Remembering President Kennedy: The Quote we SHOULD all carry with us.

"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future." —John F. Kennedy

Whining the Sequester - Congress realizes there are consequences when it acts

I have two simple questions for all the Senators and Congressmen - mostly Republicans according to the MSM - who are complaining like little girls about the layoffs of FAA air traffic controllers:

1. Why aren't you whining and blubbering about all the OTHER federal workers (Like DoD Civilians) who are also being laid off?  If you can stand to see fewer staffers in the Pentagon, and Department of Interior offices closed in your Districts, why can't you stand air traffic slowdowns?
2. More importantly - what the hell did you think it meant when you wrote and passed a law that said ALL Program, Project and Activity combinations in the federal government shall be reduced by 5%?  You exempted uniformed service members from the cuts - if air traffic controllers were that important you could have exempted them too ya know since you WROTE THE DAMN BILL.

But that's sort of the point about the Sequester - it was meant to be so ugly no one would actually let it happen.  Only the Republican Party has gotten so doctrinaire, and the Democrats so weak kneed to large corporate donors, that the Sequester did, in fact, become real.   Its one of those unintended consequences my friend and fellow blogger Mike Dwyer is always gigging me about (and in this instance he'd be right).

So, stop your bitchin.  You tugged Sally's hair, got caught, and got put in the Time Out corner.  Grow up, grow a pair, and learn to accept that you too, Mr. & Mrs. Congress-critter - you too can fuck up in ways that have real impacts on your constituents, who may be thinking about replacing you anyway because you keep voting against things they support (like universal background checks).

Oh wait, that's almost what I have to say to  my 4 year old when I discipline her (absent the F bomb) - imagine that.

Short Take - WaPo chat on Atheists in Politics

Today's Washington Post website had a really interesting web chat about atheism and politics. I think more such chats (and maybe a few well done probing articles) would accomplish several good things, not the least of which would be mainstream recognition of the importance of atheists in American Politics, as well as the shear numbers of peole who claim little to no religious belief in America. Some of the questioners seem not quite to get it, but I think it was a significant leap forward for a mainstream news outlet in a larger market to do the chat.

American Exceptionalism - the force that begets our downfall as an Exceptional Nation

I hate quoting other bloggers unless I can weave it into a thought parade of my own. Perhaps it's the professor's son in me; more likely its the fact that I started this blog to do real analysis of the world, not just regurgitate the thoughts of others.

In following that path I've slowed of late, as many do. I am intellectually weary of what is going on around me, from the philosophical war against public employees unions that wages in the mid-West to the now three real wars in Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa. I've also come to the conclusion that our political system is tainted, and that, wiht the next Presidential Election expected to cost $1 Billion, We The People are about to witness the unraveling of our cherished and fetished democracy.

SO, to quote Andrew Sullivan:

America's ideals are not unique to America, and America's success led it to the same temptations of great powers since ancient times. America's exceptional freedom and exceptional wealth did not exempt it from unexceptional human nature or the unexceptional laws of history. To believe anything else is to engage in nationalist idolatry. In retrospect, Vietnam was a form of madness brought on by paranoia. In Iraq, America actually presided over 100,000 civilian deaths as it failed to perform even minimal due diligence in invading and occupying another country (while barely a few years later, we invoked - with no irony or even memory - the risk of mass murder as a reason to invade another country). And US forces are still there - and the same alliance that gave us the Libya campaign will surely soon be arguing for extending their presence as the Potemkin democracy slowly collapses. In Afghanistan, the graveyard of so many empires, we are busy sending drones to hit targets with inevitable civilian casualties in a war that has no end, no discernible goal, and has now lasted longer than any war in the country's history. When America finds itself in wars where it can accidentally kill nine children gathering firewood, it seems somewhat abstract to talk uncritically of America's moral superiority. And when America has also crossed the line into legalized torture, and refuses to acknowledge or account for it, let alone hold the war criminals responsible, it has lost the moral standing to dictate human rights to the rest of the world.

