and I could not help but cry, either. Of course, if, shall we say, someone not as, erm, cool as he were to cry over something like this, that person would be, erm, questioned for why he/she was crying, I digress - but not for long). Since his seeming displaying of hostility after winning the 1000m, Davis has shown signs of life and pride. Davis, as far as I know, is not rich, perhaps is not even middle class (he certainly was poor growing up), and I am not aware of any endorsement deals he has yet to secure.

Tonight, the two squared off (indirectly) in the 1500m.. Davis came in second, Hedrick third. An Italian won the hold. The cat's meow between the two, which is about how each believes thatis the cat's meow, bubbled up to a roar: Hedrick did not congratulate Davis when Davvis won the 1000m; tonight, neither congratulated each other; after the 1500, the two were at a press conference, sitting at opposite ends of a dais - the two politely fielded questions, managing to avoid overt displays of hostility - until the very end. I do not recall what prompted the remark, but right at the end of the conference, Davis said, while Hedrick was looking right at hin, that it was extremely rude of Hedrick to not congratulate him when Davis won the 1000m. Davis then walked out, not giving Hedrick the opportunity to respond to him to his face. How prissy. Or, in the current Olympic vocabulary, "princessy." Just like nothing exceeds like excess, nothing prolongs an artificial conflict like artifice.

This provided Hedrick with the proverbial golden oppotunity, which, of course, he couldn't resist not taking up: he chuckled for about twenty seconds, bobbing his head, making incoherent mutterances, and then finally said something to the effect of: "Well, I came here to have an Olympic experience. I attended the Opening Ceremonies (did Davis not?), and came here to represent the United States (he also said on numerous occasions that he "came here" to win gold," which is fine, but can't we keep the blustering straight?). I am the team leader (I'm not quite sure what this means in terms of what this means - is it like being a team captain in baseball? Is it a ceremonial title? I think so), and Shani didn't even tell me when he decided not to participate in the team pursuit, which we lost because he did not compete in it. I feel that this was a betrayal (Enter Hamlet, or enter laughing?)."

Curiously, the other two members of the team pursuit have not expressed any offense at the non-participation. They both have won two medals, just as Hedrick has.

Would Davis' having told Hedrick that Davis did not want to participate in the Team pursuit made a difference? Probably not, since Hedrick has stated that it was the "principle" - i.e. the "principle" that an athlete should represent his country in as many events as possible - that Davis first and foremost violated, giving rise to the brunt of the offense. One does not know whether Hedrick generally believes in this "principle," (which is a characteristic, neither a virtue, nor vice) or if he just wanted to rack up another gold via Davis' participation in the team pursuit.

Likewise, when Davis said that he did not want to participate in the pursuit, one does not know if his stated reason of "wanting to focus on his individual events" (which is, again, a characteristic, neither a virtue nor vice) was what solely, if at all, motivated him, at least when he made the very final decision to not race in the team pursuit, since by that time, Hedrick had already made comments critical of Davis' apparent desire to not participate in that event.

Well, Davis is done competing in these games, and Hedrick has the 10,000m left to skate. The immediate events that prompted the spat of hate that are gone, but as General MacArthur might as just as easily have said, "Old hatreds don't die... They just fade away..."

These athletes may come from very different worlds, but they share the same passion for the love of hate.

ARM' A GETTIN' READY

The 9 eminent enemas that make up the Supreme Court finally issued some opinions today (four in total), including a per curiam 4-page opinion on employment law that was remarkable in that one wonders why the Court the case in the first place, only to resolve it (somewhat favorably to the employee!) the way it did! In another case, freedom of religion was upheld against the "unitary executive's" attempt to encroach upon it, 8-0, no less.

More important than the cases that were decided, though, were the cases the court decided to take up on certiorari. I am still on a self-imposed media blackout (I have not gone to any news website since Feb. 10th so as to avoid inadvertently viewing the results of any Olympics event I have not yet watched - not to worry, though, I still have a rough idea of what's happened in the world since the 10th), but it didn't take consultation of a website for me to understand what case was at issue with respect to the first caption on the cert list: "Gonzales v. Carhart"

Gonzales, of course, is Attorney Genitorture. Back in 2003, President G.W. Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (an act that exceeds Congress' power under the commerce clause, under the standards enunciated by the most ardent proponents of the Act, naturally), with ten men and not one woman standing by his side for the photo-op. Immediately, suits were filed in District Courts in California, Nebraska and NY challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The suits alleged that the Act was unconstitutional because it failed to provide a health exception for the health of the mother; three years earlier; the Supreme Court held that a virtually identical law passed by the state of Nebraska (and challenged by the very same Respondent as in the present case - Dr. Leroy Carhart) was unconstitutional because, under Casey, it imposed an undue burden because it failed to provide for a health exception. The 2000 case was Stenberg v. Carhart (Stenberg was the AG of Nebraska); the Court found that the record contained sufficient medical evidence that in some (albeit not many) instances, a so-called "partial-birth" abortion (the kind of abortion that the Nebraska law wanted us to THINK it was banning, not the abortions the law actually could be read to ban - i.e. perfectly legal ones) was necessary to preserve the mother's health.

