Sophisticated Counter-Attacks

This is interesting: rather than get caught in a back-and-forth with Swift Boaters, lefty activists are planning to hit them where it will hurt--in the donors. Tom Mazzie is heading the effort, and his first strike will be letter mailed out to ten thousand conservative donors:

The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.

The biggest obstacles are the laws that protect the identify of donors to bottom-feeding smear groups, though:

Indeed, anonymity is a potential obstacle to the group’s efforts. Outside political groups organized as 501(c)4 entities, including Accountable America, do not have to disclose the names of their donors.

It may not work, but it's interesting to note that the donors clearly don't want to be known. If Mazzie can figure out how to expose them, it would be a powerful disincentive.

Litigating Weakness -- End of an Era?

So I've been listening to my various Sunday news show podcasts, and there's an interesting phenomenon: no one ever talks about McCain. Every issue is looked at through the lens of Obama. Iraq: is Obama going to withdraw soon enough to please the lefties? Christians: can Obama appeal to them? Swing voters: is Obama too [pick one: weird, Muslim, liberal]? Apparently, this is the frame the MSM has adopted: Americans don't particularly like John McCain, but he's a known quantity. There's nothing he can do to win or lose the election. The whole questions comes down to whether Obama is, to use objective and talented* Rich Lowry's phrase, "minimally acceptable." That the MSM buys into this says something about the MSM, but that's another post for another time.

What's more interesting is that it reveals the last hail-mary in a strategy that the GOP have deployed since 1980. It is the strategy of litigating the Democrat's weakness. In 2004, the GOP put several memes into play that ultimately dominated conversation about the entire election: was Kerry a flip-flopper, was he unpatriotic (the swift-boating), and was he too elite and too liberal for America? We did not litigate the presidency of the incumbent. We didn't even investigate the record of George W. Bush, despite the fact that it was riddled with more failure, inexperience, drug use, and cowardice than any president in my lifetime. Those were verboten, apparently. Rather, Gore was on trial for being dressed by a woman, for his sighs and elitism, and because he was wooden. We elected a man** because the other guy was tried and convicted of being wooden. Helluva nice electorate, that.

Now comes Obama, who is perpetually on trial. Let us sift through the various crimes:

• Association with a demagogic pastor
  
• Being a Muslim
• Elitism***
• Dangerous inexperience
• Lack of sufficient, GOP-sanctioned patriotism***
• Excessive liberalism***
  

Did I miss any? Up next: flip-flopping!***

Strangely enough, it works. The media devote single-focused attention on these bogus issues, and in election after election, the Dem is found guilty of these crimes. The pattern is repeating itself now, as Obama must nearly daily defend himself against one unhinged assertion or another. (Today's charge and rebuttal summed up in the AP headline: "Obama denies shifting to reach political center." You expect exclamation points and the issuance of a scarlet letter--"F" for flip-flop, one imagines.)

But maybe it won't work this year. The strategy is effective up until the point when a party's brand is so badly damaged that it must constantly be judged. After the Andy Jackson revolution in 1828, the opposition party was judged so harshly that it folded. Following the humilation of the civil war, the Democratic party was judged time and again as crooks like Grant were re-elected. Following the Roosevelt landslide of 1936, the scarlet letter of greed was affixed to the breast of Republicans, who weren't able to remove it until 1968. This last generation, the old puritan judgment of the citizens held Democrats in contempt. And so we must appear before our interlocutors, the Gibsons and Stephanopouluses, and answer for our shameful affiliations and past crimes.

But the Bush administration has tempered the judgment. Republicans are running the same old crap up the election flagpole, yet they have spent eight years running their own corruption and incompetence up the governance flagpole. It takes a long time of the ship of American public opinion to turn itself around, but once the process starts, it's not clear that baseless attacks hold the same sway they once did. Rich Lowry thinks the Dem has to be just "minimally acceptable" to be elected. He may regret, however, that the rules of acceptance have changed, and that his team no longer dictates them.

