..it’s time to wake up, guys. We’ve got a different rule book now — brought to you by Karl Rove and the propaganda machine from hell. The Republicans don’t use those tactics because they’re sick, sadistic bastards (well, not only that). They use them because they work. And until the Dems learn to play by the same rules, they’re going to get their heads handed to them, time after time after time.
Back to Main
July 20, 2005
WB: Defining Mr. Roberts
Comments
Why isn’t Bill Montgomery running the Dems PR machine?
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 20 2005 20:35 utc | 1
that is exactly what i was thinking, i just would have changed a few letters
Posted by: annie | Jul 20 2005 20:52 utc | 2
Billmon, you are spot on in the first part of the post. But, the second part has become the problem in the dem party. To many corporate lawyers that have the same business type interest as the rethugs. The only difference economically, well there is none. Both vote for free trade and the corporate interest own the upper reaches of both partie. The only thing to argue over is social issues.
Until the dems, especially the Clinton dems realize that representing the little guy economically is the ticket, the dems will be second fiddle.
I’m against this Roberts idiot just because he is so corporate and he hates workers rights. We are taking further steps back to the Gilded Age. Free trade is killing labor and the country and we will be a “sharecropper society” soon if not right now. Until we have a depression and labor gets stronger and government can control the excesses of the market, the dems will be in the minority. They shot themselves in the foot in the seventies when they agreed to free trade and crushing labor. Corporations have bought our government lock, stock, and barrel to the detriment of you and I.
Billmon, why don’t you e-mail your post to the DNC because they need your advice bad.
Posted by: jdp | Jul 20 2005 21:03 utc | 3
The script is already written. It was used against John Edwards. ‘Breck Girl.’ ‘Jacuzzi case.’ All that shit. Oh, and if you’re going to descend into the Lee Atwater mire, then suggest that having little kids when you’re 50 is just a bit weird.
Trouble is, the Dems can’t learn to play that game now. And Rove and Bolton are much lower-hanging fruit.
Posted by: ahem | Jul 20 2005 21:06 utc | 4
I’m disappointed in your post. If we Democrats lower ourselves to the dishonest, morally rotten tactics of Rove, then we are no better than Rove.
I’ll use a ridiculous analogy: I train in Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Sometimes, my opponent will try to choke me across my face (happened last night). Sometimes, I’ll get an elbow in the mouth, or an illegal headlock, or a punch in the solar plexus. (And I’m a woman fighting men.) So do I reciprocate and fight like one of these brutes? Well…I considered it, believe me, especially since I am smaller and weaker.
I decided, instead, to sharpen my technique, and make these bastards play the way I want to play. Now, I get more respect for fighting smart, and fighting clean. And they are trying to learn to fight like I do.
Posted by: sdog | Jul 20 2005 21:07 utc | 5
Ouch.
Just one question. When the Party does succeed in wrenching power away from the neo-brownshirts because we’ve become so much better at slime and so deserve to win; when the last “truth, justice and the American way” whiners are driven from our ranks, when we control the media, the corporations, the judiciary and the base; and hold the future of the world in our no-holds-barred, no conscience admitted hands; what then?
PD
“and all must have prizes”
Posted by: PeeDee | Jul 20 2005 21:15 utc | 9
So the Dems should become good Straussians and focus on bamboozling the stupid masses with soundbites, brainwashing and hate rallies?
And ummm, does this argument differ, in any sense that, say, Kant would have recognised, from the argument that the Islamicist extremists are “bloodthirsty barbarians” and therefore we are right to use any and all means against them including indiscriminate terror bombing, torture, imprisonment without due process and all the rest? If the opposition is a buncha sadistic SOBs then what does it mean to adopt their tactics? If we win by doing so, then what have we won?
Hmmm. We have met the enemy, and…?
Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 20 2005 21:16 utc | 10
what then?
Cross that bridge, IF, then ask the question. Right now, the Dems are not even within sight.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jul 20 2005 21:19 utc | 12
Elevating discourse of opposition to include class conflict is a good strategy, because it’s honest. Deanander, I don’t see mush contradiction here except: billmon previously condemned Dean’s evocation of class, and democratic party cannot be a source of any sustained message of economic populism because doing so would advocate policies unfriendly to political class.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 20 2005 21:27 utc | 13
I suppose the cynical subtext of this WB entry: you cannot use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 20 2005 21:31 utc | 14
billmon previously condemned Dean’s evocation of class
No, I criticized his ham-handed way of doing it.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 20 2005 21:34 utc | 16
I think questions of Executive privledge and national security should take center stage.
‘Judge Roberts, What is your position on the right to privacy of covert CIA agents?’
‘Judge Roberts, How much discretion do you think the executive branch has in fighting wars?’
‘Does this include the outing of CIA agents in contradiction of law for partisan gain?’
Why let a little thing like a SCOTUS nomination stop the Rove questions? I’m sure some one out there can even contrive some questions that will be legitmate and make Roberts take a stand for or against Rove. Let’s face it either way he answers Bush loses.
Zach
Posted by: Zach | Jul 20 2005 21:46 utc | 17
Guns are everywhere. If it came to that, people would know to defend themselves in the primitive way. We have survival instincts.
Republicans’ style is the brute aggressor who overpowers with muscle, height, mass, and a certain clumsiness.
The Democrats seem to represent the wily, smaller, craftier, light footed, smart type of warrior.
I think it’s best to know thyself, have confidence and a grip on your identity. Then master the tactics that work best for the personality type.
A fast and elf like opponent, when on top of the game, is the most frustrating thing I can imagine. Impossible to tackle, pin down, and obliterate.
Posted by: jm | Jul 20 2005 21:54 utc | 18
The Democrats seem to represent the wily, smaller, craftier, light footed, smart type of warrior.
That’s great. But right now they don’t seem real wily, crafty or smart. Which just leaves smaller and light-footed.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 20 2005 21:57 utc | 19
yeah yeah. In any case, I think most of us will agree here, the dems will not commit to either surreptitiously clever or hamhanded class war. The only war the dems want is the imperialist one. and in pursuit of that goal, their parsimoniously sophisticated strategic ambivalence is unparalleled.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 20 2005 21:58 utc | 20
I decided, instead, to sharpen my technique, and make these bastards play the way I want to play. Now, I get more respect for fighting smart, and fighting clean. And they are trying to learn to fight like I do.
lovely, but between now and when we find a better way, i don’t want to loose everything.alls fair in love and war . the republicans are our opponents. we do not have to adapt their tactics but until we figure out a better strategy we should not be afraid to use the slimy tactics they use. a story. when my son was a baby, 2 or even younger, we traveled alot, airports etc. i told him if he was ever really scared or threatened the strongest bone in his body was his jaw, aside from screaming as loud as he could he should bite as hard as he could, knowing this would inflict more pain then anything else he could do. years later, when he was 5 he was in karate class. there was a rule if someone said stop you had to stop, there was a kid on top of him and my son was screaming stop, stop, and the kid was hurting him, before anyone could break it up my son bit him. he had remembered what i told him, this bully kid, who was always fucking w/him btw, just screamed and jumped off. everyone was astounded that my kid would bite him. they said he never should have done that. i said he protected himself the only way he knew how, the other child was the one who broke the rule(they didn’t have a rule about biting!) moral of the story. if someones got power over you and is inflicting pain and threatening your existence, do whatever it takes. this is is war, we are fighting an opponent who will do anything to win, we are also voting without a papertrail. i’m tired of being nice, i want my country back.
Posted by: annie | Jul 20 2005 22:02 utc | 21
I don’t see, frankly, how going “to the mat” on Roberts will deplete our ammunition; if the law of finite political resources were, so to speak, operative, the Republicans would never have regained the upper hand. But, in fact, they created ever-increasing amounts of political capital, and ammunition, for themselves precisely by opposing us at every turn, visibly and vocally, for years.