Obama had a chance to turn this around.

H/T The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Polarized Politics in DC - finally the Washington Post admits the media are part of the problem (sort of)

AMEN! (emphasis mine)

I'd argue that the climate in Washington is being shaped by an artificial presentation of attitudes on cable TV and talk radio. To view and to listen is to become convinced that there are only two, diametrically opposed philosophical approaches to the issues. And yet, working daily in both mediums, I often think that the only people I meet who see the world entirely through liberal or conservative lenses are the hosts with whom I rub shoulders.

Buying gas or groceries or attending back-to-school nights, I speak to people for whom the issues are a mixed bag; they are liberal on some, conservative on others, middle of the road on the rest. But politicians don't take their cues from those people. No, politicians emulate the world of punditry.

Any sane person, possessing a modicum of analytical reasoning skill knows this. Several liberal and progressive bloggers like myself have been saying thins for a long time. But to see it in the conservative love fest that is the Op-Ed section of the Post is both refreshing, and disconcerting.

Refreshing in that the Obama bashing that the writers of opinion there (All supposedly liberals except Charles Krathammer) engage in daily has done nothing to move the country along to a better path. This has the potential to change that, in as much as admitting you have a problem is the first step to addressing it.

Disconcerting in that politics, and politicians, are most likely to now ignore the conclusions the author brings to the table, because these conclusions do not serve the politician as overlord-centric world view that many of them hold. If the media points out that politicians in DC are in an information bubble, fed a corrosive diet of distorted mis-information, then the politicians become nothing more then puppets for the interests that control those media (GE, anyone?). And no self-respecting national politician will ever admit to being a puppet.

All of which leaves more elected officials beholden to the fringe elements of their parties, which in turn means less gets done. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is robbing our televisions and radios of the substantive dialogue the country desperately needs, while leaving our politics a petty and unproductive mess.

Sadly, though, Mr. Smerconish leaves off just as the "gettin' gets good." There's no witty rejoined to his media colleagues about ways to pull back. No forceful directive to we, the viewers as to how best to pull out of the death spiral. No politically savvy homecoming speech to the politicians that will invite them to break the trend and buck back to the political center where many Americans still vainly live.

And that's an equally troubling problem with political commentary today. Glenn Greenwald, one of the progressive bloggers I most respect, is guilty of the same thing. Yes, you have pointed out a serious flaw that exists in the way we as a nation conduct our business. Yes, you've made that flaw personal for each of us. But what the bloody hell do you think we should do about it?

In a day and age where sound bites rule our lives, and two or three generations of Americans keep people they know and love up to date in 140 characters, does Mr. Smerconish really believe that the reader of the Post will have the first clue how to deal with this media driven forced polarization? Couldn't he have thrown in a short, three sentence paragraph at least hinting at the answer?

Since he couldn't, I will. Turn off the TV. Put Rush in his place by switching to baseball. Write electronic letters to the editor (it doesn't take any longer then composing a good email). Email their ombudsman. Attend media sponsored public fora, and don't take No for an answer at the mike.

And for heaven's sake, WRITE EMAILS TO YOUR POLITICIANS! They are all looking for some political shield to hide behind in doing their work, and if they have 10,000 constituent emails to hide behind (since they all want to get re-elected), its easier for them to take on BP, GE and the like.

oh, and least I forget -

GO VOTE!

What's in a Tea Party?

From a comment in Glenn Greenwald's post today on erosion of U.S. Citizen rights, comes a link that took me to this:

So are the Tea Partiers ordinary people with no political leanings, as they say they are? Definitely not. The findings cited above and other data in the polls indicate that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly stocked with Republican supporters. They are by no means "ordinary people," although the public's perception that they are is one of their strongest suits.