_______________
*sarcasm
**okay, elected isn't the best word.
***how original!

Teflon Now Unnecessary

If true, this is fascinating. Apparently the scurrilous attack dogs are going to sit out this election.

[L]ess than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.

Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama.

But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form.

More worrisome for Republicans who believe such an outside attack apparatus is essential to defeating Obama, some key individuals and groups who were being looked to for help say they won’t be involved.

T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman who gave $3 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and who numerous GOP sources said was being looked to as a funding source this year, is sitting the race out.

“He is not giving anything to 527s involved in the presidential race this cycle, and has communicated that…to Republican strategists and operatives,” said Pickens spokesman Jay Rosser.
See Also

Rosser said Pickens “has a much broader public policy initiative in mind that will focus on energy, and is approaching that in a bipartisan manner.” He only “contributed last cycle because they were in play, and were so heavily funded on the other side.”

We'll see what develops, but maybe Republicans have done the math and come to the obvious conclusion. (That is: historic first black candidate + low chance of winning + fighting for more grossly incompetent Republicans = sit this one out and wait for a decent year and candidate.)

Let's Talk Beer

Over at the Washington Monthly, Kevin talks beer. In case you missed it, a Belgian-based megacorp has offered to buy out Anheuser-Busch (the second-biggest buying the biggest--here's a very long post on it at my beer blog). Apparently, the half-wits at the WSJ (who recently wrote an article about my activities--that obviously being the full-witted half) think it would be great politics for the workers to sign onto the merger. You know, because the Wall Street Journal always has the workers' back.

Drum points out the obvious (Am I the only one who thinks workers are going to be less than reassured by the prospect of a "new-and-improved management team" that's "focused on cost-cutting?") and then offers this:

In any case, [the WSJ's] main point is that "it would be politically untenable for Obama to welcome a takeover," so John McCain should take the bait and position himself as a champion of free trade, even if it does mean letting a Belgian company run by a Brazilian dude take control of good 'ol American Budweiser. After all, who better to take a stand on this than a guy who dumped his first wife 30 years ago in order to marry a wealthy heiress who now owns one of the largest Anheuser Busch distributors in the country?

That's a paragraph rich in flavor, and I hope McCain does take the bait. But I don't agree with Kevin that Obama can stay neutral on the deal. It's a great opportunity to for him to bring some nuance to this and argue both for the workers, for St. Lousians (?), and for small businesses in opposing this deal. Obviously, this is a big deal for the locals. They don't want a faceless company owning the local company (InBev has 200+ brands and is worldwide). Whatever else you can say, it won't preserve the local flavor. One of the ways InBev makes these deals work is to streamline ops--which means laying off workers. Brewery work is good, honest, put-your-kids-through-college work. Finally, this is probably bad new for many of the 1400 small craft breweries in the country, who now have to compete against a multinational megacorp for barley and hops--in the middle of shortages on both.

There's no upside for anyone not employed by InBev that I can see. I say make McCain go for the defense, and then roll out the above talking points. Beer drinkers are the guys you want on your team.

The Madness of Hillary

My new mantra, from Michael Clayton: "I'm not here to argue with you, I'm here to tell you how it is." And it's ugly. Drudge, who apparently got this one right (a broken clock's accurate twice a day...):

With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.

The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya.

Normally, we'd consider this more of the same baseless muck from Drudge, but when the Clinton campaign was questioned about it, they offered a non-denial non-denial (not even the non-denial denial), and went on the attack:

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

Ashamed is a good word, because the Hillary campaign knows exactly how this stuff gets used. Yesterday, the racist wing of the GOP ran with the story, lacing it with the poison of their bigotry (also here and here).

Of course, Obama was dressing in traditional garb, as many leaders do, as a way of honoring the culture he was visiting. This is known as good diplomacy, so it's not surprising that the bomb-'em-first-and-let-God-sort-them-out set is opposed.