Congress, undeterred by this holding, began hearings in 2001 with an eye toward passing a federal law that bans "partial-birth" abortions (the term is Manichean and medically imprecise, just like the term "death tax" is financially imprecise, which is why Republicans love it so much). Many times, Congress understandably is confused about whether a bill it passes will pass constitutional muster, given that Supreme Court pronouncements regarding principles implicated by the bill made recently before the bill was passed seem ad hoc and contradictory (see, e.g., Garrett, Lane and Hibbs - three cases with wildly different outcomes based upon wildly similar facts - even if Congress WANTED to pass anti-discrimination laws permitting monetary relief to be exacted from a state, given the amorphously variant holdings of these three cases, why should it bother, in a sense?)

However, there are some times when Congress, which is presumed to be aware of what the Supreme Court has said, cannot possibly be confused as to the import of an opinion. In 1989, the Supreme Court held, 5-4, that a Texas statute prohibiting burning of the flag other than in a manner prescribed by law, was an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. So the idiot yabo crowd in Congress, within months, passed a federal anti fag-burning (excuse me, flag-burning - we're talking 1990 here) law. The only difference between the Texas law and the federal law was that the federal law prohibited flag burning that "brought the flag into ridicule and disgrace." The Court, 5-4, found that the two laws were essentially the same - both were content-oriented and did not survive either intermediate or strict scrutiny.

Congress, in the present case, has acted with even bolder inanity. In 2001, it heard testimony to the effect of this: in some cases, "partial-birth abortion" is medically necessary. However, when Congress passed the bill, it, by fiat, declared, in the "findings" portion preceding the actual text, that the procedure was never necessary. This is legislative ledgerdemain at its finest.

Three district courts (3 judges) struck down the law. The Courts of Appeals covering each of those courts struck it down. In total, 8 Courts of Appeals judges said the law was unconstitutional; only one did not. 11-1. Each judge that struck down the law made a point of noting that Congress cannot choose to ignore findings made in the context of legislative hearings, a previous Supreme Court litigation, findings that have already been accepted by a state supreme court, a federal court of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States - for while, as the old saying goes, "every man is entitled to his own opinion, no man is entitled to his own facts."

Yeah, right. Tell it to the judge - or judges, I should say. Just five will do.

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES HACK

This article by William Saletan of Slate was written over a month ago, but its point was irrefutable then, twenty years ago, and now:

Scalia on abortion vs. Scalia on assisted suicide.
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Jan. 19, 2006, at 1:50 AM ET

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling on assisted suicide. On Wednesday, it handed down a ruling on abortion. As Justice Antonin Scalia has often observed, judges are supposed to stick to principles, not change them to suit personal preferences from one issue to the next. But evidently, that advice doesn't apply to Scalia.

Scalia didn't file a separate opinion in the abortion case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. To find his principles of abortion jurisprudence, you have to go back to three prior cases: Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000).

Principle 1 is to beware value judgments disguised as fact or reason. In Casey, Scalia derided his colleagues for reaffirming Roe v. Wade. He accused them of invoking "what the Court calls 'reasoned judgment' ... which turns out to be nothing but philosophical predilection and moral intuition." In Stenberg, he faulted the other justices for applying a standard that "can not be demonstrated true or false by factual inquiry or legal reasoning. It is a value judgment."

That was Scalia's principle on abortion. On assisted suicide, however, the principle gets in his way. The latest case, Gonzales v. Oregon, involves a law, directly approved twice by Oregon voters, that lets doctors prescribe drugs so terminally ill people can kill themselves. Years ago, then-Sen. John Ashcroft of Missouri asked then-Attorney General Janet Reno to block the law. She refused, citing states' rights. Ashcroft asked his Senate colleagues to pass legislation to block the law, but they refused, too. So, when President Bush took office, Ashcroft got Reno's job, ordered up an in-house legal memo that said assisted suicide wasn't a "legitimate medical purpose," and declared that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 gave him authority to strip the license of any doctor who prescribed lethal drugs under the Oregon law.

Six of Scalia's colleagues conclude that what counts as a "legitimate medical purpose" is a value judgment and that on such questions, a 30-year-old law aimed at hippie stoners doesn't authorize the U.S. attorney general of 2001 to superimpose his moral intuition on the assisted-suicide-policy decision of Oregon voters. Scalia, however, says Ashcroft's definition of "legitimate medical purpose" isn't a value judgment; it's pure reason. He repeatedly calls it the "most natural" and "most reasonable" interpretation of that phrase.

Scalia chides the court's majority for confusing "the normative inquiry of what the boundaries of medicine should be—which it is laudably hesitant to undertake—with the objective inquiry of what the accepted definition of 'medicine' is." Those silly justices—they applied Scalia's principle when it didn't lead to the result he wanted! To justify Ashcroft's interpretation, you have to spin it as objective, not subjective. Accordingly, Scalia opines, "The use of the word 'legitimate' connotes an objective standard of 'medicine,' and our presumption that the CSA creates a uniform federal law regulating the dispensation of controlled substances ... means that this objective standard must be a federal one."