Are they just economic conservatives then? The Winston survey tells us much about Tea Partiers‟ economic views, and the "Contract from America" released on April 14, 2010 focuses on taxes, federal spending, and big government. But if you Google the questionnaires that local Tea Parties send to candidates, you will almost always find more than questions about these issues. You will often discover inquiries about religion as well (e.g., Do you support school prayer? Do you recognize God‟s place in America?). And often there are questions about abortion and gay marriage and teaching Creation Science in public schools. And you run into queries about gun control, law and order, and immigration. So while Tea Partiers overwhelmingly take conservative economic stands, which bind them together most, many seem to be strong "social conservatives" as well. Local groups often speak of wanting only "pure
conservatives" or "100 percent" conservatives as candidates.

Corporate Campaign Financing - the Supreme Court opens the floodgates (to Hell?)

Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court that corporations can no longer be restricted in spending on political campaigns should come as no surprise – for two very related reasons.

First, corporations enjoy a unique legal status – that of discrete persons.

“Corporations gained personhood through aggressive court maneuvers culminating in an 1886 Supreme Court case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific. Until then, only We the People were protected by the Bill of Rights, and the governments the people elected could regulate corporations as they wished. But with personhood, corporations steadily gained ways to weaken government restraints on their behavior—and on their growth. After steady progress over the decades, they made huge strides in the 1970s through Supreme Court rulings that awarded them Fourth Amendment safeguards against warrantless regulatory searches, Fifth Amendment double jeopardy protection, and the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. These blunted the impact of the Clean Air Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Act, which were enacted to protect workers, consumers, and the environment.

They also won court battles that awarded them First Amendment guarantees of political speech, commercial speech, and the negative free speech right not to be associated with the speech of others. On the surface, when the big corporations and We the People have the same rights, they are equal, and the playing field is level. But disparities of scale tip the field toward the corporations at a steep pitch. If a nation-sized corporation with its huge treasury and squadrons of lawyers wants to exercise its free speech rights in a shouting match with a citizen who is exercising her or his free speech rights, can this be a fair fight? “

This long legal record clearly shows that, once America decided that an individual human and Exxon were equivalent under the law for certain rights, it became ever easier for the corporations to gain ever more influence. Thus, contrary to what some commenters are already saying, the ruling striking down the campaign finance restrictions are not unprecedented. Just as the Supreme Court could be expected to grant broad speech rights to actual humans, it must also grant those same (or VERY, VERY similar rights) to the legal persons known as corporations.

Second, the current Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority made up of justices who were put in place by pro-corporation Republican Presidents. Time and again, they have stood up for corporations, and in effect said that what’s good for these behemoths is good for ordinary persons too. So if anyone really expected this Court to rule another way, they need a long vacation so as to reconnect with reality.

More to the point, however, is the question of how Democrats will ever again be able to accomplish anything politically in this country. If you really think about what Democrats (and many Progressives) want to push as part of the political agenda, those issues are anathema to corporations. Does anyone really believe that, freed from the campaign finance restrictions, we won’t now see issue and attack ads from Insurance companies, or coal companies, or vehicle companies all designed to preserve our too big to fail, too stupid to succeed corporate culture? Will Bank of America now wade into Congressional fights and seek to punish those that spoke out against them during the bailout process?

UPDATE:
And here's a direct question for my conservative interlocutors: How is what the Supreme Court did yesterday DIFFERENT then the "judicial activism" that judges appointed by Democratic Presidents are accused of?

The Climate Crisis in Pictures - bury your Propaganda!

If you are an oil company tyring to fight claims that you are contributing to the global climate crisis, make sure your propaganda from the 1960's is well hidden. Otherwise, please go sit quietly in the corner and take a time out.

Currently reading (And nearly finished)

I'll probably post a review this weekend.

Another voice on Afghanistan - who makes sense!

What he said!

Healthcare Reform - The People Speak, but no one is listening

While I don’t like to get too steeped in analyzing polling data, these recent questions from CBS News on the healthcare debate fascinate me. I'm especially drawn to this one:

"Which of the following three statements comes closest to expressing your overall view of the health care system in the United States? (1) On the whole, the health care system works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better. OR, (2) There are some good things in our health care system, but fundamental changes are needed. OR, (3) Our health care system has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it."