"al Qaeda" in the Air

Does it seem like Bush is using the phrase "al Qaeda" more frequently? Yes. That can only mean one thing: an election year is on the way. I did a search on that phrase at the White House's website, and what I discovered is depicted in the graph below (click to enlarge):


Say bereft Republicans: "Oh 'al Qaeda,' how long will you feed us?"

Constitutional Crisis

It is difficult to pick up a newspaper without coming to the conclusion that the executive branch is pretty much in open defiance of the consitution. I finally got around to reading the Sy Hersh piece on Antonio Taguba, which describes the various ways in which the Pentagon subverted laws (American, international, Iraqi, pick one) and then lied to Congress about it. I could cite a number of passages, but this is the first one my eyes fell to. In it, Hersh describes how Rumsfeld lied to Congress about the level of his knowledge of the Abu Ghraib torture.

In subsequent testimony, General Myers, the J.C.S. chairman, acknowledged, without mentioning the e-mails, that in January information about the photographs had been given “to me and the Secretary up through the chain of command. . . . And the general nature of the photos, about nudity, some mock sexual acts and other abuse, was described.”

Nevertheless, Rumsfeld, in his appearances before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees on May 7th, claimed to have had no idea of the extensive abuse. “It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn’t say, ‘Wait, look, this is terrible. We need to do something,’ ” Rumsfeld told the congressmen. “I wish we had known more, sooner, and been able to tell you more sooner, but we didn’t.”

Meanwhile, the spectacle of Dick Cheney unfolds like a something out of a Mamet play--except that even Mamet wouldn't have the balls to ascribe positions that Cheney has actually taken. The Washington Post has done the best work excavating his activities since coming into the White House. The four-part series is full of gems, and again, the documentation of serious abuses are legion. I select this one at random:

Geneva rules forbade not only torture but also, in equally categorical terms, the use of "violence," "cruel treatment" or "humiliating and degrading treatment" against a detainee "at any time and in any place whatsoever." The War Crimes Act of 1996 made any grave breach of those restrictions a U.S. felony. The best defense against such a charge, Addington wrote, would combine a broad presidential directive for humane treatment, in general, with an assertion of unrestricted authority to make exceptions.

The vice president's counsel proposed that President Bush issue a carefully ambiguous directive. Detainees would be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of" the Geneva Conventions. When Bush issued his public decision two weeks later

This strange scene plays out amid other scandals: the Scooter Libby trial and its collected tangle of crimes and the Alberto Gonzales/prosecutor scandal. Recently we heard James Comey describe how Bush tried to get a drugged, hospitalized John Ashcroft to sign off on his warrantless wiretapping scheme. And this is just the recent stuff.

Despite all this, the Democrats don't seem to be interested in doing much more than putting Henry Waxman and Chuck Schumer on the case. We have, on the one hand, an executive branch run amok, and on the other, a legislative branch unwilling to reign it in. On the one hand, we can be seen to be avoiding a constitutional crisis. On the other, it looks like we're deep in the middle of one.

18-Month Quiz

We are just over 18 months from the November election in 2008. Friends and I have begun bandying about possible scenarios for the final segment of the Bush adminstration and the lead-up to the war. What follows is a quiz we developed. Get your bids in now. No prizes, just bragging rights.


Foreign Policy

1. Iran.

A) Iranians comply with international pressure, submit to inspections and dismantle their enrichment program; US stands pat.

B) Iranians continue to play coy about enrichment, bringing some international support against the US and manage to hold off inspections through the election; Bush rattles his tin sabre but the US stands pat.

C) Tensions escalate, the US pushes a UN sanction, and Iran refuses to comply. Embargoes ensue and the international community slowly progresses toward a confrontation, led by Bush. Congressional hearings conclude before any declarations and the US stands ready to invade.

D) Scenario C progresses more rapidly, without UN support, and Bush begins selective bombing of suspected enrichment sites. Congress neither approves nor opposes the action.