Principle 2 is to stick to the text of what you're evaluating—the Constitution, laws, regulations—and avoid reading new meanings into it. In Casey and Stenberg, Scalia said the Constitution can't protect a right to abortions, since it doesn't mention them. He criticized Roe for asserting "a value found nowhere in the constitutional text." He insisted that "the text of the Constitution, and our traditions, say what they say and there is no fiddling with them." He chided his colleagues for suggesting that "the Constitution has an evolving meaning." Wednesday's ruling in Ayotte, which Scalia joins, reaffirms, "The touchstone for any decision about remedy is legislative intent."

Scalia's six colleagues follow this principle scrupulously in the assisted-suicide case. Since the CSA's text applies to drug addiction and recreational abuse, and since Congress "relied not on Executive ingenuity, but rather on specific legislation" when it wanted to broaden the law's coverage, the justices conclude that the CSA says what it says and shouldn't be fiddled with. Scalia, however, discards legislative intent and discovers the law's evolving meaning. "Even assuming, however, that the principal concern of the CSA is the curtailment of 'addiction and recreational abuse,' there is no reason to think that this is its exclusive concern," he writes. "We have repeatedly observed that Congress often passes statutes that sweep more broadly than the main problem they were designed to address." (DRL: When Scalia wants them to, that is).

Principle 3 is to defer to the states. In Stenberg, Scalia urged his colleagues to "return [abortion] to the people—where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it—and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed." In Casey, he warned that the court's job wasn't "determining some kind of social consensus," and he explained the arrogance and folly of nationalizing moral issues:

"Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. ... Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue—as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty—but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level. As with many other issues, the division of sentiment within each State was not as closely balanced as it was among the population of the Nation as a whole, meaning not only that more people would be satisfied with the results of state by state resolution, but also that those results would be more stable. ... [B]y continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish." (Contra Scalia, J., e.g., Bush v. Gore)

It's a pretty compelling argument. Not compelling enough to sustain the loyalty of its author, however. In the assisted-suicide case, he argues exactly the opposite: "The fact that many in Oregon believe that the boundaries of 'legitimate medicine' should be extended to include assisted suicide does not change the fact that the overwhelming weight of authority (including the 47 States that condemn physician-assisted suicide) confirms that they have not yet been so extended."

So much for letting the people of each state decide. What we need is a rigid national rule, validated by the Supreme Court's determination of a social consensus.

I'd settle for a rigid rule in Scalia's head.

************************************************************************************
As Scalia once said in dissent (in Casey), I say with laughter: "The imperial judiciary lives."

Quack quack, bang bang.

WHAT'S IN A CATCHPRASE?

Roughly 100 years ago, American presidents and their handlers started the practice of coining (usually)two-word "catchphrases" for use in their campaigns, phrases that were often maddeningly oblique, to summarize their political philosophy (or lack thereof?), or to summarize what they would "give" the American people if elected. Sometimes, phrases were invented just for "catchiness'" sake:

1904: Theodore Roosevelt (running for Presidency as Republican): "Square Deal"
1908: William Howard Taft: "Get on the Raft With Taft"
1912: Theodore Roosevelt (running on "Bull Moose" Ticket): "New Nationalism"
1912: Woodrow Wilson: "New Freedom"
1916: Woodrow Wilson: "He kept us out of war." (Wilson was also opposed to suffrage for women, leading many womens' groups to mock him by adding a twist to this slogan: "He kept us out of suffrage.")
1920: Warren Harding: "A return to [sic] normalcy ." (Harding meant to say "normality.") Democratic VP candidate responsible for 1932 quote below.
1924: Calvin Coolidge: "The business of America is business."
1928: Herbert Hoover: "A chicken in every pot" (Hoover maintains that this quote is apocryphal. He would.) Hoover was also described as the "Great Engineer."
1932: Franklin Roosevelt: "New Deal"
1936: Roosevelt, defending the New Deal, attacked his critics as "Economic Royalists"
1940: Wendel Wllkie: "Democrats for Willkie" (many Democrats voted for Willkie simply because they did not want FDR to serve a third term.
1944: Thomas Dewey: "Looks like the groom on a wedding cake" (Alice Roosevelt Longworth)
1948: Harry Truman "Fair Deal"
1952: Dwight Eisenhowe: "I Like Ike."; Adlai Stevenson: "If the Republicans stop telling lies about me, I'll stop telling the truth about them."
1956: Adlai Stevenson: "The Republicans are trying to tell us that the only person who can save us from Eisenhower's foreign policy.... is Eisenhower"
1960: John F. Kennedy: "New Frontier"; "missile gap"
1964: Lyndon Johnson: "Great Society"; Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;" "moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue"; "a choice, not an echo"
1968: Richard Nixon:: "Law and Order," "The Silent Majority," "Peace With Honor"; Hubert Humphrey described Nixon as "Richard the Chicken-Hearted" because Nixon refused to debate him; third-party VP candidates George Wallace and Curtis LeMay were called "the bombsy twins" by Humphrey because both wanted to bomb Vietnam forward to the Stone Age.
1972: Nixon: "Nixon, now more than ever." "Democrats: the party of acid, abortion and amnesty."
1976: Carter: (actually, this one was not invented by Carter or his handlers): "Jimmy Who?" Ford: "I'm voting for Betty's husband."
1980: Reagan: "Government isn't the answer to our problems. Government IS the problem (his certainly was)."
1984: Reagan: "Morning in America" (a bright, shining mushroom cloud?) Mondale: "Either candidate, if elected, will raise your taxes. I'm the only one who will admit it."
1988: G.H.W Bush: "A thousand points of light," "a kinder, gentler nation" (leading Nancy Reagan to say, "Kinder and gentler than whom?" Dukakis: "This election isn't about character, it's about competence." Nastiest election in modern history; set the stage for Bush's loss in 1992
1992: Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid." Bush: "My dog Millie knows more about foreign affairs than these two bozos." Perot: "The other two candidates say experience is important. Well, I don't have any experience in running up a four-trillion dollar debt. I don't have any experience in gridlock government."
1996: Clinton, referring to Dole's tax plan: "It's a risky, five-billion dollar tax scheme." Dole: "Bozo's on his way out"
2000: Bush: "the soft bigotry of low expectations (this phrase has taken on such an irony); audience member to Bush during second debate: "Was it me, or were you smiling excessively when talking about putting three men do death as governor of Texas?"
2004: Bush" Freedom freedom terror terror 9/11 /911" Kerry: "Let America be America again."
If I had to pick a two-phraser for Bush for both 2000 and 2004 (i.e. like Square Deal), I need not think very hard. Indeed, Joe Conason of the NY Observer has already written a book (about how Bush wanted to destroy Social Security) with a title that has the same three two words as my two phraser:

"The Raw Deal"


Congress has occassionally gotten into the act. Various Congressmen of various political parties helped to coin the phrase "the American System," a term that applied to a political philosophy in the 1820's-1840's that favored territorial expansion, free trade, and improvement of national infrastructure.

And then, in 1994, the Republican Congress put forward its "Contract With America," which was quickly dubbed "Contract on America."

TWELVE, ANGRY MEN, THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY

Twelve years ago today, the greatest moment in sports history occurred: Dan Jansen won the mens' 1000m gold medal in speed skating. Sure, there have been been more (for some) satisfying moments - the moment when the Dodgers defeated the Yankees in 1955; the New York Rangers' long-awaited Stanley Cup medal, which the team received in the mid-1990's; moments representing snapshots of greater feats of second-by-second athletic prowess (the famous Willie Mays catch); moments where the greatness was derived from another athlete's (or another team's) errors or suffering - Bill Buckner's bobble, the Red Sox' pleasurably avenging defeat of New York in 2004; and many other great moments - Patrick Roy (Canadiens' goaltender) scoring a goal of his own; Michael Jordan's time-defying playoff victiories; Kirk Gibson's 1988 hobbled home run; Game 6 - Mets v. Astros, 1986; the Broncos' great drive against the Browns; a game stolen by "Heidi"; "Do You Believe in Miracles?", and too many others to mention (and evidently, to remember).

But Jansen's personal background, the odds against him on that day, for that race, and in that year; the hyper-pressure beyond pressure embroiling him like the ether; his few-day earlier defeat (seventh Olympic loss), made his win in this event a triumph imbued with a tingle of singularity that cannot be replicated. Jansen's victory, more than any other great moment in sports history, came out of the pages of a fairy tale as it blazed into the pictures of the memory. Amazing.

The victory was also an Olympic record at the time. Flash forward twelve years.

Here we are. Once again, the mens 1000m is being raced, and the results (time-delayed) have made my acquaintance, again in the evening, on a clear, chilling night. Another Olympics record has been handed down, with a purity of thunder as if from on high: Shani Davis (who did not skate in the team pursuit, causing teammate Chad Hedrick to bristle as the team was promptly bumped from competition from Italy; the "experts," Hedrick included, believe that had Davis competed in this event, the United States would have medaled therein) became the first African-American to win an individual gold medal in the Winter Olympics, and the first African-American male to win a medal of any color (Vonetta Flowers won gold in the 2-woman bobsled in 2002; Debi Flowers won bronze in figure skating in - ouch- 1988). Joey Cheek from Greensboro, NC (home of Cheerwine) won silver, adding to the gold he won in mens 500 several days ago/

I put some thought into the title of this post because news of Davis' victory should undoubtedly be a cause for happiness for those of us in the United States: on the first, and most simple level, we should be happy because one of our atheles won a medal. I'm happy. On another level, those who believe that it is a good - or great - thing that an African-American has finally won individual gold - should be thrilled once more (believe me, there are those to whom this achievment means nothing, means too little or too late, or means something bad. And only some of these people are conscious racists, black or white). I think it is a great thing. Not because Bryant Gumbel has decreed it to be so - but because the world has just become a tiny bit more equal - not (to me) in the Kumbaya, P.C., sappy, sap-the-life-out-of-you way, but because maybe, just maybe, one more person - of any color, race, nationality, religion, disability, or any one person who has suffered an obstacle in his or her life that has wondered if things will ever look up - might be inspired by this event.

