romney unplugged

(original artwork by alex ross)

fox news:

bill o'reilly: i don't understand what the controversy is. i think mr. romney should campaign on this point. if i'm governor romney, i run with this all day long.

sean hannity: it is romney unplugged as the GOP presidential nominee delivers one of his sharpest critiques yet of president obama and the entitlement society that he enables.

stuart varney: i think this will be seen as a win for romney.

pollster nate silver @ fivethirtyeight:

after a secretly recorded videotape was released on sept. 17 showing mitt romney making unflattering comments about the "47 percent" of americans who he said had become dependent on government benefits, i suggested on twitter that the political impact of the comments could easily be overstated.

"ninety percent of 'game-changing' gaffes are less important in retrospect than they seem in the moment," i wrote.

... since then, however, mr. obama has gained further ground in the polls. as of thursday, he led in the popular vote by 5.7 percentage points in the "now-cast," a gain of 1.6 percentage points since mr. romney's remarks became known to the public.

it's hard to tell whether this recent gain for mr. obama reflects the effect of the "47 percent" comments specifically. but the most typical pattern after a party convention is that a candidate who gains ground in the polls cedes at least some of it back.

instead, the more pertinent question seems not whether mr. obama is losing ground, but whether he is still gaining it.

... what we can say with more confidence is that mr. romney is now in a rather poor position in the polls.

... the overall story line, however, is fairly clear: mr. romney is at best holding ground in the polls, and quite possibly losing some, at a time when he needs to be gaining it instead. further, it's increasingly implausible for mr. romney to attribute the numbers to temporary effects from the democratic convention. mr. obama's probability of winning the electoral college advanced to 83.9 percent in the nov. 6 forecast, up from 81.9 percent on wednesday.

pea-shooter 1, blimp 0

the best line from friday's much anticipated and overly hyped capitol hill sudden-death cage match bipartisan health care reform summit was president obama's response to house minority whip eric cantor, with a gratuitous assist by the daily show's jon stewart:

obama: we could set up a system where food was probably cheaper than it is right now, if we just eliminated ... meat inspectors.

absolutely effortless. like taking down a blimp with a pea-shooter.

losing ≠ tyranny

mark levin:	there is a road to tyranny, and i believe we're headed on that road ...
glenn beck:	fascism is coming!
unidentified:	intimidation is yet another part of the slow erosion of our liberties.
mark levin:	they want the population to surrender their liberties to the government ...
yaron brook:	you're in very dangerous water to the freedoms that exist in this country.
glenn beck:	and controlling your life ... !
michelle bachman:	i believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service ... and the real concern is that there are provisions for what i would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward ...
sean hannity:	keep it up, congresswoman, you're doing a great job, and, uh, i have no doubt that they will keep attacking you 'cause you're so effective. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it.
michelle bachman:	thank you, we're gonna fight for our freedom!
sean hannity:	absolutely — against tyranny!

jon stewart:

yes, tyranny! a.k.a. our democratically elected president. it — y'know what, guys? meet — meet me at camera three very quickly ... ... i think you might be confusing tyranny ... with losing! and i feel for you because, uh ... i've been there. a few times in fact. and one of them was a bit of a nail-biter. but see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. he could cut taxes on the wealthy, remove government's oversight capability, uhh ... invade a country that you though should not be invaded, but ... that's not tyranny! that's democracy. see, now you're in the minority. it's supposed to taste like a shit taco! and by the way, if i remember correctly, when disagreement was expressed about that president's actions when y'all were in power, i believe the response was: "why do you hate america?!" "watch what you say!" "love it or leave it!" "suck on my truck nuts!"

aye, there's the rub

stephen colbert picks apart ben nelson, the last man standing of the democratic senators who still support the war in iraq:

colbert:	how, uh — how would you change the game plan in iraq?
nelson:	what we would do is transition the mission. ah, and that would include taking the combat troops out of fighting the civil war — or the sectarian violence, as you choose — ah, and redeploy them into certain areas. fighting al qaeda is one of them, in al anbar and all over. i think we have al qaeda on the run ...
colbert:	so you wouldn't withdraw them? ... so you wouldn't, wouldn't withdraw them?
nelson:	... wouldn't be withdrawing —
colbert:	why wouldn't you withdraw them?
nelson:	— them. we wouldn't, wouldn't withdraw ... we wouldn't try to micromange the war. you would just change the mission. you'd also, ah, redeploy the troops to the, ah, to the borders, to protect the borders in case ...
colbert:	but what if the president doesn't want to do that?
nelson:	well ... that's the problem. the president doesn't want to do that.

hmm ... yes, that would be a bit of problem, now wouldn't it, ben?

without overlooking the illogic in ...

