Bourgeois Deviant

So sayeth TPM, Rudy is in free fall. To this, I say hooray. The once front runner is falling from the fore and for good reason. So, if he does bow out, rather, when he bows out, who will he endorse? Moreover, who will his cash and/or backers go to? Its hard to see him getting behind Huckabee or Romney. McCain's tide is coming back in and, as far as Republican candidates go, he's the most tolerable of the bunch. He also seems to be the least distant from Giuliani in terms of core issues. But I could be wrong on that given my proximity to the left.

Anyhow, you still have to consider the Paul haul of cash, Huckabee's popularity w/ the Rapture crowd (which was largely responsible for Bush's success at the polls), Romney's flip-flopping machismo to those GOPers that just want to win for winning's sake and lastly, the oddly dogged Thompson supporters who claim he's the guy for the job because he'd be loyal to the Constitution and he looks the most presidential (whatever that is). In the end, despite what others say, I think the betting person should be placing their money on either McCain or Romney. As to who ends up endorsing who, only time can tell. But its an entertaining speculation for another time.

Hillary is not doing so well. And the way in which she is not doing so well portends of how it might be if she is the nominee, or elected President for that matter. See here and here to see what I am alluding to. Frankly, its worse than watching Rudy and smacks of the Bush '00 and '04 playbook, but softer. Sort of. Meanwhile, Obama is advertising on Drudge and has voted for every funding bill for the Iraq War that has crossed his desk, despite having voted against the War in the first place (as he frequently reminds his audiences). Clearly he walks the politicians' walk in this regard

John Edwards is consistently in third place overall and nearly every one's second choice. He has been a populist for his entire campaign, not to mention is '04 run. The tone of his populism has strengthened as the primaries have drawn closer and now he is saying he'll have the troops out in ten months. While the initial appeal of that promise is alluring, you have to realize that given the size of our forces in the region, to leave Iraq would take ten months in the best and fastest of circumstances. So, like all the other candidates, he's giving the best case scenario. The reality is most assuredly to be starkly different.

Like Michael Moore, I am not endorsing Edwards. I have called him an ideal candidate and consider his poll position to be a vindication of that prediction. I think he is suited for the job and has championed causes that I think are the most important. However, circumstance and the reality of our modern times are stacked against him. Senators Clinton and Obama are the inheritors of that circumstance and the symbolic, reactive progression of history's equation to date.

America wants change desperately. The blunt, obvious antidote to what we've had in our new security age is either a woman or a man of (if partial) minority dissent. To have a brown skinned man be the President of these United States may be the most important and symbolically helpful thing we can do as a nation to send a message to the rest of the world that we can change, definitively. Electing a woman to the office surely wouldn't be harmful in terms of symbolism. It would, in fact be a great achievement in the identity politics of America as a nation, but only inwardly. The world community has had international women leaders before and will continue to.

Now is not Hillary's time. For all her "experience," Hillary Clinton has not demonstrated to this blogger that she can master the helm of a ship that is currently stern deep in threatening and mineable waters. We are a great nation founded on great ideas. Those ideas and this nation need either be served by someone possessing great ideas or able to seize upon the great ideas that will restore what has been so badly tarnished and worn.

Speaking as a Democrat, if Hillary is nominated to run as the Democrat's candidate for President, she'll likely lose. That is if McCain or Romney are the Republican nominee. If Democrats look past nostalgia, baby boomer gender politics and obvious easy choices and really look forward to righting Bush's wrongs and voting for leadership that will steer our national ship of state to safe shores, Edwards or Obama are the better votes.

Update: Freddy T. likely to bow out! Likely to support McCain!. Tick one of the speculation list. Sorry ALa.

Labels: Barak Obama, Bush, democracy, Democrat, Hillary Clinton, HuffPo, John Edwards, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, President, Republican, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Talking Points Memo

Courtesy of MoveOn.

This should be posted everywhere and played daily to remind people how wrong our country's state of affairs is and who is responsible for them. At the very least, two things are abundantly clear. The situation then is as it was when we began this Iraq War, and it was clearly the wrong thing to do for more reasons than I or the past Mr. Cheney can list. It is also evidence of the hypocrisy and hubris of those in power. This war was not in our national interest and only in the interest of a handful of willfully delusional idealistic plutocrats with no personal blood or treasure to risk.

Mr. Cheney's words then reinforce my belief now that both he and Mr. Bush should be impeached. This is not to say they should be prosecuted for their duplicity, hubris and reckless endangerment our nation. These two men and the sycophants around them have destabilized the balance of power in the United States Government. In the eyes of some, they have come as close to engineering an imperial presidency as we may (hopefully) ever see. It is certainly more so this case and done with less cause than the Lincoln administration, which had cause aplenty.