We can certainly mount a vigorous, even principled, opposition to Roberts while also using it strategically from a political point of view. We don’t have to stoop to Rovian depths to have an impact and score points. We may not block his nomination, but we can still make a lot of political hay out of the situation.
Posted by: Leslie in CA | Jul 20 2005 22:03 utc | 22
OK, enough with the fantasies. Would I really do these things if I was calling the shots for a Democratic Party magically transformed into a well-oiled (and well-funded) political machine?
I would.
If we Democrats lower ourselves to the dishonest, morally rotten tactics of Rove, then we are no better than Rove.
Excuse me? Roberts is a corporate shill. We are fighting people like him for control of our nation. Basically everything b.’s said about him is right.
So smear him with it. Unless you think being a DINOcrat is going to save this nation or this planet. There is nothing morally rotten about calling a pro-Dominionist corporate tool of a judge for what he is, even if he has a brightly scrubbed smile.
Billmon – I read up from that source you linked to, and found this horrendous case that I remember very well going down across the 1990s and into 2001
In private practice, Roberts has often represented corporations in suits against private individuals or the government. He represented Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., in its successful petition to the Supreme Court arguing that a worker with carpal tunnel syndrom is not disabled such that she is entitled to accommodation at work under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Roberts took the position that Ella Williams, an automobile assembly line worker, was not covered by the ADA, even though she was fired because carpal tunnel syndrom – which she acquired as a result of activities she was required to perform as part of her job – prevented her from doing all of the tasks required by her job.
p.10
Report of the Alliance for Justice:
Opposition to the Confirmation of John G. Roberts…
The court rejected respondent’s arguments that gardening, doing housework, and playing with children are major life activities. On what logic? The ruling says that the SCOTUS was convinced based on records from passage of the ADA that said Congress found there to be 43 million Americans with disabilities as of the late 1980s. And based on that, they reasoned their way to the idea that a woman who lost the ability to work because of injuries caused by that work could not be defined as disabled, because (get this trick!) most Americans don’t need to do her job, and so her job is not a major life activity. Clever, no? Never mind that one’s job is usually the biggest life activity we have as adults.
What this means is that while he was still just a lawyer appearing before the Court, John G. Roberts convinced all nine justices to rule that that the following activities are not “major life activities”
• gardening
• doing housework
• playing with children
• doing one’s job
What will he convince them of if he actually becomes a colleague? If losing the ability to play with one’s children is not a major life activity, then other frivolities such as listening to music, dancing and singing must be right out. Sex without procreation? Not sure how they’d define this as not a “major life activity” but I wouldn’t feel too comfortable that anything but your mere production of baby-making goodies is actually protected by theADA. Eating, now that would probably cause resistance, but remember, as long as one can take goop through a feeding tube, well, it’s just like eyeglasses – No Disability! Are you thinking what I’m thinking… maybe the Terry Schiavo controversy was just the next stage in the Republican plans to make the Asmericans with Disabilities Act a leftover, vestigial organ of the work environment. That sure would help explain Frist’s “definitely high functioning” online diagnosis.
allow me to summarize:
John G. Roberts doesn’t think you have a right to work a few years and be left healthy enough to do housework.
John G. Roberts doesn’t think you have a right after a few years of work to be left healthy enough to play with your children.
John G. Roberts doesn’t believe that your job needs to leave you healthy enough to keep that job.
John G. Roberts doesn’t believe that you have a right to be left healthy enough to grow food.
Would you like to guess what was defined as a major life activity? Brushing one’s teeth… whew!
These nasty frat-bastards actually ruled that because Ms. William’s doctors said she could not lift weights of over 10 pounds, that meant she could lift weights of under ten pounds and so was not actually disabled as far as “lifting” goes. ALL 9 JUSTICES were convinced of this by Roberts (and whoever backs him). Can we really afford to let this court start mainlining Roberts as a colleague?
John G. Roberts sounds like a serious, true-believing, heartless monster. How ‘bout we argue this shit out loud. Playing with your children??? Is there nothing holy to these fetus fetishists? Rove is not going to un-burn himself while we point out that Roberts is not a man but a cog. Look, the Toyota Manufacturing Kentucky v. Williams case was massively dissillusioning for people who once felt like Toyota was saving the Kentucky economy. I’d say the time is right to air this smell out once again on a national stage. So please refer back to that list of things that Roberts says are optional, peripheral, unprotected.
The man is a psychopath – no natural sympathy for the human.
Posted by: citizen | Jul 20 2005 22:09 utc | 24
Very true. The Democrats are nothing to admire at the moment. Of course, I never did, simply because of their lying shit. But I don’t think they are united on a goal of empire. I think if there is any unifying goal it’s to keep their funding.
Still, the age old call to combat is still there and the urge to win.
Posted by: jm | Jul 20 2005 22:10 utc | 25
I’m with slothrop, let the class warfare begin. I’m telling you, theres a hell of alot more little people getting screwed than fat cats getting fat. Just hope it doesn’t end up like the French Revolution. Well, maybe the head chopping could be good? I don’t know.
I do know the political class is massively corrupt and until the money is taken out of campaigns, the little guy will continue to get screwed. Will Greider has a nice peice at Common Dreams called, “America’s Truth Deficit.” Greider has insight like no other in his laid back casual way. His books “Secrets of the Federal Reserve” and “Who will Tell the People: The Betrayel of American Democracy” warned late in the 1980s and early in the 1990s of the assault of the monied interest and the political class on the average man.
Nothing has been done and the people have been bamboozled by social issues while the economic rug has been pulled out by free trade, world harmonization of laws and wages, democracy undermined by the Codex Alimintarious Commission. With ability to move capital and the capitulation of the corrupt congress bought by massive amounts of patronage money for re-election, US democracy is skeleton of the glorified model that Washington DC touts.
This whole situation was brought about first when democrats were in power for forty years and excelerated by the rethugs through the late nineties and Bushies admin.
Back to the original subject, Roberts is anti-everyman and his writings and lawyering should, as Billmon says, be held up the masses as the pro-corp and anti-labor shill he is.
Posted by: jdp | Jul 20 2005 22:10 utc | 26
& what are you fellows & lassies worrried about – one more pious & corrupt creatue will slide into the supreme court & think of himself as the Law
except that whole notion, that is a notion of laws is not at all applicable. you have neither law nor justice. you have repression, coercion & complicity
you will say the state courts or the federal courts or the local courts & i will tell you that they are all made of paper & wind. it means absolutely nothing. nothing at all.
it is nothing except the brutal expression & during this time & the hard times to come – it will prove to be just that. ô i imagine there are jurisprudential figures all over the place of great learning & moral character but they are being wholly swallowed by the machine
any law that would defend the poor, the dispossesed, the marginal or the simply normal does not talk. bobby sd it money doesn’t talk it swears – & there is nowhere where that is most true – than in the Law
& billmons & my generation worst of all in anglosaxon countries. they are as comprimised as journalists. they are both hookers – one just has better credentials
in italy spain & france & to some extent in germany you have a whole generation of magistrates who are not so different form us but who are also taking a solid thrashing
no – the law – it is pure mockery – fun & games for the rich – even when they jail a few of them to keep their own house ‘clean – for the people it is what it always was & repressive institution in the defence of property
so one other flunkey & plenty of them to come. to not break your heart you’ve got to see it as some awful comedy of dante’s & we are the unfortunate extras
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 20 2005 22:11 utc | 27
A fast and elf like opponent, when on top of the game, is the most frustrating thing I can imagine. Impossible to tackle, pin down, and obliterate.
thats so funny you should mention that, i was writing my previous post and didn’t see it. long story about how i ended up a the national karate championships w/ little experience. but i did, and i won, the gold, all because i have really fast and really tiny. they just couldn’t score off me, but they sure as hell beat me up. i quit after that experience.
i fear the dems have a coordination problem right now.