E) Bush is opposed by the international community, Congress (including key GOP leaders), and the joint chiefs, and launches a covert nuclear attack.

F) Other _____________________

2. Iraq

A) The surge improves things marginally in Baghdad; Bush and McCain declare victory, begin withdrawing troops while ignoring the continued violence.

B) The status quo continues; violence and unrest and the steady decline to a hot civil war. The Dems can't convince Bush to withdraw and the death toll mounts.

C) After the surge fails and the elections approach, the GOP breaks rank with the White House and joins the Dems in a call for troop withdrawal. Nothing is binding, but Bush, without admitting defeat, begins a slow withdrawal.

D) The GOP join Dems to cut off funding, forcing Bush to pull out the troops in advance of the election.

E) Other ______________________

3. War on Terror

A) There are no attacks against Americans and the half-assed policies of the President lumber forward.

B) Dems force substantial changes in security issues (ports, funds for cities, etc.) and win favor for "engagement" diplomacy; no attack on US soil.

C) An attack hits the US, strengthens Bush's hand for first-term-style politics.

D) An attack hits the US; Bush's approval plummets and precipitates Congressional intervention (including, possibly, impeachment).

E. Other _____________________

4. Foreign Policy Surprise (Open ended)

5. Identify the unlikely doomsday scenario that might emerge before the election. (Open ended)


Election

6. The Democratic Nominee

A. Hillary Clinton
B. John Edwards
C. Al Gore
D. Barack Obama
E. Other ________________

7. The Republican Nominee

A. John McCain
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Rudy Guiliani
D. Mitt Romney
E. Fred Thompson
F. Other ________________

8. Dem Vice Presidential Nominee (open-ended)

9. GOP Vice Presidential Nominee (open-ended)

10. The Next President

A. John McCain
B. Newt Gingrich
C. Rudy Guiliani
D. Mitt Romney
E. Fred Thompson
F. Hillary Clinton
G. John Edwards
H. Al Gore
I. Barack Obama
J. Other __________________

11. Prescient piece of information you see about the electorate that people are overlooking. (open ended)

12. The House

A) Dems gain seats
B) Dems lose seats, hold the House
C) Dems lose seats, lose the House
D) Very little or no change.

13. Senate

A) Dems gain enough seats to have a fillibuster-proof majority
B) Dems gain some seats
C) Dems lose seats (and therefore the majority)
D) Senate stands pat at 50-49-1.

13a. (Oregonian subquestion) Who will be the next Senator from Oregon?

A) Steve Novick
B) Earl Blumenauer
C) Ben Westlund
D) Gordon Smith
E) Other _______________

Politics

14. The Bush Presidency

A) Scandals continue to plague the President, who slides further into isolation and disapproval. Congressional hearings and investigations reveal gross malfeasance and the suggestion of crime.

B) Either because of White House foreign policy bellicosity or because of scandal, Bush is impeached.

C) Bush, isolated and embattled, provokes an encounter with Iran.

D) Bush, isolated and embattled, declares martial law and suspends the election.

E) Congress loses interest in Bush, gets caught up in the '08 election, and the Bush presidency plays out with few successes and few failures, doomed to be remembered as a cautionary tale of incompetence and corruption.

15. The previously important issue that fails to excite interest in the coming year is:

A) tax cuts
B) abortion
C) terrorism
D) Iraq
E) gay rights/marriage

16. The emergent issue in the coming year is:

A) health care
B) global warming
C) gas prices
D) Iran
E) gun control

17. The unexpected development(s) in the next 18 months will be? (open ended)

A Final Rant . . . For Now

Blogging has changed enormously in the four years since I started Notes on the Atrocities. In January 2003, the lefty political blogosphere was small enough that you could actually have a reasonable sense of everyone in it. I had regular conversations with Atrios, Kos, Kevin Drum and a host of other less-known or less-remembered bloggers. When the DNC started its blog, Notes scored recognition as one of about 30 blogs to be linked there. This was definitely cool, but also indicative of just how small the blogosphere was.