While the chart shows the most recent data closest to the Y or vertical axis, as opposed to farther away, its clear that for nearly all of 2009, 48 or more percent of Americans want Fundamental Change in our system, and over 50% have wanted it since the end of August, when the debate began to heat up again. So for the Senate to say that there is no groundswell of support for a fundamental overhaul of the nations healthcare system is to IGNORE the will of the majority of Americans. When you add in those who think the healthcare system needs Complete Rebuilding, you get:

Now call me nuts, but to get to those numbers you need Republicans, Democrats and Independents. And if consistently more then 70% of your citizens say you need to make either Fundamental Changes or Completely Rebuild, and you don’t, then what kind of leader are you?

The failures of Democratic "Leadership" In America

George Carlin was, like all truly genius comics, an astute observer of humanity. He was particularly good at observing Americans, and the fact that we will never again see a live performance of “The Five Things You Can’t Say on TV” is sad (though we can now say most of those things).

Carlin’s irreverent take on our society came to my mind as I was standing in the Buffalo airport last night, waiting to board a flight to Baltimore after dropping off my older daughters with their mother. There, on CNN, were yet another set of talking heads, rambling on about how the latest polling shows that Democrats are sagging in terms of respect for their “leadership.” While I couldn’t actually hear the words over our boarding announcement, I think they were discussing this poll, which shows that between 53% and 54% of Americans disapprove of how Democrats are "leading" in Congress.

Now I’m sure the very bright talking heads on CNN had good things to say about why, nine months into the Obama Presidency, Democrats are “falling” so fast. And I’m sure, sometime today, we’ll see something that will make them look . . . less bad . . . for a few minutes. The reality, however, for the Progressives and Liberals who banded together to create this ruling coalition, is that we’re back to losing the war, and losing it very quickly.

See, the Democrats have run squarely AWAY from the best traditions of true liberal politics, and into the sickening embrace of the oligarchs who currently fund today's political activities. Democratic national leaders (and their sycophantic talking head media “spokespeople”) have left behind the true caring for the less fortunate that motivated Johnson’s Great Society. Democratic “leaders” have run away from the prophetic wisdom of Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement, embracing instead what Professor Cornell West rightly dubs an imperial nihilism that seeks dominion and money over true Democracy and real freedom (both personal and economic as well as democratic). In short, Democrats have abandoned the long list of their accomplishments – all of which came from the best liberal traditions and all of which stood once in stark contrast to the conservative ideals supposedly championed by Republicans (but from whihc they are also running in search of mammon).

And so the poll numbers show it. Americans may well be dissatisfied with how the healthcare debate is going, and with the fact that we as a nation tortured people under the color of our national “security,” but I would argue that the dissatisfaction runs deeper. As a nation, we’ve bought into the dream that our Democracy will be, and once was, a debate between two opposing sides where policy flowed from the side that made the best, most realistic, case – but also tugged at our souls.

Professor West, in his seminal work Democracy Matters calls us to attend to this malaise, which he posits derives from the twin challenges of that imperial nihilism, and the distractions that are heaped on us to ensure that we, the People, do not notice how badly we’re being screwed by our own politicians. Republican "Culture Wars" that purport to take on abortion, gay marriage, and pre-marital sex are fine examples. After all, in the six years Republicans ruled both the White House and Congress from 2001 through 2007, not one Bill was passed overturning Roe vs. Wade, in spite of dozens of speeches to the Base about its supposed evils.

West notes that this psychic division is most pronounced in our youth, where the real roots of rap and hip-hop (protests of the still oppressive African American condition) are all but lost in the marketing that emphasizes gangstas rolling around in flashy cars with nearly nude women (with no references to overcoming adversity thorugh hard work in the face of real oppression). West believes that the solution to this is Socratic questioning of everyone and everything, and he’s partially right.