Posted by: annie | Jul 20 2005 22:14 utc | 28
well anni , have i got a job for you – its sort of like a suicide bomber – except its in the form of you doing a cartwheeling karate while the supreme court is in full session – you can also hit a few of the ‘liberal’ judges to knock some sense into them & perhaps they might remember franenfurter & marshall
i can see it now – little annie & the flying fists – just get a good one in scalias groin tho i suppose there is nothing there
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 20 2005 22:22 utc | 29
Thanks citizen.
It’s not hard to imagine reversal of Roe, but harder to imagine something like a return to a Lochner era in which bill of rights was overtly trumped by laissez-faire. Thise guy sounds like he is the child of Lochner.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 20 2005 22:22 utc | 30
I hear ya, Annie. I’m five feet tall and I know something about this. I am stunned. National Karate championship. Congratulations!
That could be it. The Dems coordination problem. Some kind of muscular imbalance, perhaps. But I think the Republicans are having coordination problems as well. In fact, sometimes it feels like I’m on the playground at a school for the severely developmentally disabled. Not that disability is a bad thing. It’s just that people who are afflicted shouldn’t be trying to run countries.
It does resemble a gothic horror, this phase we’re in. But all stories transmogrify. We really don’t know for sure what’s in the next chapter.
Posted by: jm | Jul 20 2005 22:26 utc | 31
Yes rgiap,
but sometimes people notice that somethings up when they see that a good fight’s happening. So fuck Roberts and the horse’s ass he rode in on.
Posted by: citizen | Jul 20 2005 22:33 utc | 32
Billmon:
I responded to your response.
I think your position reasonable but wrong. Especially on the Borking.
Anyway, you’r ethe best writer out there. Keep up the fantastic work.
Armando at dailykos.
Posted by: Armando | Jul 20 2005 22:33 utc | 33
child of lochner…well truthfully, I cannot say.
As for the issue of carpal tunnel as disability: it’s complicated because the injury is task-specific, and so is often not ADL limiting. Because of this, the reasoning of the court in Toyota in not necessarily lochner-like.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 20 2005 22:33 utc | 34
Jeepers, guys, Billmon isn’t advocating being slimeball liars. We are on this side of the political fence because we believe in certain truths and act on them, ya know? What are some of our issues? Rovegate, Enron-Worldcom, Downing Street, Iraq’s cost, Iraq’s deaths, plight of the middle class , MBNA style bankruptcy law, and other assorted scandal. Whatever. Hang the truth, no holds barred, the way WE see it, around their necks. Aggressively, without apologizing.
People vote strong-and-wrong more than weak-and-right. Democrats are right on the issues, but the Republican propaganda has succeeded in obscuring our truths with a smokescreen of ‘they’re worthless and weak’. Billmon is perhaps emphasizing we need to be strong-and-right. Strong means fighting…to win. Either do what it takes to win, or accept losing.
Perhaps Billmon is being too nice about saying we’re being too nice.
You think the corporate lawyers will get their feelings hurt over anti-Roberts propaganda? Loser. Those guys laugh at the notion of hurt feelings (ever heard the phrase ‘all the way to the bank’?)…worrying about their feelings makes you a weakling. It shows how profoundly you misunderstand them. Proclaiming hurt feelings publicly is merely a political angle. Just link Roberts to any dirty deed he’s done or player he’s done business with. And I’ll wager my house there are a few links somewhere.
Most corporate lawyers, I think, understand why people feel the way they do about corporate lawyers. Lawyers are generally smart enough to separate bullshit from buckwheat, so say what needs to be said to win whatever victories are possible against those who would stuff our liberal asses in a closet somewhere if they could. Whew!
But hey, I’m a lawyer so what do I know…
Posted by: RacyMind | Jul 20 2005 22:33 utc | 35
annie,
would love to play sometime – a fellow devotee.
Posted by: citizen | Jul 20 2005 22:34 utc | 36
I’m saying that decision is not a great example of why Roberts is rightwing, anyway.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 20 2005 22:35 utc | 37
What will be really amusing is if Robert’s ADOPTED children are what bring him down. Why Adopted? How did you adopt them? Did you exhaust all natural means prior to adopting? Did you and your wife try any “unnatural” means to create offspring?
Posted by: Robert | Jul 20 2005 22:57 utc | 38
The whole game of whoever seems to be in power reminds me of the groung hog game in the midway. You can never pound all the heads down. So while they are busy frantically pounding away, there’s got to be some way to come in from behind and get them in a vulnerable spot. EVERYBODY has weaknesses. I suppose there might be some truth in getting off the defensive and going in for an attack, though not the way I see most people describe it.
I wish more than anything the opposition could put the enemy’s power in perspective. I think it’s overblown. I can’t understand why this opposition doesn’t have confidence. Fate and physics are on its side. Equal and opposite.
These are not science fiction monsters. They are human beings that have to eat and crap every day and that puts them in a vulnerable position.
Posted by: jm | Jul 20 2005 23:00 utc | 40
second scenario
citizen, jm & annie in flying cartwheels hit washington with bare knuckles & bare feet – hitting anything that gets in their way in the senate, the supreme court & congress. i provied the metamphetamines – billmon gives the discourse & b offers international protection & keep it going on until some sense comes to your nation
& then the moonofalabama karate tour through every media in america until there’s not one journalist left standing
kick kick kick so hard that you ressurect dashiel hammet
the cheney bushh crime family & all their judges that they keep in their pockets to offer rewards to the might are not worth one single thought
as i understand it at the moment on the supreme court there is not even a reasonable jurisprudential figure – slim volumes – slim thinking – they always say scalia is a great mind but i don’t see it – perhaps the scope & granseur of what constitutes jurisprudential thought has slimmed over the years – i would not be at all surprised if that killer with a little head from texas – gonzales gets the big job
it would only confirm what is already obvious
you treat these institutions as if they were sacrosant – they are less than that & if there was any doubt at all the 2000 elections put the nail in the coffin – i remember even those clerking fro the supremes were disgusted & they are not the natural constituency of the left. they saw what we do not – that for all the lftiness – it is empty. empty
in england the sanctity of that justice was exposed again & again & again,, the guileford 4, the birmingham 6 on & on & on – pompous knighted fools imagining they are living in a novel by trolloppe
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 20 2005 23:20 utc | 41
As much as I hate to say it, we must learn from Horowitz, and Lenin. As I read Billmon, he nowhere says to lie about Roberts. I also agree that this isn’t necessarily a fight we (anyone who opposes the Republicans, not necessarily Democrats) take to the finish. But we do have to start fighting, and we do have to realize that, when it comes to the masses, Lenin was right. Pick a few simple themes and hammer them over and over. It’s not enlightened discourse, but these aren’t normal times. I truly believe the goal of the Republicans is in fact to destroy democracy (at least as we know it) and to overthrow the Constitutional order in a way that enthrones their unholy alliance of plutocracy and theocracy. This is war, and we can’t afford to lose. For the first time in my life, I’m starting to understand Lenin’s condemnation of “bourgeois scruples.” We have to fight back effectively. Billmon has told us how to do it. I would rather win and apologize later than lose with honor, because if we lose the war the Right has started, the suffering they will inflict on mankind could be immeasurable.
Posted by: Aigin | Jul 20 2005 23:21 utc | 42
jm, they are evil, alot of them. that is worse than science fiction, evil control freaks,
re, roberts ,why can’t we attack the rules of engagement. they agreed to consult leaders in both parties. that was the condition we agreed to end the filibuster. face it . the only way we can make a dent is if the dems unite. what is reid saying. i hope this doesn’t go out w/ some little wimper, boxer and conyers.
here’s my theory. really good smart people who understand the nuances of life and politics are not by nature greedy or control freaks, the life of a public servant has got to be one of the most taxing, period. family life, forget it. our party has many nice guy/gals. we need someone smart good really attractive(face it, it counts) and ruthless. look at how many people got totally weak at the knees and backed out on dean. he was a great candidate. to many democrats are lacking in balls. and the smart ones are to busy living life. it’s a sacrifice. we need some heros. fast.