I traipse down memory lane not only for self-congratulatory reasons. The reason there were so few bloggers created the context for why bloggers were necessary in the first place. We were about to go to war and almost no one, from the leaders of the Democratic Party (remember kindly, compliant Tom Daschle?) to the editorial boards of the Times or Post, was willing to condemn the damn thing.

This is a remarkable fact. We were about to invade a country on a purely racist premise, having confused one group of brown non-Christians with another ("they attacked us first!"), led by a man whose father had been humiliated in this country and his group of insiders (Perle and Wolfie, where have you gone?) who had been agitating for a decade in the Weekly Standard before 9/11 to invade it. It is true that everyone assumed our erstwhile ally had WMD, but so what? Lots of countries had them, and they were, so far as anyone could tell, not "gathering threats."

So blogging seemed to be important. In any case, it provided an outlet for outrage, and for a certain segment of cranky lefties, that seemed like reason enough.

But outrage always seems to be competing with cynicism. So many of the really good independent bloggers either went pro and became party insiders (which was good for them and good for the party) or were crushed by cynicism. It's bad enough that Bush is corrupt and imperialistic and monarchal, but it's far worse that he and his GOP cohorts are stunning ideologues, who always--and I seriously mean always; it's the first play in a one-play GOP playbook--politicize decisions. Every decision is made with an eye toward how it will punish the Dems. The major scandal of the day, the prosecutorial firings, have emerged as a scandal because people can't believe that the White House would actually try to use the US prosecutors to exact revenge. But for those of us who watch, it's the least surprising thing about this scandal.

The media didn't really know how to handle this level of corruption and manipulation. It took them four years to tumble to the fact that this is SOP for the GOP, but it seems that they have finally tumbled. The Post is no-longer pro-war; Sean Hannity is no longer regarded as a journalist, and the he-said, she-said regurgitation of fake arguments for the GOP's benefit seems to be a vestige of a naive past.

Democrats finally seem to have their heads in the game. Or at least know what the game is, whether they have learned how to play it. I used to say that the Dems were in a back alley knife-fight with Karl Rove, and they thought it was a game of chess. At long last, Nancy Pelosi has handed out the Leathermans.

And bloggers? They are ubiquitous: not only are there literally thousands of good and hundreds of excellent political blogs, but now everyone has a blog--the MSM, magazines, Arianna Huffington. We even have the emergence of the blog-as-newspaper.

For the indie blogger with a readership of 50, it's far harder to imagine that you're saying anything important. Blogging has become a burden and an act of conspicuous vanity (whereas in 2003 it was virtuous vanity). Some blogs still have critical relevance--BlueOregon provides political news that would otherwise go missing--but some, like Hog, are pretty obviously redundant.

I wouldn't care so much if my outrage were greater than my cynicism, but at the moment, it's not. The scrum between the forces of truth and lightness and darkness and autocracy just makes me tired. I can't say that the outrage won't bubble up again--it always seems to--but for now it is swamped by cynicism. As a parting example, a coda, if you will, I will offer you one of the most cynical spectacles I have ever seen, courtesy of the crown prince of darkness and autocracy, Tom DeLay.

He has a new book out, the purpose of which is to give relevance to his struggle to inject ideology into all things Republican. As was the case throughout his career, nothing mattered except the supremacy of the GOP--certainly not little things like facts. In an act of mesmerizing idiocy, he tries to deny the words in his new book in an interview with Chris Matthews because they failed to suit his argument at the time.

And that's why I'm tired. Good night and good luck.