How banal, then, what actually happened, once the victory was obtained. Davis refused to grant any interviews, or to speak to NBC, before the race. After, he seemed - from the viewpoint of someone looking at a bunch of pixels halfway across the globe - nonplussed, and sounded equally nonplussed. An NBC reporter (who, make of this what you will, and make of my noting it what you will) who is white asked him what he felt about winning, about making history, and other pro forma questions, and he curtly replied, "It's great," without asking a smile. The reporter, perhaps taken aback, perhaps alarmed, perhaps afraid, then asked him, "Are you angry?" (Hedrick had previously stated, "I'm the one who won the gold medal (previously, in the 5000m, and Shani's getting all of the attention (for his decision not to participate in the team pursuit)." Davis previously stated, "I don't need to skate in any event because someone wants me to. I didn't get here with any other skater's help, and I don't owe them anything.") Davis then said, "I'm just at a loss for words." Interview over.

When Chad Hedrick was asked if he was happy for Shani, he replied "I'm happy for Joey" (Joey Cheek).

Welcome back, Harry Blackmun. Your chill wind is still blowing. Davis apparently indicated at one point he was going to participate in the team pursuit, only to then drop out. Both of these men are clearly angry about something, and whatever it is, however genuine, I wish that it would either be resolved or kept off stage. It is yet another grand stereotype of our society that men do not engage in this kind of behavior. Of course they do. (Certain men deny it, while claiming other men who act this way are gay - consider this observation opening statement #2 for the grand post).

That the behavior has been displayed smacks the sheen off the singularity of White's achievment. In 1994, as cynical (as I define that term) as I was, I was optimistic enough to believe, at 15, that someone who had just won a gold medal would be able - if not for the camera's sake - then for eternity's sake, to act a little more sportsmanlike (for anyone who considers this comment racist, so be it), and that a teammate of that person would be happy for that person - not just for the cameras, but - God forbid - as a great starship captain said, "It is the right thing to do," (So be it still?) especially when the teammate in question already had a medal of his own and came in 6th in the race where the newly crowned medalist came in 1st. But what do I know, then or now, even as I ponder what I wrote in the above paragraph?

It is because twelve years of cynicism amplification have passed, and, as the Book of Corinthians says (I am still Jewish, and I am not turning into a fundie here by making this quote), "for now, we see but through a glass darkly" (who KNOWS God, and therefore, who knows each other, or anything?), that, to answer my question, I will say, I know why I believed what I believed in 1994, why exactly I believe differently now, and what I think accounts for this night's behavior. But every time I feel secure in this knowledge, I look through the glass again, and think, as another great captain said, "I know nothing!"

A TEMPEST IN A TIARA

The New Republic, which prides itself on making "insightful" sociocultural observations (remember, Andrew Sullivan was once an editor for TNR), had the following to say about American men's figure skater Johnny Weir, who came in fifth after the long program (after placing second after the short program):

"THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF JOHNNY WEIR:
TNR was against the Olympics before being against the Olympics was cool, so pardon me if I don't get too worked up about Johnny-come-latelies like Bryant Gumbel. (DRL: Gumbel recently dismissed the Winter Olympics as boring and denounced these games for the fact that almost no Africans and black people participate in them. African-American participation is pitifully low, but is slowly - very slowly- on the rise. If his complaint is that African nations do not participate, Gumbel apparently forgets that pretty much no Central American, South American, or South Asian country does either. Why? Because all of these countries are in the southern hemisphere, where there's no snow. Nice to know that Gumbel is still a blowhard. I'm not complaining about the overrepresentation, statistically speaking, of African-Americans, in certain Summer Olympic sports, and wouldn't expect anyone else to either. Perhaps Gumbel, who fancies himself a mouthpiece for black people, has put one and one together, and without realizing it, has stumbled on to the "fact" that black people don't like the Winter Olympics, and therefore do not participate in them, because they find them boring. Well, Bryan, case closed!).

Of course, one of the most annoying things about the Olympics is the unbelievably saccharine, jingoistic television coverage it receives. (DRL: See, e.g., yesterday's blog entry). Which is why one bit of coverage from NBC a few nights ago is so remarkable.
It was your basic up-close-and-personal profile of the American figure skater Johnny Weir--except that none of the things about Weir that presumably might upset the average viewer in Peoria (DRL: Weir's hometown) were edited out. He was presented as the opinionated, outrageous, flaming diva that he is, from the opening shot--a long pan of his body, starting with the Ugg boots on his feet and ending at the oversized JT-Leroy-style sunglasses on his head--to the accompanying soundbites--such as, "I know that a lot of people, especially the more Republican-style people, are very afraid of what I mean to the sport. ... I'm not going to be the shiny, sparkly, flower-holding figure skater. ... My critics can eat it." (DRL: Weir believes that flower-holding by a man is a sign of machoness?)