Posted by: annie | Jul 20 2005 23:23 utc | 43
All this talk of fear that the consequences of adapting rough tactics will somehow sully “our” realtively more pure motives. To me tactics are methods employed by intelligent people. They are not “me”, they do not become “me” . . . necessarily. The operative word, to me, is “conscious”. I use tactics, I do not become them. Is that distinction so hard to understand?
Posted by: DonS | Jul 20 2005 23:24 utc | 44
yes look where bourgeois scruples got you – lots of dead unnamed arabs
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 20 2005 23:26 utc | 45
I have mixed feelings about the borking thing. I completely agree that the rules of the game have drastically changed and it’s high time Democrats face up to the reality. To Jeralyn and others who think we should withhold judgement on Roberts I ask, what has this administration done to deserve such deference? IMO it’s record of deceit has already earned it a place of notoriety in modern American politics. In addition it has repeatedly proclaimed, and matched its words with action, that no trick is too dirty and no slander too dishonorable to advance its agenda. These are the people to which we owe a respectful audience? Wake up children, you’re taking a water pistol to a gun fight. Anyone who believes that Bush would nominate, and his base would enthusiastically endorse, a candidate that was even remotely acceptable to liberals has been living under a rock for the last five years. That’s just not their style.
I think there is another aspect to this discussion that needs to be raised though, and that is that psychologically many Democrats are already whipped. Harry Reid’s milquetoast comments, which read more like a half hearted endorsement than anything else, is symptomatic of a man who is already quivering in his boots at the prospect of a drop down, drag ’em out fight with the big bad Republicans. The Democratic leadership is already laying the groundwork to cave over Roberts the same way they caved over the manipulation of Iraq intelligence for political ends. In their hearts they have already convinced themselves that majority of the country is really behind the Republicans, and therefore the smart, “moderate” thing to do lie low and subsist on the crumbs that fall their way from the Republican table. When even the New York Times can proclaim, on the basis of an election won with a 51% majority, that “America is a conservative country” it is perhaps hard not to sympathize with their predicament. Nevertheless wars aren’t won by defeatists. The Democrats are a party with far too many Petains in its senior echelon when what it needs is a Churchill – or at least a Howard Dean.
Posted by: Lexington | Jul 20 2005 23:28 utc | 46
We already have a plutocracy and theocracy will never take hold in this country. We’ve never had a democracy to destroy. The elite who founded this country intened to rule and gave token power to the people. They retained control through the electoral college.
The right wing now does not have the power to inflict immeasurable suffering on mankind. Man does that for himself automatically anyway. Not much has changed. More then winning the battle over the people in power now (although that is bound to happen), we have to win over our own destructive impulses and our habit of being misled and making bad choices. We have to become more aware. Fighting alone will solve nothing.
I think we will see some decent leadership emerging in about two years. Until then, we have to recognize our own skills, our own ability to dictate how things unfold, our own internal leadership, and our confidence. The leadership reflects the state of the society. When we find some pride in ourselves and the leadership will reflect that.
Posted by: jm | Jul 20 2005 23:38 utc | 47
regarding the UPDATE: Steve Gilliard says:
Nice guy, wants to control women’s bodies
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/07/nice-guy-wants-to-control-womens.html
Posted by: lutton | Jul 20 2005 23:47 utc | 48
Harry Reid’s milquetoast comments, which read more like a half hearted endorsement than anything else, is symptomatic of a man who is already quivering in his boots at the prospect of a drop down, drag ’em out fight with the big bad Republicans. The Democratic leadership is already laying the groundwork to cave over Roberts the same way they caved over the manipulation of Iraq intelligence for political ends.
Look, this is difficult. Sometimes you DO have to fight because of the principle, even when it’s not to your immediate political advantage — over issues like aggressive war, torture, and other war crimes. But not every issue falls in that category. There are times when the wisest course of action is to “cave.” As the military saying goes: to try to defend everything is to defend nothing. And progressives need to understand that just as guys like Harry Reid have to understand there are some fights you simply can’t duck.
I personally don’t think this is one of them. Reid may be doing what’s he’s doing for purely pragmatic reasons, and it may be the smart play. That doesn’t mean he’s quivering in his boots, just that he’s a realist.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 20 2005 23:47 utc | 49
jm
i find despite you karate skills that your proposition is absolutely prepostorous
in two years – any possible leadership will be demolished. do you not really see that — if obama & boxer are the best youcan do then god help you
& what pool are the leadership going to come from
all the institutions of power have been annexed completely & i would think 50 years is a much more realistic proposition
certainly in our lifetimes it is going to get worse – a great deaal worse & resistance has to be formed by other means & not thos necessarily of the orthodox left because they have proved themselves incurably incapable of even dealing at a local level
hitler sd those who rule the streets rule the people & in that terrible statement is more than a hint of truth. the way american people massed against the vietnam war & were prepared to take their politcs to another level & the politicisation of many many public questions made a decisvie difference
why do you suposse the triumphalist right has been so keen to demolish anything that was borne in the thought & the resistance from the civil rights movement to all the questions that were crucial in electing carter
once you started killing your neighbours in latin america while using their drugs it all turned toshit & has stayed shit
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 20 2005 23:48 utc | 50
Roberts will get confirmed. I do, however, like the idea of using the “evil corporate lawyer” angle in attacking him. Not because it will derail the nomination (it won’t – Biden is on the Senate Judiciary Committee after all), but it is an opportunity to reach out to those-that-vote-against-their-own-economic-self-interests and let them know what conervative Republicans are all about.
As for being his being a corporate lawyer (as am I btw, but not the evil variety) remember when President Clinton was in office? He used his two SCOTUS appointments on two pro-busniess, unconstroversial, well-liked in the Repubican community, nominees. I mean, fuck, Orrin Hatch practical chose Ginsberg himself. Didn’t matter than they were pro-choice – what mattered to the vast majority of Senate Repubicans was that they stood up for the corporate animal (rememeber the “pro-business” label that was thrown on Ginsberg when she was appointed?)
Breyer and Ginsberg might be fine Justices, but standing-up for the little guy, see the value in government regulations, economic populists they are not. They are just permanent examples of Clinton’s wussy-triangulating-cursory-rearguard action that was his Presidency.
Posted by: Syd Barrett | Jul 20 2005 23:52 utc | 51
regarding the UPDATE: Steve Gilliard says:
Nice guy, wants to control women’s bodies
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/07/nice-guy-wants-to-control-womens.html
Posted by: lutton | Jul 20 2005 23:53 utc | 52
The choice is simple.
Do you want Roberts on the supreme court for the next 30 years, or not? If so, let it go — ask a few questions during confirmation, then let five or six dems vote in favour and that’s it.
If not, you have to fight the way Billmon says — there is NO OTHER WAY to stop the nomination.
Look at Bolton — a bombastic loudmouth with a 20-year history of bullying, a person glaringly, pathetically inappropriate to be UN ambassador — and the very best that the Dems could do after a three month knockdown, drag out fight was just to prevent a second vote. You didn’t actually get him voted down either in committee, or in the Senate.
So, Democrats have to decide.
Posted by: CathiefromCanada | Jul 20 2005 23:57 utc | 53
regarding the UPDATE: Steve Gilliard says:
Nice guy, wants to control women’s bodies
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/07/nice-guy-wants-to-control-womens.html
Posted by: lutton | Jul 20 2005 23:57 utc | 54
damnit…sorry for the mulitple posts; I thought my browser was hanging.
Posted by: lutton | Jul 20 2005 23:59 utc | 55
Remember,
It certainly possible that we will be traveling down a road of worsening conditions, but that really can’t be determined at this point.
I have a hunch that the puppeteers are divided in the ranks and that a swing to the left “might” be in the cards.