We do need to question more, both the assumptions that we make daily, and the drivel that is heaped upon us that passes for journalism. Glenn Greenwald does an inestimable job of this; Tavis Smiley and Bill Moyers are also strong voices crying out against the oligarchs of our day.

But we must do more, and we can do better. Democrats have always failed in their knee-jerk “I don’t want to be the unpopular kid” attempts to become Republicans. We can’t do it, nor should we waste our energy trying. If the current healthcare “reform” debate has shown us anything, it’s that we’ll never win by trying to co-opt the other side.

So let’s stop. Let’s take the Socratic questioning, and ask sternly what America has to gain from Republican efforts to stall real reform. Then let’s embrace our prophetic vision, and reclaim the Left side of the aisle as the place where America’s best moments and most enduring ideals are housed.

Or, let’s just keep our heads down and our voices quiet. Then George Carlin will have been all too right about us:

America has no now. We’re reluctant to acknowledge the present. It’s too embarrassing.

Instead, we reach into the past. Our culture is composed of sequels, reruns, remakes, revivals, reissues, re-releases, re-creations, re-enactments, adaptations, anniversaries, memorabilia, oldies radio, and nostalgia record collections. World War II has been refought on television so many times, the Germans and the Japanese are now drawing residuals.

Of course, being essentially full of S%&$, we sometimes feel the need to dress up this past pre-occupation, as with pathetic references to reruns as “encore presentations.”

We owe it to ourselves, clearly and simply, to see that Carlin’s word do not become the epitaph by which our nation is remembered.

The Democratic Party's Next Challenge

Glenn is right about one thing - if we don't support primary challeneges, we're all saying we are ok with things the way they are. I'm not ok, are you?

On Republicans and Family Values - Mr. gingrich, tear down that wall!

With the admission by South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford that he has been having an affair with a “dear, dear friend” from Argentina, the Republican Party and their conservative supporters have once again failed the morality test. The revelations of similar conduct last week by Senator Ensign, coupled with the past transgressions of Senator Vitter and Senator Craig should point out to the Republican Party that it has both an image problem, and a far more pernicious but less notice action problem.

The image problem is simple – after spending most of the last two decades railing against the loss of “family values,” Republicans have now lost any moral high ground from which to attack Democrats. Sure, many still rail against Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinski, but they at least managed to impeach him over his subsequent conduct. That he was found not guilty in that proceeding is often overlooked. Now, however, we’ve had four senior Republicans rolled out in the last two years as unfaithful within the context of a “traditional” marriage, thus betraying one of the “family values” – the sanctity of that marriage between a man and a woman – which they so fervently howl over.

That veil lifting leads to problem number two – a lack of action, or actions in contradiction to rhetoric. To begin with, none of the Republicans in question were forced to resign much of anything – though voters did take care of Mr. Craig on their own. Mr. Vitter remains in office, but Louisiana politics are extreme at best, so I am not really surprised. It remains to be seen what happen to Mr. Ensign and Mr. Sanford, but I won’t hold my breath. None of these folks resigned publically, and no one from within their own party has called for their resignations, though they easily could on grounds of moral turpitude. None of them has been impeached either.

So, if the Republicans came to me and asked for advice, I’d tell them this: Hold a national caucus with all the Governors, Senators, and Congressmen. Give them one chance to come clean with their fellow Republicans, and then resign voluntarily from their posts. If they don’t then don’t give them a single dime in their next election. Don’t let Republican Political Action Committees give them a single dime either, or buy issue or attack ads. Make it perfectly clear to subsequent candidates that this won’t be tolerated.

Then, go to Capitol Hill and introduce meaningful legislation that addresses real threats to real family values. Put out a healthcare reform alternative that protects children and family budgets by making healthcare (particularly primary and preventive care) both available and affordable to all. Pass federal legislation to curb both the need for and the devastating effects of divorce. This is a public health and economics issue that affects the entire country and reform should come from the federal level. Strengthen environmental laws that ensure clean air, water, and sustainable use of earth’s natural resources, so individual families no longer have to witness the devastating effects of pollutants on their kids.