Again, it is not for ridding us of these two men that we should impeach, however appealing that may be. It is for what they have done to the executive branch. This is a reason that many conservatives can and should support impeachment. Here's why: What Bush and Cheney have done is to forge an entire new set of powers for the executive branch that, if not prosecuted before the end of their term will, in effect, stand as a consent by the Congress and legal precedent as a tool set for the next executive to inherit the office. So, all you so called conservatives out there and your like, if things continue to go the way they are in the '08 Presidential race, a Democrat will be able to do all the things Bush and Cheney have done and little to nothing can be done to stop them. Once precedent is established, it is extremely difficult to overturn. And you won't have the lack of intestinal fortitude and general flaccidity of your party to blame when you cry foul.

Power is the reason for everything in this argument for impeaching Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. For or against, power and the ability to wield it or keep it in check as the framers of the Constitution wished it is what is at stake. Some days ago, Mr. Edwards was answering questions from the public and impeachment came up. He stated he was against it because of what it did to the national government overall during the Clinton administration. Basically he said it rendered our government ineffective by grinding it to a halt as it concentrated on the proceeding. That is a perfectly good and strong argument when one is arguing against impeaching the chief executive over concealing a marital infidelity that had little to no bearing on the nation aside from tabloid titillation and shallow moral pandering for political gain.

The stakes are higher now. The principles and precedents on which our nation has been built have been trampled upon and that needs to be addressed and remedied. You have to be naive or willfully blind to think that any candidate for president isn't mindful of how the office has changed over the last six years and the powers they could potentially inherit. It is sheer folly to think that any politician would volunteer to give up such power despite how virtuous they might profess to be.

So conservatives, ask yourself if you want a Democrat to be able to do all the things Mr. Bush and his cabal have done. Progressives should be asking if they truly want to right the wrongs of the last two terms. Also, if you were for impeaching Mr. Clinton over wrongly concealing a private sexual transgression, you should be equally, if not more so in favor of impeaching Mr. Bush for putting our country in such peril, on so many levels, in such a deliberate and calculated fashion. If you disagree with the latter, you are, in this blogger's opinion, in the avant-garde in leading the charge that is the United States' hastening decline as a world power and a great, "moral" nation.

Labels: Bush, checks and balances, Cheney, Clinton Administration, Constitution, Impeachment, Iraq, John Edwards, MoveOn.org, presidential powers

From a Wall Street Journal article on the Doha trade talks:

The administration's fresh focus on Doha hasn't necessarily won the same level of attention from its chief executive. Joining visiting South African President Mbeki in the Oval Office Friday, President Bush told reporters that the two talked about "the necessity of trade."

"We talked about, interestingly enough, the Darfur round," Mr. Bush said, apparently confusing the Qatar city with the Sudanese region beset by violence.

I realize that President Bush is a *ahem* self proclaimed plain spoken man. To dilute venom a bit more, former President Bill Clinton has even said that he doesn't consider Bush to be a stupid man. Fine. However, for someone to confuse Doha with Darfur given what is going on in Darfur is the height of negligence. Careless mistakes are not an option when you are the President of the United States.

This is the man who is the "Decider" when it comes to the lives of our men and women in uniform. Is it any wonder, with examples like this, that the the "War on Terror" is going the way it is.

Fareed Zakaria had it right when Jon Stewart asked him about Bush on the Daily show a few days back... He just doesn't appreciate the true gravity of reality.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Bush, Darfur, Decider, Doha, Fareed Zakaria, Jon Stewart, Mbeki, United States, Wall Street Journal, War on Terror

Have a Rolling Rock! Bush's approval rating dips to 33%! A new low. How much more bullshit can the nation bear? My bet is mid 20s.

Labels: Bush, Rolling Rock

Just to get some of my old bits onto this site... Some points are still salient. Enjoy.

11/10/2004
Dark Cloud Over America: Day 9 (the faint silver lining)

The rats are leaving the ship! Is the ship that is federal American government half full or half empty with water to herald the retreat? Asscroft handed in a multi-page letter of resignation to the Shrub and is headed for the hills. Clearly dillusional, he actually had the temerity to say "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." Too many bare breasted statues in Washington for his weak little heart to take, more likely. Others are following suit. We will see who we get stuck with next.

Then we see this cartoon... Can we say Pat Oliphant rocks? We agree with his take on the situation completely. Here's the thing: Our current system of government, albeit tilted a direction that we don't like at present, is one that was literally hundreds of years in the making. Take some ancient Greece and Roman Empire, a hearty cup full of Magna Carta, add a healthy pinch of Enlightenment thinkers, maybe sprinkle a little Martin Luther in there and slide that concoction into a Dutch oven circa 1600's to early 1700's and let it cook up to 1776. Glaze with a U.S. Constitution and garnish with some Jefferson, Franklin and Washington and you have yourself a phat democracy! Best enjoyed with some John Quincy Adams on the side.