Black and White

"Whites, on the other hand, are engaged in a paroxysm of self-congratulation; [Barack Obama] is the equivalent of Stephen Colbert's "black friend." Swooning over nice, safe Obama means you aren't a racist. I honestly can't look without feeling pity, and indeed mercy, at whites' need for absolution. For all our sakes, it seemed (again) best not to point out the obvious: You're not embracing a black man, a descendant of slaves. You're replacing the black man with an immigrant of recent African descent of whom you can approve without feeling either guilty or frightened. If he were Ronald Washington from Detroit, even with the same résumé, he wouldn't be getting this kind of love. Washington would have to earn it, not just show promise of it, and even then whites would remain wary."

--Debra Dickerson, Salon

Americans have always had a rough relationship with race. Each new wave of immigrants, from Irish to Mexican, has been targeted by the most vile kind of bigotry. But eventually, immigrants become absorbed into the American mainstream; except for fringe racists, America becomes colorblind until the next generation arrives.

The exception are blacks, whose integration has been legal at best. We--Americans--hold blacks in a special category. And it's not just whites who maintain this cultural apartheid--Dickerson's piece, widely reviled in the blogosphere, isn't isolated. We have constructed elaborate projections about not only what race means, but what it means to people on the other side of the aisle. We have boxed up what it means to be black and white and sealed it in a time capsule. Whites can either admit to their racism or displace it while blacks must embrace a preset definition of "blackness" or stand accused of complicity with white racists.

Last week, Stephen Colbert had Dickerson on his show and managed to expose these ridiculous dichotomies. Listen:

DICKERSON: Well, I think that's what's going to happen. I think Barack Obama is a wonderful person, we're proud of him, but--and this is not a critique of him, what this is is a critique of white self-congratulation, of saying we're embracing a black person, when we're not really. It's a way of--if he were sub-saharan African--

COLBERT: Well listen, if you hadn't told me he wasn't black, I would have thought that I was supporting a black person. And then I would have been supporting all black people. But now I won't because he's not.

DICKERSON: (Laughs uncomfortably) Well, then that would make you a racist.

COLBERT: (Ponders) Hmmmm. If I were white.

Later--

COLBERT: So it sounds to me like you are judging blackness not on the color of someone's skin, but on the content of their character. Which I think realizes Dr. King's dream in a very special way.

Barack Obama's candidacy is going to create a lot of discomfort as we work through these issues again. That Obama's black, far more than that his middle name is Hussein or that he's a moderately liberal Democrat or that he's relatively inexperienced, is going to make it nearly impossible to get elected. He's getting strafed by the Dickersons of the left even while Fox News has set up an entire bureau devoted to slandering him. But what comes out of his candidacy may have some positive results. Maybe we can break out of these ancient boxes.

Incidentally, here's the clip of that Colbert-Dickerson interview.

Sweet Irony

1.
"A federal judge today ordered former Congressman Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) to serve 30 months in prison for accepting gifts, favors and campaign contributions in exchange for official actions, making the six-term congressman the first elected official to be sent to prison in the influence-peddling investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's activities."

2.
"Senate Democrats and Republicans broke a difficult stalemate last night and approved 96 to 2 expansive legislation to curtail the influence of lobbyists, tighten congressional ethics rules and prevent the spouses of senators from lobbying senators and their staffs."

Polarization, An Alternate Definition

Andrew Sullivan quotes Mystery Pollster Mark Blumenthal, whose analysis of post-speech reaction went like this:

Both polls show similarly strong polarization, with most Republicans favoring a troop surge, and most independents and Democrats in opposition.

This is a rather slack-jawed frame, don't you think? Independents and Democrats represent two-thirds of the American public. Some might call that a large majority. The Republicans represent a recalcitrant minority, unable to accept reality and willing to go down with whatever ship George W. Bush captains.

The MSM have created what appears to be one of the most bulletproof memes in politics--that because the Republican core are barking mad and no one else in America agrees with them, this is an example of polarization. Actually, it means that the majority of the country is sane. This apparently excludes the MSM.

(And Blumenthal's a liberal.)