And tell twice divorced (due to affairs) Newt Gingrich to take a hike.

The root of the torture defense - the Republican Culture Wars?

Much has lately been written about the American understanding of, and response to, the actions of the Bush (43) administration, as well as Mr. Obama’s not quite full record in keeping his promises. I won’t rehash what is already on the books, so to speak. Readers interested in my views are certainly invited to browse the blog entries below.

So today, running through my morning blogroll, I was really blown away by Stephanie Z over at Almost Diamonds. This is one of the longest non-fiction posts I’ve seen from this prolific writer in a while, and I read all the way through it. I highly encourage you to do the same.

In a nutshell, Stephanie points out that, as often as not, debates about rules and laws are really debates about cultures, societies, and the definition of “us” and “them.” She weaves this meme together very nicely, citing everything from internment of Japanese Americans to the Bush torture debates. At the end, she notes in what may be her most important paragraph (FWIW) that increasing numbers and kinds of rules, which supposedly further the divide between groups or culture, are also increasingly resource intensive. A very fine closing.

Having read it, I think I am beginning to see the torture debate in much sharper, and perhaps more sinister focus. If, as Stephanie suggests, this debate about the “legality” of the torture actions by that Administration is really a mask for a cultural debate, it makes more sense why the “Law & Order” Republicans are so hung up on excusing law breaking by their highest elective officials. It would also explain why so many former Bush Administration folks are so prominently attacking Mr. Obama these days.

Think about it – the Republican/conservative culture wars have gone on for almost three decades by my shallow count. In that time, we’ve seen conservative commentators and politicians over and over again trot out an “Us vs. them” meme – whether on abortion, gay rights, the economy, or the Iraq war. That latter was, in my view, one of the worst culture war episodes, with the Vice President essentially calling me a traitor to the U.S. because I saw no strategic value in attacking a country that hadn’t attacked us (using trumped up evidence to boot).

Of course the great irony in the culture wars is there is a lot of enflaming of the “Base” with little follow on action. And I do have to wonder if this current rearguard reaction to the call for torture prosecutions will play out the same way. After all, if the Republicans could, for six years, have majorities in the House and Senate, and a willing President in the White House without passing a single Abortion banning bill, how can they really expect to hold off legal action if in fact they broke the law with regard to torture?

Obviously, I need to ruminate over this a lot more to fully see if Stephanie’s meme leads in this direction. Until I’m done though, I just want to say thanks – you made me think, which made my day.

Big political news - Spector switches parties

So, the WaPo is reporting that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector is switching party affiliation prior to his reelection bid in 2010. I am sure more details will follow, but for now I think there are two key considerations to ponder here.

first, how can Republicans continue to claim that they are an antidote to Democratic policies if they keep loosing (either through lost elections or party defections) their more moderate (and thus sensible) politicians?

Second, if the Democrats get a 60 seat majority, will that really change things? Harry Reid will still be the Senate majority leader, and I am not sure that his effectiveness will increase if he knows he can get cloture.

So, while I go to lunch - its your turn. What do you think this will do for national politics? Pennsylvania politics?

UPDATE: One thing this brings to mind is that without a credible third party on the national scene, politicians often have to do things like this as their political beliefs change over the years, or their supporting demographic changes at home. Another thing it brings to mind is how much we need complete public financing of elections, so who you figuratively owe what to for financial support isn't an issue.

Glenn Greenwald on Democratic complicity and what "politicizing justice" really means

As Usual, Glenn Greenwald makes an excellent point about the torture debate. Sadly, until the vast majority of Americans are clearly shown how this affects them, he and I are probably still tilting at windmills.

UPDATE: Mark Danner's piece in the Sunday WAPO makes for a compelling companion to Glenn's. Both are correct - we as a nation cannot ignore this assault on our basic principles.