(a) nelson's cutely-alliterative "transition the mission" game plan, which sounds less like a strategy for victory than another attempt to find busywork for keeping the overstretched troops in iraq and

(b) his argument against withdrawal, which he frames as "micromanaging the war" (while eloquently borrowing one of the republicans' favorite talking points). but wouldn't withdrawal unequivocably end our involvement in the quagmire, thereby leaving us nothing to "micromanage" ... ? doh!

... i want to applaud this comedian for confronting nelson with the grand conceit afflicting all the armchair generals who think they have the grand strategy for iraq (even if they do).

and that grand conceit is this: that their plans mean squat if the commander-guy isn't going to implement them. so what's the point of supporting this war one day longer if it's never going to be waged in the way that you think will win it?

i've been carping on this point for a while:

unfortunately (and i do say this with the utmost respect to all those who have been applying the necessary brain-power and wisdom that's been heretofore lacking in this debate) all these plans represent nothing more than idle academic masturbation. they're all quite pointless. and that's why you'll find no trademarked and patented "aarrgghh plan" on this site. because unless the first step in your grand strategy reads:

my grand strategy for iraq by carping know-it-all 1) remove george bush and dick cheney from office.

... then your plan is nothing but toilet paper. because unless you're willing to let events continue to spiral for at least another two years, george bush will give your precious plan all the due consideration he gave to the over-anticipated iraq study group report — that is, as steve gilliard remarked, he'll "wipe his ass" with it. which leaves us with only one plan — the only one that matters — the kagan plan, more fondly known as "the surge" ...

it's a point that i've been taking to other blogs:

probably the biggest conceit of those cheerleading the "surge", whatever their particular reasons, is the illusion that getting one more bite of the apple means that the occupation will be finally getting it right this time, whatever that ultimately means. the surge, they insist, will work as long as [fill in your personal cure-all here ], and as long as we give it time. the reality of course is that the surge cheerleaders are not in charge. they're not going to get the chance to run the type of surge they think will finally produce that pony. the folks in charge are the same criminals, starting with the commander-guy, responsible for the mess-o'-potamia, and they really don't care what anyone else thinks. and they certainly won't be applying [ your personal cure-all ] to the problem. it's been oft said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, but the real insanity of supporting this escalation is expecting the same idiots, with such a record of failure, to do anything different. nothing will change as long as they are in charge. which means either another year and a half before even preparing for withdrawal — or impeachment now.

unfortunately, as long as fantasists like nelson remain in congress, this will be a point i'll have to keep jabbing in people's eyes for the foreseeable future. at least somebody with a megaphone is finally helping out.

why jack bauer always gets his man

now i know justice antonin scalia has a great love for theatrics, but his recent use of a fictional tv character, tough guy government agent jack bauer of the popular series 24 (which i will disclose that i've never watched), to enthusicastically bolster his justification for torture as a crime-fighting tool, has left me wondering if the good judge has any sense at all of the profound irony he's just fallen victim to. (though in the classic use of irony the victim is always oblivious to his predicament — irony is the writer's gift to the reader.)

in fact, if i may allow myself to appropriate a tv personality of my own, it was the daily show's host jon stewart who remarked, in his report on the graceless exit of former deputy secretary of state randall tobias, a casualty of this spring's dc madam scandal, that "there is nothing the administration can do that is not ironic."

the globe and mail: senior judges from north america and europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a canadian judge's passing remark — "thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'what would jack bauer do?'" — got the legal bulldog in judge scalia barking. the conservative jurist stuck up for agent bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "jack bauer saved los angeles. ... he saved hundreds of thousands of lives," judge scalia said. then, recalling season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved california from a terrorist nuke, the supreme court judge etched a line in the sand. "are you going to convict jack bauer?" judge scalia challenged his fellow judges. "say that criminal law is against him? 'you have the right to a jury trial?' is any jury going to convict jack bauer? i don't think so. "so the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. and ought we believe in these absolutes."

what should disturb everyone is that scalia takes import from the fact that jack bauer wins. jack bauer always gets his man. he saved california, fer chrissakes!!! and jack wins because he's willing to torture. it is of course the classic "ends justifies the means" argument, and disappointingly, not a particularly sophisticated example, considering that its source is supposed to be one of the smartest jurists in the country.

but how can scalia credit jack's willingness to torture for jack's success when the reality is that — and here is where the irony i so subtly foreshadowed kicks in — as a fictional character, jack's success or failure has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of anything he does but instead depends entirely on the desires of his scriptwriters!

the reality is that jack bauer has never saved anything or anybody. he's not real. bauer wins because the scriptwriters want him to. likewise, torture works only because the scriptwriters want it to.