At one point the profile even includes Weir dissing a competitor's efforts as "a vodka-shot, let's-snort-coke kind of program."

Really, see for yourself, it's an amazing clip and, in a weird way, a greater sign of social progress than Brokeback Mountain. I mean, if NBC execs--whose job it is to make Americans fall in love with our Olympic athletes--think this is the way to do it, then it really does speak to America's growing tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals.

P.S. Although, full-disclosure, the pop-up graphics of pink triangles that appear on the YouTube clip did not appear on NBC's original broadcast.

P.P.S. Uh, one potential problem with the above: An editor has informed me that Weir has never actually publicly said that he's gay. So, while you can certainly infer a lot from some of his statements (such as when he described himself as "princessy"), to say nothing of his wardrobe (do any straight men wear Uggs?), I should note that there's a chance Weir is heterosexual."
--Jason Zengerle"

*********************************************************************************
I express no opinion on whether Weir is gay (expect a grand post on the topic of how people create their own definition of this word that applies to everyone but them as they say "not that there's anything wrong with that" but really mean "gay=loser" soon), but certainly can note that, whether he is gay, straight, or anything in between, the clip that TRN found newsworthy isn't. It's just another athlete making fun of his rivals under the guise of respecting them; just another athlete expressing, in reductively non-rebellious language, what a rebel he is, and it's just another athlete whose act is to claim to care not what his critics think, thereby revealing that he does indeed care (in other words, the more things "change," the more they stay the same). If you don't believe this, witness his fuming walk off the stage after the long program, as he knew the cameras were right on him and the judges were looking straight at him. The walk-off was classic anti-Norma Desmond's last line in Sunset Boulevard. Not sure of what I mean? Go out and rent the movie. Warning, though: you might become gay afterward. But only if you tell someone you saw it. Someone who has seen it who may or may not be gay, but who knows that the fact that YOU watched it makes you gay.

Confused? Consider the last six sentences a preview of the aforementioned grand post, which will explain everything, or.... nothing.

A MOVING TARGET'S HARD TO HIT

Check out this excellent article by Glenn Greenwald re: The Cult of George W. Bush:

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Do Bush followers have a political ideology?

Alexandra von Maltzan at All Things Beautiful has written a long and somewhat personal post expressing her "disappointment" in my blogging and in my political views. Scott "Big Trunk" Johnson at Powerline, in a post entitled "One Beautiful Thing," has announced that he "greatly enjoyed" her "disquisitions" (meaning her post about my blogging and my political views).Reading Alexandra’s post, I learn that I have "sold out" due to my "blind loyalty to the liberal cause of sabotaging the Administartion (sic) with whatever means available at any given time." I’m "now simply dancing to the tune of the Daily Kos audience, and it is very disappointing to watch." Her primary argument in support of this theory is that I have "attempted to pulverize the talented John Hinderaker and Jonah Goldberg," that I hold "the brilliant Jeff Goldstein" to a "higher moral standard," and that I say unkind things about the "relentlessly talented and courageous Michelle Malkin." Seriously. That's because my "posts have become a barrage of personal attacks on conservative bloggers which were not present pre-love affair with Daily Kos, Atrios, Digby and Crooks and Liars ."I want to leave the personal issues to the side and examine a few of the substantive issues raised (unintentionally) by Alexandra’s post. It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

One can see this principle at work most illustratively in how Bush followers talk about Andrew Sullivan. In the couple of years after 9/11, Bush followers (DRL: which ones?) revered Sullivan, as he stood loyally behind Bush (DRL: metaphorically speaking, I guess), providing the rhetorical justifications for almost every Bush action. And even prior to the Bush Administration, Sullivan was a fully accepted member of the conservative circle. (DRL: Not really - certainly not to certain "squares" within that circle, if you get my point). Nobody questioned the bona fides of his conservative credentials because he ascribed to the conservative view on almost every significant political issue. Despite not having changed his views on very many, if any, of those issues, Sullivan is now frequently called a "liberal" (at best) when he is talked about by Bush followers. What has changed are not his political views or ideological orientation. Instead, he no longer instinctively and blindly praises George Bush (DRL: Andrew would bristle at the notion that he ever blindly praised Bush) but periodically, even frequently, criticizes Bush. By definition, then, he is no longer a "conservative." As Sullivan put it:

"OFF THE RESERVATION": Brent Bozell says I'm no "conservative." Label debates are silly. But I should say, for the record, that I favor the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been horrified by the incompetence of the occupation, but have been trying to make constructive arguments for how to win for quite a while now. Yes, I oppose the torture and abuse of military detainees. I'm a little stunned that this is now something that now requires one to be seen as a "liberal."I support almost all of Bush's tax cuts (I support the estate tax) but also believe in balanced budgets and spending restraint (heretic!); I oppose affirmative action; I oppose hate crime laws; I respect John Kerry's military service; I believe all abortion is morally wrong and that Roe vs Wade was dreadful constitutional law (but I do favor legal first trimester abortions); I support states' rights, especially in social policy, such as marriage; I oppose the expansion of the welfare state, as in the Medicare prescription drug plan; I supported John Roberts' nomination and Sam Alito's; I believe in a firm separation of religion and politics, but I certainly take faith seriously and wrestle with my own. As regular readers know, I'm no fan of the far left. At some point, I have endorsed every single Republican president in my adult life.All of that makes me a "liberal." Imagine what it now takes to be a "conservative" in Brent Bozell's eyes.