I read with interest Robert Reich”s assessment of the situation (the ex labor secretary). He thinks that there is no choice but for the country to swing left.
There is so much going on on the local level that is quite amazing, such as Colorado turning Democratic for the first time in 50 years and the rest of the West following suit. The demographic is changing fast out here.
Not that the Dems are the answer, and it is certainly not Obama. It could be an adding up of a lot of components. The country WILL move to the left at some point.
I can’t help but feel that the neocons are inept and full of bluff. To me, they have ruined their big experiment. I think our two party system will continue, business as usual, for a while.
Conditions have to be much, much worse for revolution to hit the streets.
I have never liked any politicians, but now I think maybe I am overlooking some decent potential. In our rush to fear and visions of a totalitarian nightmare, we might be overlooking some facts.
It’s anyone’s guess.
Posted by: jm | Jul 21 2005 0:03 utc | 56
This is guerilla warfare, let Armando fight the bastards his way, Billmon his, and me mine. Hit them from all sides, underneath and then bop them on the head. I read the trolls, scan their blogs and this much I know; we are better people, and we are better for America. These people are a mean and small minded lot. They don’t even like America’s working class, would as soon replace them if they could, and are doing so with cheap illegals. Their religion, moral crap is just a way to fuck over working class people. The right’s elite are neither religious nor moral. At best, they compare best to 21 year old frat rats.
I think that Roberts is a battle we should fight out of duty to the nation and the war is one we must win for the sake of the nation. If not stopped, it is only a question of how long before their greed and their corrupted values destroy America.
Yes, it’s about building coalitions, but that doesn’t mean kissing up to people we don’t want. If we offer a choice, if we’re good, if we do a good job getting the message out as to what we stand for and by standing up to the bastards and by listening to the American people; we’ll get the votes.
Posted by: ken melvin | Jul 21 2005 0:05 utc | 57
Seems like we’ve had this conversation about the dems for more than 2 years. It’s weird, like I’ve read all these same words before.
I got to agree with Giap here. If Boxer, Obama, Reid, Kerry, and Edwards are all there is,out there, in terms of party leadership, then we might as well all piss into a hurricane. About all that happens is that your clothes get washed while your clock gets cleaned.
I’m about to the point of losing patience with these shits.
They’ve got to get combative, and learn how to play the game as it has been delinated in the last four years.
Old rules definitely do not apply.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jul 21 2005 0:06 utc | 58
Lutton, my browser seems to hang loading the comments here, and here only on my desktop. Not so on the laptop. Go figure.
Posted by: DonS | Jul 21 2005 0:10 utc | 59
in other words, in order to effectively compete with assholes, we have to become assholes ourselves.
I was a republican for 30 years. After one year of post 9/11 john ashcroft reality i changed my registration to independent. I’d like to see the democratic party do well. But if you reflexively go after a guy like Roberts, you’re (a) not going to win and (b) you’re going to alienate all those soft republican voters who might otherswise abandon the GOP if they thought there was a reasonable alternative. Not a bunch of shrill reflexive (excuse the expression) nabobs of negativism.
Posted by: aloyisius | Jul 21 2005 0:16 utc | 60
I don’t mind playing hardball, in fact I long to see it. The “Truth Deficit” article was right on target; American public life is throttled, vast tracts of political geography go unmapped, untravelled, unmentioned. The party line is carefully toed by all “respectable” public figures. Anyone who doesn’t colour inside the box drawn by Money is marginalised and/or demonised.
Where I have a problem is where Billmon suggests An arrogant, out-of-touch Ivy Leaguer who probably vacations at posh resorts with other arrogant, out-of-touch Ivy Leaguers. (And I would say it no matter where he actually vacations — or even if he takes no vacations at all.) Lying — baseless slander, falsification of evidence, etc. — is a time-honoured tactic of the American Right, and I think it’s the bottom line. Hardball? Fine by me. There’s enough home truth out there to hang these guys (figuratively — put that piano wire away, comrade rgiap!) several times over.
… pass up an opportunity to score political points against the freaking Republicans because there are a lot of corporate lawyers in the Democratic Party and it might hurt their delicate feelings. I don’t think that’s the point. The point of not lying, or not using filthy tactics, is not because someone might get their feelings hurt; the point of not lying is not making yourself into a liar.
I think Roberts can be discredited on perfectly factual and rational grounds; discredited, shall we say, according to his betrayal of Enlightenment and small-d democratic values rather than by jettisoning those values ourselves?
So I say Hardball Yes, Slimeball No… and I do apologise for skimming too fast and not noticing the bit where Billmon said Would I really do these things if I was calling the shots for a Democratic Party magically transformed into a well-oiled (and well-funded) political machine? Probably not — for reasons explained in my previous post. I missed the disclaimer. Something about the day job, always interfering with my online reading habit 🙂
As to Lenin’s understanding of the manipulation of the masses, again I demur. When we start thinking of ourselves as the Vanguard and “the masses” as some kind of expendable non-count noun, raw material to be sculpted into our idea of the proper shape, bad things tend to happen. (Like the destruction of Ukraine, which was “politically necessary” in order to hang on to power.) Picking a different style of Communist leader: when Unca Fidel talks to “the masses” on the radio or TV, he at least talks to them as if they were intelligent thinking people, capable of understanding statistics, math, long-term planning. I’ll take that over the repeated shouting of soundbites — whether authored by Comintern or by the Rovester — any day.
I wish just once I could see some Cronkite-ish figure stand up on mainstream US TV and explain to the public, soberly, patiently, exactly what is going on — the US balance sheet, fiscal, environmental, military, diplomatic, social. With pie charts and maps. With interviews. Mike Moore does what he does, an attempt at something of the kind — but imho he still risks trivialising his message by packaging it as infotainment, assuming that his audience is too shallow or easily bored to listen unless he keeps the yuks a-comin’. The contrast between even CBC documentaries like “The Corporation: or “The End of Suburbia” and a Mikey flick is vivid and (to me) depressing.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that the public is not innately stupid — imho they/we are made stupid and kept stupid, by being spoon fed a Stupid Diet by the seamless media monopoly.
I remember a behavioural science experiment from the bad old days, in which teachers told classes of children that kids with brown eyes were inherently smarter than kids with blue eyes. They then proceeded to treat brown-eyed kids as if they were smarter. And guess what, after a few days of this, the blue eyed kids started performing worse, scoring lower, etc. People perform up to expectation. When we direct our message to “Hey, You, Stupid,” imho we just continue the dumbing-down process and make the audience that much more receptive to the same non-reality-based no-brain-required style from the opposition. We also convey to them, consciously or not, our contempt. US political “leaders” have been talking down to the electorate, treating us and talking about them like infants, for decades. I think a change of tone might go a long way, and it has nothing to do with making nicey-nice with the opposition.
If I were writing a campaign ad it would go something like “Sure, we could tell you that Mr. X admires Osama, or that he hates our troops, or that he hates Jesus. But instead, we did our homework. His track record is all you need to know. [precis of some damning details.] Mr. X is supposed to make fair judgments in matters affecting all Americans; we don’t know who he hates or doesn’t hate, but his track record shows whose side he’s on in the courtroom.” In other words, (a) deconstructing and delegitimising the Rethug attack ad style, (b) telling the reader/listener that we trust them to make up their own minds without that heavy-handed condescending propaganda, and then (c) offering relevant facts, plus a URL or two at bottom of frame for followup.
Rather than mimic the semi-literate demagoguery of the Rove machine, I’d like to undermine it, satirise it, point out subtly or overtly how it insults the intelligence of the viewers/readers; and offer a more respectful message. Not respectful of Roberts and his ilk — respectful of the audience, “the masses,” the people we (allegedly) care about.
Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 21 2005 0:18 utc | 61
jm
i hope you see what i cannot – i wish it to be true but i relly do not see it & i think i am a keen observor of what goes on in the belly of the beast
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 21 2005 0:20 utc | 62
It is fascinating that we are rehashing the Democratic Party’s current pussiness. I thought this was a given. I guess Billmon’s frustration at the ongoing ineptness of Democratic Leadership boiled over and a reminder was in order.
There once was a time when when if you fucked with the Democratic machine you got the shank (Johnson for example knew how this game was played). IMHO, this all started when we lost the House in ’94. The House Democratic leadership was bloated, a bit out-of-touch, and a tad corrupt (see Rostenkowski), but at the end of the day, they were pragmatic and at times ruthless toward other side (as well as their own), and the Senate often times followed suit.
I am frustrated as well with Democrats (and by the way, Dean isn’t going to save us, time and grim reaper might though), but Roberts isn’t the moment for Democrats to suddenly grow a nasty sac of venom and start playing this game they way it should be (and once was) played.
Posted by: Syd Barrett | Jul 21 2005 0:21 utc | 63
treating us and talking about them like infants
oops. s/b talking about us — obviously an elitist Freudian typo on my part!
Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 21 2005 0:24 utc | 64
Lying — baseless slander, falsification of evidence, etc. — is a time-honoured tactic of the American Right, and I think it’s the bottom line.
OK, so you say he acts like someone who vacations at posh resorts with other arrogant, out-of-touch Ivy Leaguers. Or it’s easy to imagine him vacationing at posh resorts with other arrogant, out-of-touch Ivy Leaguers. (Unless, of course, he actually DOES vacation at posh resorts, in which case you really nail him for it.)
My point is that the important thing is not the actual “allegation” — such as it is. You can word it so that it’s not technically untrue. The objective is to use the terms “arrogant,” “Ivy Leaguer,” “out-of-touch” and “posh” as many times as possible as close as possible to Roberts’s name.
Call it hardball, call it slimeball, call it anything you like. It’s effective — a hell of a lot more effective than “fair and balanced.” (I mean really real fair and balanced, not the Fox News slogan.)
Which mean the Dems either learn how to use the same tools (hopefully with more hard and less slime on the ball) or they lose. It’s really that simple.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 21 2005 0:41 utc | 66
@Alonysius:
you’re going to alienate all those soft republican voters who might otherswise abandon the GOP if they thought there was a reasonable alternative.
If your wife hangs tough with you there A, we’ve got 2.
@SB and A:
You are both right on the timing. party leadership has got to eat their pablum and drink their ovaltine for some time before they even think of gumming anybody to death.
And when the revolution comes, DeA, we’ll try to get you the hosting job on Hardball. That would certainly be a change for the better.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jul 21 2005 0:41 utc | 67
Billmon:
I would agree with your last post and yet I am not sure we have “goods” on this guy.
As you may remember, Michael ceded a lot of the ground to the 5 Families until he had his ducks in a row and then took them out.
In any event, good discussion.
And at least we know that we have some work to do, no matter whose approach is adopted.
Armando at dailykos.
Posted by: Armando | Jul 21 2005 0:57 utc | 68
Confronting Roberts on his corporatness(If that’s a word)is the key to this event.
A few simple uestions by a Senator who isn’t interested in his own voice could do a lot to clarify some things.
To wit:
How many times is the word corporation mentioned in the constitution?
Are not corportations entities which spring totally from government? In other words they would not exist without goverment sanction, thru law.
If government thru law creates corporations how is it possible to claim that any law regulating corporations is either unconstitutional or unenforceable on any grounds?
If corporations are not in the constitution what gives them standing in the courts?
I’m sure much wiser people steeped in law could frame these better. I believe the gist of them is self evident.
Posted by: Rapier | Jul 21 2005 1:00 utc | 69
As you may remember, Michael ceded a lot of the ground to the 5 Families until he had his ducks in a row and then took them out.
Very good analogy, Don Armando.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jul 21 2005 1:04 utc | 70
Johnson for example knew how this game was played
and he did the country so much good, eh? helped to establish Halliburton/KBR as a major political power. helped to prolong the slaughter in Viet Nam. got his start by smearing and red-baiting the competition. insulted and bullied foreign dignitaries… and so on.
I think I’d pick some other political figure if I wanted to prove how well nasty means are justified by excellent ends 🙂
politics ain’t necessarily nice, but Johnson was a deeply corrupt man, contemptuous of others, complicit in serious public malfeasance. his loyalty to the party machine doesn’t impress me any more than Beria’s. and as for Michael Corleone (Billmon’s new role model for progressives) — the same guy who slaps his wife around, who murders his own brother, whose gangland manoeuvrings cost the life of his beloved daughter, who dies alone and friendless at the end of the trilogy? wow, I’m inspired 🙂 I guess I thought Coppola was intending the movies as some kind of morality play, not a how-to manual for progressive politics…
But it has nothing to do with fairness or open-mindedness or listening to opposing points of view. if progressive/demo politics has nothing to do with these values, then what the heck is it and who are “we”? what is “our tribe,” if not the people who allegedly value these things? who is “the famiglia” then? is it really down to the insurance/medical mafia vs the oil mafia? one ruthless, amoral elite duking it out with another? neither of those promises a win for me or any other ordinary person…
again I think opposing the Roberts nomination with every (factual, verifiable) revelation possible is the right thing to do — I think it’s worth some noise and smoke. but Billmon’s somewhat overheated rhetoric this day suggests (by way of metaphor) that for sake of the famiglia, anything can be done and forgiven — assassination, betrayal, fratricide. can’t bring myself to agree there.
besides, Dems are imho not throwing the fight because they are so darned nice (and accusations of effeminacy are imho just misogynist drek). suivez la moolah, folks. the Party is owned by interests not so different from those who own the Rethug party — its stance on the Iraq invasion, the Dem votes for the debt-slavery bill, Kerry’s tame acceptance of the stolen election, all tell the tale. imho they’ve been paid to throw the fight. and until they’re decoupled from the money teat and the “war economy” porkbarrel, they will go on throwing the fight and slithering further rightwards, because the Right is the direction of money, power, our new feudalism in the making. they’re not nice, they just know who’s paying for their lunch.
Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 21 2005 1:09 utc | 71
syd, Dean is doing the right thing. Funneling money back to the state parties. The dems after being in power for forty years got to cozy with consultants and inside the beltway types. The infrastructure was lost.
The rethugs built the infrastructure and groomed candidates and message on the local level. I saw it happen in my state.
The thing that really done the dems in is when Delay got into a leadership position, he held up legislation that was important to corporate interest or groups that weren’t packed with rethugs. he wouldn’t even allow business to be done with lobbyist that weren’t contributing to rethugs or party members. They basically cleared K Street out of dems. With it the interest group connectiosn they had before. I’m no fan of Delay for sure, but that was a brilliant stroke and the type of hardball the dems must learn from.
Posted by: jdp | Jul 21 2005 1:11 utc | 72
Call it hardball, call it slimeball, call it anything you like. It’s effective — a hell of a lot more effective than “fair and balanced.” (I mean really real fair and balanced, not the Fox News slogan.)
I understand what you mean, and I think you’re probably right, but it prompts a question: is the long term goal simply for us to outslime the right so that “our side” (whatever that means exactly) comes out on top, or is it to try to change the rules so that “fair and balanced” (in the sense that you used it) is the norm, and hardball/slimeball is seen for what it is and becomes ineffective?
It could be that the ideal of “fair and balanced” is too unrealistic to even shoot for at this point, and we have to accept that we live in a slimeball world and always will. If that’s the case, then yes, we should probably take a deep breath, plunge into the muck and plan to be there for awhile.
But, if we’re talking about making a pseudo-Faustian bargain where we play slimeball for now to achieve the short-terms goals, then try to shift the rules over to “fair and balanced”, we might have hard time of it. I don’t know that we can effectively preach the evils of slimeball politics when we ourselves have engaged in it, and even benefitted from it.