To extend this metaphor train obnoxiously further... If you have ever made bread, you know it takes time and patients. Lots of effort, too. That is democracy for you. America seems to be trying to pawn off a cheap, Wonderbread version on Iraq and Afghanistan. The world knows we have ourselves some delicious Tuscan whole wheat over here, so why would anyone settle for Wonderbread?

We fear the loaf of U.S. democracy either has mold or is growing stale.

More to the point, a democracy is learned and earned, not bestowed. We have a system of government that commands appreciation because of the well documented history of blood, sweat and tears that went into creating it. It is that context and history that only (most) Americans and like established democracies can appreciate. The world of Islam has no comparable history and little impetus to try to get their communal psyche geared to that perspective. (Though they do have plenty of blood spilled, you have to admit. Thank you Crusades!) All that and we are blowing up everything of theirs in the name of democracy and security.

True story time: A group of Spanish conquistadors approached a peaceful tribe of pueblo Indians and the conquistador leader, in his native tongue, decreed to the Indians standing before him that they had about a minute to convert to Christianity or they would all be put to the sword in the name of God and whichever Spanish Monarch was reigning at the time. There was no effort to translate or learn about the people they were addressing. Just the decree. The conquistadors slaughtered the entire community. Substitute Christianity for democracy and modify the rhetoric and this appears quite familiar, doesn't it?

Who would have thought Iraq and the old American west would have so much in common?

posted by A. L. Deviant at 1:19 PM

Labels: Afghanistan, Bush, Crusades, Greece, Iraq, John Ashcroft, Magna Carta, metaphor train, Pat Oliphant, Rome

Am I reading this correctly? Look at the third paragraph. The AP quotes President Bush as saying ''We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iran,'' Bush said. ''An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations.'' Color me confused.

Do we have troops in Iran? Have I been so pummeled by bad news and executive buffoonery that I somehow missed the invasion or Iran? Or, is it the more likely case that President Bush was riffing and merely gave over to verbal diarrhea and let some secret chicken out of the coop.

Do we have diplomatic engagement with Iran over the nuclear issue? I thought so. Are they a viable threat to the United States? I thought not. In fact, wasn’t it just determined that Iran was, at least technologically, years away from being able to attain nuclear weapons? ... Yes, the last time I checked, for whatever that is worth.

Good lord this is upsetting.

Bush goes on to say that as long as he is President, “we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism.” Well, that settles that. Now my fears are somewhat more confirmed than they already were. Comparisons to the Vietnam War are all too common when referring to the situation in Iraq. However, I would think that this statement by the only chief executive of this nation to be installed by the Supreme Court and not the people of the United States portends of the analogy being applied to the War on Terrorism in general.

Vietnam was not winnable. You know why. For those who are raising a quizzical eyebrow, dig this. Vietnam had a centuries long history of invasion, subjugation and colonialization by bunch of different countries, China and France being the biggest offenders. When America came in, the Vietnamese just saw them as another colonialist invading power. It had nothing to do with politics or ideology for them. It was about sovereignty and stopping the violation of their land. Communism was just an organizational tool. The US was fighting something stronger than them. They were fighting an idea and resentment that was hundreds of years old. The Vietnamese would have fought to the last child if they had to. Nothing could have broken that resolve.

Once again, we are involved in a conflict in part of the world where we do not (at least our President doesn’t) fully understand the general perceptions and ethos of the culture we are trying to “save” and democratize. This may seem like pulling dirt out of history’s dustbin, but the Crusades are still very present in the minds of many Arabs. So, once again, you have an invader stomping in and telling them how its going to be. It won’t fly. I will eat my hat if democracy sticks in Iraq.

And Bush is thinking about Iran?

Does the Arab world hate the infidel? Sure. Is that xenophobic, wrong and generally stupid? To us, sure. To them, heck no. We can thank the British, Spanish and Christianity in general for that. We, the United States of America, one of the younger nations on the world stage, march over to the fertile crescent and silk road lands, like true sophomores and think we can fix stuff, mold them in our democratic image? We can’t even get a President properly elected.

The same rules don’t apply in this war game. When people are willing to strap bombs to their chest to get us out, that’s a sign that we don’t belong. When the rules of the game are that different for the two teams playing, that strongly suggests that the game can’t be won. Our President’s myopia is costing us precious lives, truckloads of money and more good will than we can ever recoup. George W. Bush’s choices have written a check that no matter how big of an ass he may be, that ass cannot cash.

You can't kill an idea or attitude with a gun. Just a person. And, as their blood spreads, so does their idea.

BTW, I thought Maureen Dowd was good today.

Labels: Afghanistan, AP, Bush, Communism, Crusades, Iran, Iraq, Maureen Dowd, Middle East, Supreme Court, Vietnam