in america's fight against terrorists, we don't need jack bauer. what this country needs are his scriptwriters.

torture has perhaps saved some at the expense of honour, by uncovering 30 bombs. but at the same time it has created 50 new terrorists. — albert camus

groundhog day

yes, america, you can stop pinching yourself, this, unfortunately, is not a bad dream. as you know — to paraphrase secretary of defense donald rumsfeld — you get to relive the past you have, not the past you might want or wish to have at a later time.

april 11, 2003: rumsfeld addressing the press regarding the growing alarm over the continuing violence in iraq:

i picked up a newspaper today ... and i couldn't believe it. i read eight headlines that talked about "chaos!" "violence!" "unrest!" and it was just henny penny, "the sky is falling!" i've never seen anything like it ...

those pesky newspapers — just a bunch of noisy old ladies. chaos? violence? unrest? puh-leez!

and we all know how that so-called chaos, violence and unrest never materialized, don't we?

now fast forward three years later to the very same day ...

april 11, 2006: rumsfeld addressing the press regarding the growing alarm over a preemptive nuclear strike against iran:

you know, someone comes up with an idea ... runs it in a magazine or a paper, other papers pick it up and reprint it, editorialists then say: "oh, henny penny, the sky is falling!" and opine on this and opine on that ...

those pesky newspapers ...

i just can't wait for april 11, 2009. assuming we're all still here, of course.

hat tip to crooks and liars; video courtesy of jon stewart's the daily show.

why ann coulter isn't funny

(cross-posted at daily kos)

i wrote the following after reading michael kalin's op-ed piece "why jon stewart isn't funny" in friday's boston globe. i found his piece intriguing, but thought it could use just a wee bit of tweaking, so i decided to tighten up his essay. i'm sure he won't mind.

(note: non-subscribers may view kalin's article by logging-in as dkos@dailykos.com with the password dailykos.)

why ann coulter isn't funny not by michael kalin  |  march 4, 2006 the selection of ann coulter as the host for february's annual conservative political action conference undoubtedly marks a career milestone for the aspiring queen of drive-by punditry. unfortunately, however, the ascension of coulter and her hate-speak into the public eye is no laughing matter. coulter's ever-increasing popularity among young angry white males directly correlates with the declining rationality of conservative thought in america. coincidence? i think not. let me explain. meet the young college republican, a not-fictional-enough composite of the typical apostle of ann coulter. born just outside richville, he attended silver spoon high school where he played an integral role in buying the school's debate championship. his doctored 3.8 grade point average and dubious array of extracurricular activities earned him a scholarship to bob jones university, where he majored in political science and enjoyed toilet-papering jewish synagoges. throughout his formal education, the young college republican stayed up-to-date on national politics through a steady diet of right-wing talk radio and even led a petition to protest the appearance of michael moore at cannes. many of coulter's die-hard supporters might use this persona as proof that her little black dresses engage sexually-frustrated viewers who otherwise could not be reached. this argument, however, fails to consider the ultimate career path of the young college republican: upon graduation in 2004, he accepted a prestigious job as a blogger at pajamaline media. and as he bloviates on washington's daily political squabbles, the young college republican gives a significant annual contribution to the k street project. the irony of this portrait is not that blogging corrupts young souls (although one could argue otherwise), but rather that the young college republicans who adopt politics out of a craven self-preservation often represent our country's most hypocritical minds. coulter's daily dose of political polemics characterized by puerile epithets leads to a "holier than art thou" attitude toward national service in iraq. people who possess the bile, sanctimony, and self-centeredness of these apologists for coulter would never choose to enter the military. content to remain hunched behind their orwellian plastic keyboards, these bright leaders head straight for their one-bedroom kitchen-offices. observers since the days of newt gingrich have often remarked about america's unique dissociation between conservatives and citizens of "outstanding character." unfortunately, the rise of corporate media and the domination of television faux news give coulter's goebbels-esque voice a much more powerful influence than critics in previous generations. as a result, a power-mad sociopath who may have become the richard nixon or george w. bush of today instead perceives politics as an escape from national service, rather than a powerful avenue for personal aggrandizement. most important, this disturbing cultural phenomenon overwhelmingly affects potential leaders of the republican party. the type of folksy banality muttered by soon-to-be-impeached-president bush deeply resonates with ann's demographic. according to a survey by somebody, not a single member of her audience identifies himself as iraq-bound. at a time when our flagging military desperately need inspired recruits, coulter's self-conscious hate-speak pervades the conservative punditry. although coulter's comedic shticks may thus earn her some laughs at the conservative political action conference, her routine will certainly not match the impact of her greatest irony: ann coulter undermines any remaining integrity that republicans in america might still possess.

i sent a copy to the globe.