I don’t pretend to have the answers to this – different parts of my psyche are currently duking it out.
Posted by: d-sol-d | Jul 21 2005 1:11 utc | 73
I don’t think much will be gained by a big fight over this Supreme Court pick. Bush has oogles of worse ones he can throw out there (and probably will for the next pick). The only political mileage to be gained is just to make it clear to the American people that the guy is likely to try to overturn Roe v Wade. This may excite his base, but will further turn Americans off of Bush.
Posted by: steve expat | Jul 21 2005 1:13 utc | 74
Judge Roberts. Have you during your professional life as a lawyer in either the public or private sector ever written one brief or represented or taken a public stand on any case or issue pitting a corporation against an individual citizen or group of citizens not incorporated which argued on the citizens side?
Posted by: Rapier | Jul 21 2005 1:16 utc | 75
I don’t think we’re going to get a better candidate than Roberts, so instead of fighting a losing battle with no chance of success, we should claim victory. Dems should proudly say that the fuss about Rove’s treason has forced Bush to nominate a qualified candidate—not one that we would have chosen—but one who is obviously qualified without a paper trail of wingnuttery. Claim to have saved the country from some of the incompetents on Bush’s short list.
If we stick to this theme, it will become conventional wisdom—the country was spared an idiot on the court because democrats are on the trail of Benedict A. Rove. It’s time for dems to portray the winning smile of success and confidence.
Posted by: Mel | Jul 21 2005 1:18 utc | 76
What we are learning is that the gloppiness of the DC Democrats reflects a similar lack of character in many supporters. “I’m a corporate lawyer too, and God forbid anyone raise the question of whether my lifestyle is morally questionable.” The Rethugs, confident in their scumminess don’t care, but the Dems, smart enough to sense that something is wrong, but not willing to face it down, are paralyzed.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 21 2005 1:26 utc | 77
@Mel:
Hell, Mel, if we got anybody out there who can spin anymore it would work.
@All:
Good night.
You have given me a monstrous headache. It happens when I try to think.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jul 21 2005 1:27 utc | 78
Not defining, framing.
Didn’t that discussion and link come from here, last week sometime?
Posted by: catlady | Jul 21 2005 1:29 utc | 79
A powerful hand holds us over the fire and as we smell the burning flesh and feel the awfull pain we wonder if it is ethical to use our teeth to bite off a few fingers? I think we should just wait, ’cause good ethical people are reincarnated as beautiful butterflies and then we can really kick this snakes ass. I am yelling at the top of my lungs, “all you dirty republicans, you just wait till the next life time, we are going to kick your corrupt butts to mars”.
Max
Posted by: Max Andersen | Jul 21 2005 1:36 utc | 80
Use this to keep the focus on Rove, Cheney and their lies. Roberts helped.
Can anyone send this to Fitzgerald? 😀
In re: Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18831 (D.C. Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9205 (2003): secrecy of Vice President Cheney’s energy task force
Judge Roberts was one of the dissenters in the court’s 5-3 denial of a petition for rehearing en banc (with one judge not participating) filed by the Bush Administration in its continuing efforts to avoid releasing records pertaining to Vice President Cheney’s energy task force. This ruling came in litigation brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club charging that the Vice President’s task force had violated federal law by not making its records public. The court’s ruling marked “the fourth time a judicial panel has rebuffed efforts to keep the information from the public.” Carol D. Leonnig, “Energy Task Force Appeal Refused,” Washington Post (Sept. 12, 2003). At the Administration’s urging, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case; a decision is expected by the end of June 2004.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13523
Posted by: Cee | Jul 21 2005 2:15 utc | 81
If Billmon’s “we” includes the likes of me–anti-war, anti-likudite, a civil libertian who favors public investment to improve the lives of the poor, along with a progressive income tax, abortion rights, and so on–then “we” won’t win much of anything, no matter what we do. Because there aren’t very many of us lurking in either party. Billmon, who sees this as well as anyone, invites us to do three things: to promote the downfall of the present Republican administration; to replace those Republicans with Democrats; and to ride the tiger of that party, once it’s elected, so that it will do the good things “we” believe in. Now I’m in favor of all three things–who among us could not be?–but I really do worry about the riding of that tiger.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 21 2005 2:16 utc | 82
Democrats have supported the war, AIPAC, and tax cuts. Democrats have always supported a lavish defense budget. To oppose these bad things, one must also oppose the Democrats–which is hardly to ride the tiger! In the matter of Roberts, for me, the tasks are very simple: to learn a lot more than I know about the man, and–if he hasn’t done anything to trash our country (as Scalia certainly did in 2000)–to accept his nomination. Stopping that war is what I’m after, along with letting Fitzgerald reveal AIPAC’s grip on our foreign policy.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 21 2005 2:16 utc | 83
Most people overestimate tigers, and the difficulty of riding them, in my experience.
Posted by: Harold Diddlebock | Jul 21 2005 2:29 utc | 84
Alabama,
I’m with you on the progressive thing. The progressives need to re-package the items you named and push them. See, the rethugs were out of power so long, the people forgot that supply side or giving the rich power was what worked us into depression.
People still have fresh memories of recent progressive issues. Those progressive issues must be re-packaged in way to neutralize rethug talking points.
For instance, a consumer issue everyone understands is helth, car insurance and house insurance. House insurance has went up 85% in our state since 2000. Yet, property value actaully went down in some areas last year. Why the increase, its called screwing the public. Blue Cross in our state is sitting on $2.2 billion in surplus, yet health insurance has went up in the high teens percentage wise for five years. The Blues is supposed to be ono-profit. Our state is 13th in car insurance cost, yet the surrounding states are in the 30s and 40s. Why is our state so high? Of course New Jersey is highest at #1.
Our state has a republican legislature and dem gov. Our gov is a new dem and won’t address these important pocketbook issues. These are the issues at the state level that must be addressed to get people seeing again that dems are on their side. Yet, the dems caught by the same corporate interest as the rethugs sit on their hands. Our gov has acted more like a rethug than dem. But the Wall Street Journal and right wing papers still attack the gov as some kind of out of touch liberal.
We need a strategy and need to be relentless in bashing the right.
Posted by: jdp | Jul 21 2005 2:37 utc | 85
Alabama,
Would you not oppose Bolton because opposing him won’t stop the war?
Would you not oppose Kerik for the same reason?
Will getting Rove fired, if it should happen, stop the war?
Actually, the war will soon be over. What’s in doubt is the existence of the Constitution of the United States.
Posted by: ab | Jul 21 2005 2:40 utc | 86
1. The Game is the game. Machivallia. Political Science. You know. Liberal arts education. Liberals should know.
2. Beating the Oakland Raiders by being dirty is a a fools approach. Beat them by playing better football and not being distracted.
3. There is some bonehead cliche about Bill Walsh being a genius. On defense he had the ruthless leveler, what was his name, Charles Haley? And that egghead defensive back, was it Ronnie Lott? The memory fades.
4. Talking goody two shoes in politics is not for those who are smarter, it is for jackasses who like to bray they are smarter. But the alternative to smart politics is not aping Republicans. Though I believe in the one of mine, ten of yours rule.
5. There is something fundamentally wrong as in mentally and emotionally unsound in many who like to call themselves liberal or progressive democrats. They aren’t really interested in politics or government. They are interested in how they sound to one another. And a plurality of Americans despise this.
Posted by: razor | Jul 21 2005 2:52 utc | 87
My two cents for what it’s worth.
I am not adverse to “accepting some level of moral compromise” since I agree that the attack mode, now more than ever, is necessary. However the line that separates “us” from “them” absolutely must be clearly defined. I mean, as easy as it is to get up on one’s high horse and claim moral purity, it is equally as easy to start to justify any behavior in the goal of winning. After all, we’re better than they are, aren’t we?
So – exactly – what line won’t we cross in the pursuit of power? What makes us different?