This just in - Make sure you pay your taxes

If the AP report on MSNBC is correct, firms taking taxpayer funded TARP money owe the U.S. government 0.02% of that fund in back taxes. Yep, you heard that right, TARP recipients owe back taxes. And they all had to sign certifications saying they didn't in order to get their funds in the first place.

Two thoughts spring to mind. First, will the Republicans who have sunk so many Democratic nominees over tax issues holler as loudly about this? Me thinks not. And second, will this be the "smoking gun" that will finally open criminal investigations into the very companies who willfully and gleefully took our economy into the tank in the name of short term profits? After all, Al Capone got sent up for tax issues . . . .

Mr. Obama fails to restore civil lilberties

Glenn Greenwald is right - and it makes me sick. For A Democrat to do this . . . .

How Chas Freeman got me skinned

Thanks to my colleague Mike at The Big Stick, I’ve been reading some very interesting conservative and progressive blogs of late. I can’t say I always agree with what they write, but they write well, they are open to comments from seeming all sorts of people, and I think if the Republican Party can harness a few of them, then in 4 years Republicans might be a coherent opposition party again.

So I was interested yesterday when Megan McArdle took up the Chas Freeman Affair in her blog. She started by exerpting an Article from Foreign Policy:

David Rothkopf of Foreign Policy: “Financial trivia, minutiae from people's personal lives and political litmus tests have grown in importance while character, experience, intelligence, creativity and wisdom have fallen by the wayside.”

Then, perhaps forgetting that as a conservative she’s supposed to always rail against Democratic policies and politicians, she made this entirely reasonable point about how Mr. Freeman’s opposition had worked it’s magic:

Megan McArdle: “This new tradition of bulldogging every appointee in the hope of embarrassing the president has to stop. We should be focusing on whether or not the nominee can do the job, not whether there is some small breach of an onerous regulation in his history that can possibly be dug up. It feels good in the short term, but when ability to find a native-born nanny becomes a more important qualification for the presidential candidate than experience relevant to the job to be done, it's time for a national rethink.

While I may not agree with Ms. McArdle’s politics, I heartily agree with her assessment of the appointment process. Her commenters, however, took the opportunity to heap on as much spin as they could, to somehow deflect the fact that, when all is said and done, even Washington Post columnists think AIPAC gave MR. Freeman the shaft. So, 26 comments later, I said this:

Sadly, you have all missed the iceberg here. Mr. Freeman wasn't sunk because of these things, he was sunk because he speaks regularly and forcefully against current U.S. policy regarding Israel. Gleen Greenwald has the latest on his blog. All the things mentioned above were part of an organized campaign to discredit Mr. Freeman, without directly attacking him on this key issue. That it succeeded, and is intellecually dishonest at best, speaks volumes about the sad state of American foreign policy.
Posted by Philip H. March 11, 2009 1:29 PM

Not content to attack Ms. McArdle, they began to fire at me:

So, Philip H., what you're saying is that it's okay to be on the Saudi payroll, support the crushing at Tiananmen Square, and support the US Army firing on the Bonus Army veterans, so long as Jews oppose you? Would you have opposed Mr. Freeman on the basis of those other things if only AIPAC and the Jews hadn't been involved? Sure, I'm upset that enough other people don't seriously care about that horrific statement about the Bonus Army, about being on Saudi payroll, or about Tiananmen Square. That doesn't make me support Mr. Freeman just because I think not enough people are opposing him for the right reasons. In any case, your theory may be wrong anyway. Newsweek's sources claim that Speaker Pelosi's opposition came about because of Tiananmen Square. Of course, the Speaker and Newsweek could just be lying too...
Posted by John Thacker March 11, 2009 1:49 PM

Would if that were all true, but it isn’t. As has been noted by numerous bloggers and journalists, there is no Chinese or Tibetan human rights group on record as opposing the Freeman nomination. Nor is there any quote available anywhere from anyone who works on Chinese foreign policy and analysis that says anything bad about Mr. Freeman. What Mr. Freeman was saying, and said repeatedly, is that the Chinese government should have acted sooner to resolve the issue, whether by force or by negotiations. He never makes the case that what the Chinese did was right, just that it was done too late so that the Chinese governement had fewer choices in how to respond.