Pelosi in Power; Righties Squeal in Impotent Outrage

How are the newly-ousted righties handling their banishment from the halls of power? With their usual class and grace:

As the sun rises on the United States, the Democrats take over both houses of Congress -- aided in the Senate by an unrepentant socialist, Bernie Sanders, and numerous ideological socialists in the House who run on the Democrat banner....

But at RedState, we intend to fight. We will fight against government largesse, we will fight against Democrats intent on doing to Iraq what they did to Vietnam, and we will fight our own if our own choose to ignore the obvious lessons of 2006.

To the Democrats, we bid you welcome to the majority. And here at RedState, we fight on against you and your socialist cohorts. Oh, and now that you've got one branch of government, we dare you to try to use it without consulting the GOP.

Yes, no doubt consultation with the people who slander them is the first order of Democratic business.

What Goes Around ...

This is probably going to be bad in the long run, but it sure is satisfying to read today:

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively.

Those rules, of course, were passed by Republicans to disenfranchize Democrats, streamline the flow of graft in from K Street, and establish a permanent majority. Oh the irony, the delicious irony!

You'll take my boot on your neck, Republican dogs, and you'll like it!

Christmas Post

[Crossposted from BlueOregon]

Sample story, from the Associated Press: "State funding for arts and culture, essentially an endangered species for the past few years, is poised to make a dramatic comeback in 2007."

Another: "task force appointed by Governor Ted Kulongoski is recommending the Oregon legislature pass bills to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians and to allow civil unions."

While enjoying sleigh rides and sugar plums yesterday, I had a roast-beast-influenced moment of clarity: the age of the politics of personal gain may finally have run its course. These politics, replete with populist rhetoric, first blossomed in the 1980s with Reagan and his morning in America. As political winds shifted, the left's long run of power crashed against the right's new langauage about empowering individuals by shucking off the encroachment of the federal government into people's pocketbooks and religious lives. A decade later, the collapse of the Soviet Union solidified the right's confidence that liberalism--that scourge of woo-woo bleeding heartism--was dead. What emerged through the 90s was a crass, selfish, and harsh Darwinian politics.

One of the largest failures of the current political movement is that, despite all its populist and religious sentiment, at bottom, it feels hollow and bereft. During Christmastime, almost everyone in America participates in the cultural rituals of giving. Whether we're Christian or Buddhist, we begin to think about our loved ones and what we might give that would make them happy. This simple act of thinking of the welfare of others is deeply enriching. Particularly as we age, on Christmas day the joy of unwrapping gifts tends to center more on watching the surprise and pleasure on others' faces rather than the anticipation of our own gifts. In those warm moments, we realize that our happiness is connected to those around us; we give and strangely, we feel fuller.

But folks like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist adopted the opposite strategy: grab as much as you can for yourself and stick it to the other side. This is the free market in action. (It is no surprise that John Calvin, the intellectual father of Puritanism, was also a proponent of individual liberty. In Calvin's prescription, those who were wealthy were favored by God, while the poor demonstrated their damnation. More than a little of this thinking by Christian Conservatives added a harsh, cruel element to GOP rule.) Reagan's rhetorical genius was to make this seem like a noble and hopeful philosophy. The neocons dusted a lot of his old speech off after 9/11, hoping to see the same benefit. But the naked abuse of power by Bush and DeLay may finally have exposed the soullessness of this political philosophy.

The politics of personal gain mean forever identifying enemies and beating them back--gays, athiests, terrorists, illegal aliens, liberals, defeatocrats, environmentalists. There's a logic to this, and it meant the GOP has dictated political discourse for 26 years. But it is also depressing and sad. I think one of the reasons we welcome Christmas is because it gives us a moment to stop and re-orient ourselves toward the benefit of others. It centers us, makes us feel like we understand what's really important. Maybe, finally, we are about to do the same as we consider public policy. In the past, it has led to such non-free-market solutions as urban planning and free beaches--our parents' gifts to us.

Or maybe I just got caught up in the spirit of the season.