What it takes to make someone a "conservative" in Bozell's eyes is the same as what is required in the eyes of all Bush followers -- a willingness to support Bush's actions because they are the actions of George Bush.We see the same thing happening to hard-core conservative Bob Barr due to his criticism of Bush's violations of FISA . Similarly, the minute a Senator with years of conservatism behind them deviates from a Bush decree on a single issue, they are no longer "conservative." George Voinovich became a "liberal" the minute he refused to support John Bolton’s nomination; John Sununu is now "liberal" because he did not favor immediate renewal of every single provision of the Patriot Act which Bush demanded, and Senators like Chuck Hagel and John McCain long ago gave up any "conservative" status because of their insistence on forming opinions that occasionally deviate from the decrees from the White House.

People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) explosion of deficit spending under this Administration – and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower. As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.We need no oversight of the Federal Government’s eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush’s decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush’s ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader.It is hard to describe just how extreme these individuals are. Michelle Malkin is the Heroine of the Right Blogosphere, and she believes in concentration camps. As an avid reader of Michelle’s blog, I really believe that she would be in favor of setting up camps for Muslim-Americans and/or Arab-Americans similar to the ones we had for Japanese-Americans which she praises. Has anyone ever asked her that? Could someone? I don’t mean that she would favor interning them indefinitely - just for the next few decades while the war on terrorism is resolved.And as excessive as the Bush Administration’s measures have been thus far -- they overtly advocate the right to use war powers against American citizens on American soil even if Congress bans such measures by law -- I am quite certain that people like John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Goldstein, to name just a few, are prepared to support far, far more extreme measures than the ones which have been revealed thus far. And while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah, I believe quite firmly that there are no limits – none – that Hinderaker (or Malkin or Hewitt) would have in enthusiastically supporting George Bush no matter how extreme were the measures which he pursued.We have heard for a long time that anger and other psychological and emotional factors drive the extreme elements on the Left, but that is (at least) equally true for the Bush extremists (DRL: witness Ken Mehlman angrily denouncing Hillary as "angry").

The only difference happens to be that the Bush extremists control every major governmental institution in the country and the extremists on the Left control nothing other than the crusted agenda for the latest International A.N.S.W.E.R. meeting. (DRL: Which is why the right's rage about the left's rage is not genuine "righteous outrage" but just so much birdshit, or birdshot, if you prefer. What are the extreme Leftists like Michael Moore going to do to harm George Bush? Hold protest rallies and give away Raman noodles? Subversion, thy name is Moore! The extreme rightists hate people like Michael Moore not because of what they stand for or because of how they stand for it, but because 1) Moore doesn't like Bush; and 2)therefore, because of Moore's existence.

And the core emotions driving the Bush extremists are not hard to see. It is a driving rage and hatred – for liberals, for Muslims, for anyone who opposes George Bush. The rage and desire to destroy is palpable. When John Hinderaker removes those tightly-wound glasses and lets go of the death grip he maintains on the respectable-corporate-lawyer facade, these are the sentiments (farted out when speaking about that esteemed journalist Jeff Gannon) which are always stirring underneath:

"You dumb shit, he didn't get access using a fake name, he used his real name. You lefties' concern for White House security is really touching, but you know what, you stupid asshole, I think the Secret Service has it covered. Go crawl back into your hole, you stupid left-wing shithead. And don't bother us anymore. You have to have an IQ over 50 to correspond with us. You don't qualify, you stupid shit." (Refer to my earlier post when Gore Vidal explained that most Americans cannot explain the difference between an argument and an assertion. Hinderaker is among their number. Assertion is not reasoning, no matter how vituperative the hate and no matter how bitter the invective).