As to the Saudi payroll contention – if it’s perfectly acceptable for Republican officials to go back and forth through the revolving door of K Street lobbying firms (many of whom are also paid by the Saudi’s as well as other foreign countries), why is it not ok for Mr. Freeman?

Then I made the mistake of trying to bring this back to being a process argument, as Ms. McArdle intended her blog to be:

All, i'm not saying anything that other Atlantic Authors aren't saying. Railroading a guy out of public service because you don't like what he says is ok by me - so long as you are HONEST about it. Hiding behind supposed tax issues (unproven), or speeches (misquoted) on one subject when you really object for other reasons is LYING. That's where my problem exists.
Posted by Philip H March 11, 2009 3:21 PM

From that point, I was dismissed using many classic conservative approaches. First, I was accused of having some sort of God-like ability to discern motives which other commenters supposedly lacked (as if it is hard to fathom what AIPAC’s motive might be). This is called an ad hominum attack, BTW:

Philip H., where did you purhcase your finely calibrated motive-o-meter, which allows you to peer into the souls of people who you don't know, and thus unerringly discern the real reasons all the critics of Freeman have for opposing his appointment to this job?
Does everyone say stupid things at some times in their life? Sure. We aren't talking about some off the cuff remarks at a cocktail party here, however. We are talking about scheduled interviews, in which there was plenty of time to antcipate the questions that would be asked, and then WERE asked. To anaswer in a manner which suggests you have had a psychotic episode does not engender confidence.
Posted by Will Allen March 11, 2009 3:53 PM

Then, even though I’m trying to focus on the process by which all this was handled, the bus is backed over me because I haven’t said whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Freeman (which is irrelevant to whether he was dealt with fairly and honestly and evaluated on the credentials he would bring to the table):

so long as you are HONEST about it. Hiding behind supposed tax issues (unproven), or speeches (misquoted) on one subject when you really object for other reasons is LYING. That's where my problem exists.
Take it up with Newsweek and Speaker Pelosi, then, as they insist that her (very important) opposition was about China. They're liars, too?
But if that's where your problem exists, fine. Just answer one way or the other, Philip H. Aside from all the "opponents were motivated by the wrong reason" crap, and your allegations that they wouldn't care if someone on their team made his other statements, do you think his statements on Tiananmen and the Bonus Army were disqualifying? Do you at least disagree with them?
Posted by John Thacker March 11, 2009 4:11 PM

Finally, I am dismissed with a backhanded . . . compliment . . . . that what I’ve actually written is satire. I suppose one could argue that most political discussion these days is satire at one level or another, but clearly this is another attempt to move away from my central process thesis:

Aren't a lot of you missing Philip H.'s point? Do you really think he means to be taken at face value? He's written some pretty good satire there, and the uncertainty as to whether it really is satire only makes it better.
Posted by Bambi March 11, 2009 4:19 PM

Quite the ringer. How I managed to get away from being accused of being shrill is beyond me. Here’ the thing – Walter Pincus made the very point I was making in his article in today’s Washington Post. To quote Pincus:

For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," spokesman Josh Block said.

But Block responded to reporters' questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: "As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background."

All I was trying to get at is this – if you are the official, employed spokesman for a political action committee, as Josh Block is, and you tell everyone that the PAC you work for has no official position even as you are meeting off the record with various journalists who grant you anonymity in exchange for the real thinking of your organization; and that thinking goes against the public statements of your organization, then you are lying. That’s one of the major reasons why our national political discourse is so broken. It is one of the things that needs to be fixed. And there is nothing satirical about my belief in this regard.

UPDATE:

Apparently I'm not the only one with the view that this is bad . . . . . .