The rhetoric of Bush followers is routinely comprised of these sorts of sentiments dressed up in political language – accusations that domestic political opponents are subversives and traitors, that they ought to be imprisoned and hung, that we ought to drop nuclear bombs on countries which have committed the crime of housing large Muslim populations. These are not political sentiments, and they’re certainly not conservatives sentiments, but instead, are psychological desires finding a venting ground in a political movement.It’s not an accident that Ann Coulter and her ongoing calls for violence against "liberals" (meaning anyone not in line behind George Bush) are so wildly popular among conservatives. It’s not some weird coincidence that the 5,000 people in attendance at the CPAC this last week erupted in "boisterous ovation" when she urged violence against "ragheads,’ nor is it an accident that her hateful, violence-inciting screeds -- accusing "liberals" of being not wrong, but "treasonous" -- become best-sellers. (DRL: Coulter, an attorney who went to a top-ten law school and who blathers on about the virtues of "strict constructionism," has evidently forgotten the definition of "treason" in the Constitution. Why should we care about her musings on the death penalty, abortion, and other issues? She also hates 'dem friviolous lawsuits, although she spearheaded the effort to have Paula Jones sue Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. Paula Jones worked for a private hotel at which Clinton, then the Governor of Arkansas, allegedly sexually harassed her by showing her his penis. Sexual harassment, by definition, does not occur outside the employment context. Clinton was not Jones' employer when the incident occurred. Thus the case failed to survive the motion to dismiss. No wonder Coulter fumed that the case was dismissed by an "activish librul judge.")

Ann Coulter has been advocating violence against liberals and other domestic political opponents for years, and she is a featured speaker at the most prestigious conservative events. Why would that be? It's because she is tapping into the primal, rather deranged rage which lies in the heart of many Bush followers. (DRL: she has publicly admittted that the movement to impeach Clinton and to bring a Republican into the White House was fueled by hate and rage - gotta give her points for honesty there!)

If that weren't driving the movement, she wouldn’t provoke the reactions and support that she does.The combination here of rage and fear is potent and toxic. One of the principal benefits of the blogosphere -- with its daily posting and unedited expressions of thought -- is that it reveals one’s genuine underlying views in a much more honest and unadorned fashion than other venues of expression. For that reason, the true sentiments of bloggers often stand revealed for all to see.And what I hear, first and foremost, from these Bush following corners is this, in quite a shrieking tone: "Oh, my God - there are all of these evil people trying to kill us, George Bush is doing what he can to save us, and these liberals don’t even care!!! They’re on their side and they deserve the same fate!!!" It doesn’t even sound like political argument; it sounds like a form of highly emotional mass theater masquerading as political debate. It really sounds like a personality cult. It is impervious to reasoned argument and the only attribute is loyalty to the leader. Whatever it is, it isn’t conservative.This is one of the principal reasons I found the story yesterday of the DoJ’s criminal pursuit of the NSA leakers (including the Times) so serious. Fervent Bush followers have long been demanding that these leakers and the journalists involved in this disclosure be imprisoned, or worse. These demands are made despite the lack of any harm to our national security. They are motivated by one fact and one fact only – whoever disclosed the illegal NSA program harmed George Bush. And for that crime, no punishment is excessive.

If it now places one "on the Left" to oppose unrestrained power and invasiveness asserted by the Federal Government along with lawlessness on the part of our highest government officials, so be it. The rage-based reverence for The President as Commander-in-Chief -- and the creepy, blind faith vested in his goodness -- is not a movement I recognize as being political, conservative or even American. A movement which has as its shining lights a woman who advocates the death of her political opponents, another woman who is a proponent of concentration camps, a magazine which advocates the imprisonment of journalists who expose government actions of dubious legality, all topped off by a President who believes he has the power to secretly engage in activities which the American people, through their Congress, have made it a crime to engage in, is a movement motivated by lots of different things. Political ideology isn't one of them. (DRL: This is why I support a strong 2nd Amendment - i.e. why the 2nd Amendment should be "unofficially" interpreted, as it has been for two centuries - to permit people to carry firearms. Fat, angry, repressed, ugly, rageful white males and women, if they did not have their guns to release that miniscule portion of their rage, would inject that much more rage into the political discourse. PLEASE - we don't need stricter gun control laws in this country!)

UPDATE: For a glimpse of how actual conservatives quite recently used to think, one should read this article at FreeRepublic.com, which decries the dangerous loss of liberty and privacy as a result of the Clinton Administration's use of a "secret court" (something called the "FISA court") which actually enables the Federal Government to eavesdrop on American citizens! Worse -- much worse -- the judicial approval which the Government (used to) obtain for this eavesdropping is in secret, so we don't even know who is being eavesdropped on! How can we possibly trust the Government not to abuse this power if they can obtain warrants in secret?Conservatives used to consider things like this to be quite disturbing and bad -- and the eavesdropping then was at least with judicial oversight. Now, George Bush is in office, and all of the distrust we used to have of the Federal Government exercising these powers has evaporated, because we trust in George Bush to do what is best for us. He should not just have those powers, but many more, and he should exercise all of them in secret, too, with no "interference" from the courts or Congress.That is why I say that whatever else these Bush followers are, they are not conservative. (h/t Stand Strong and aarrgghh). (BTW: Those who say Bush only deserves these powers because we are "at war" forget that 1) he manufactured that war, 2) many of the efforts he made to secure for himself an imperial presidency, such as ensuring that his and his father's Presidential papers would not be available for public viewing - ever - were made well before September 11, 2001, and 3)these same people still believe tha Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, and FDR, did not deserve such powers, either under the wards they were fighting, or under a "war on turr."

The cult of Bush may seriously compromise the Republicans' chance of winning the Presidency in 2008, for he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.