Or are we just Castros in the waiting – just trust us, we’ll know when we’ll have crossed the line?
That’s not what I’m in this for.
Hey check it out: Joe Wilson’s wife may have been CIA, but John Roberts’ wife is pure private contractor Company.
It’s a question of strategy pertaining to goals, Harold Diddlebock. I think it’s grandiose and self-defeating to suppose that one could challenge the partisans of war by taking over the Democratic Party. To challenge the partisans of war, you have to challenge them everywhere. I take this to be the contest being fought out in the Plame affair: there’d be no such contest if it weren’t for a movement against the war in Iraq within our bureaucracies, a particular movement belonging neither to Democrats nor Republicans.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 21 2005 2:56 utc | 90
>The real question, then, is purely pragmatic: Do the political benefits of going to the mat over Roberts outweigh the costs? My judgement (and I realize I could be wrong about this) is that they do not — both because he looks just about impossible to stop, and because even bigger Supreme Court battles almost certainly lie ahead: after Rehnquist and then when the first of the “liberal” justices retires. And that last one really does promise to be the judicial battle of Armageddon.
>Under the circumstances, it might be better to save our meager ammunition for those later struggles — which, with luck, may be fought out after the 2006 elections, giving the Dems a chance to improve their bargaining position by picking up a few seats.
I think you are wrong – for two reasons, one tactical, one strategic.
Let’s start with the tactical – the short term point. You outlined in later posts very effectively how to “Bork” Roberts. (And what a victory for the right that this term has the meaning it does in the U.S. political vocabulary.) What would be the consequences of doing this:
1) – Done properly Roberts would unpopular. No doubt the Republicans could ram him through – probably even with the help some “moderate” Democrats, so that no filibuster was sustained. But so long as the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats voted against him and (more importantly) fought against him as hard and dirtily as they could you could make the Republicans pay a political price for having pushed him through. You want some Senate pickups in 2006? The demographics don’t actually make it look likely – but tying a skunk to the next Supreme Court justice would give you a better shot than letting him sail through.
2) Secondly, you could then turn around a punish moderates for voting for Roberts – withhold party aid, maybe even give some of them primary challengers. That would concentrate their minds for the fight over the Rehnquist seat.
That leads to the strategic point. Ideally the Democrats simply want to hold the Rehnquist’s seat vacant until a Democrat is elected President – the same thing the Republicans did with a lot of judges under Clinton. But, failing that, you want them to use the nuclear option. In fact an argument could be that it is better that they use the nuclear option.
One of the thing that scares me about the stuff the Republicans are pulling is the question – even if the Democrats take back the Congress, Senate and Presidency – how do we reverse all this stuff that has already been passed. Between the right of filibuster in the Senate, and a Supreme court that has been moving steadily to the right even without new appointments, it is going to be very hard to actually pass much under the current rules. However if the Republicans use the nuclear option, that makes the answer simple. They repeal part of the right of filibuster by a simple majority vote; the Democrats use the same tactic to repeal the rest of it. That done, like the filibuster, the current size of the court is set by custom, not by the constitution. We expand the court size to 15, and appoint six new judges; presto a liberal majority on the Supreme court – and you need a simple majority and the presidency to do it – no supermajority required.
There are two objections I’d expect.
One, in spite of your Godfather comparison, when I talk about killing the filibuster and reviving the Roosevelt court packing scheme, I suspect I may exceed the degree of unscrupulousness you are willing to exercise. So let me remind you that through most of U.S. history the filibuster has been a tool in the hands of the bad guys more than of the good. The filibuster stopped anti-lynching laws that might otherwise have been passed as early as the twenties. The filibuster stopped more liberal versions of the voting rights act than eventually passed in the fifties; if Southern blacks could have voted we might never have ended up with Eisenhower. The independence of the Supreme court? Well, Nathan Newman has made good arguments against this. But aside from arguments over the desirability of such independence, the fundamental point is that it no longer exists if it ever did. The Supreme Court decision which handed the victory to Bush over Gore, while denying the right to use it as a precedent in the future pretty much established the Supreme Court as a branch of the Republican party. In short, judicial independence might have been a good thing while it lasted; it is gone; what remains to be determined is whether the judiciary will be exclusively a tool of the Republican party or whether the Democrats will exercise some influence when they get into power.
Now possibly I’m preaching to the choir on those points. What I suspect more strongly is that you won’t believe the Democrats ever controlling the House, the Senate, and the Presidency is possible. The answer is that it is actually more possible than an incremental shift. The reason is that a combination of demographics, the 2 Senators per state constitutional setup, the electoral college, and the Republican control of the voting machines make it very tough for the Democrats to win either to presidency or even one house unless they can effect an overwhelming shift in popular opinion . Basically, the Democrats need close to sixty percent to win anything. But affect that shift and you win everything. And coming on strong is to best chance to gain that kind of majority. You need to hammer the Republicans, demonize them. Which of course brings me back to the tactical points I made at the beginning of this post.
Posted by: Gar Lipow | Jul 21 2005 3:02 utc | 91
My take on the war Bama is that the dems like Biden, and Kerry, and a few others who are pushing more troops are doing so from their knowledge that we have a hell of a cockup here, that could destabilize the ME big-time.
They apparently don’t realize we can lose it and still monitor the thing offshore.
Whole thing is a pain to think about and I’ve been shut down on it for about a year. The whole think is simply too stupid and too tragic for me to comprehend.
And I only ride tigers when I am drunk.
Posted by: Harold Diddlebock | Jul 21 2005 3:09 utc | 92
Do the benefits of investing in high tech outweigh the benefits of investing in Disney?
I say not. Look at what happened to Global Crossing. Whereas Disney has the dvd babysitter/indoctrinator market locked up. So, stick to Disney, avoid Global Crossing.
To get to specfics on choices. Invest in losers, lose your investment. It doesn’t mean the sector lacks good investments, or that seed money is wasted. People who condemn corporations should learn a little bit from them first about human choices vs. seminar room choices, which, is about all corporations are about when you get down to it. Human choices and decisions.
Posted by: razor | Jul 21 2005 3:13 utc | 93
Billmon, re: think like Michael, I’m with you completely.
It’s time to quit worrying about how we look and do what’s neccessary to save the republic.
If that means getting our hands dirty, or making hard compromises, well, so be it.
I’m not going to take any comfort from being “right” or having been “moral” when I’m sitting in Europe watching america descend into a religious dark age.
Posted by: fourlegsgood | Jul 21 2005 3:21 utc | 94
Very important to think long term strategy. But did you mean Clausewitz or Horowitz?
Btw, I am so glad you are posting. Your column always has a historical perspective that illuminates the current darkness…..and I love Weill.
Posted by: hg | Jul 21 2005 3:45 utc | 96
This does a Far better job of “defining bobby Roberts” the vile woman hating Pirate worshipping prick. Both of his Wed. posts are exc. Follow the links & you’ll discover the main reason the MaleSoros party won’t oppose it’s nomination. Actually, the 2nd reason. The first reason is ‘cuz they’re overwhelmingly guys who don’t give a flying fuck about women. The 2nd is ‘cuz it was attorney for the real King of the Universe – Unca Rupie. Also, follow links to find out more about it’s self-cancelling wife – a Very High Powered Attorney. That’s the first post – just giving helpful background.
His 2nd Wed. post is Fascinating.
“Introducing Judge Dread: The Affable Accomplice of a Coup d’etat”
…
But all of this is a smokescreen. The NY Times doesn’t even mention Roberts’ most dangerous decision, issued just last Friday, when, as part of a panel of appeals judges, he upheld Bush’s outrageous claim of dictatorial powers: the right to dispose of anyone he arbitrarily designates an “enemy combatant” as he sees fit; in this case, sending them to the kangaroo court “military tribunals” he has concocted.
I’m writing more extensively on this case for the Moscow Times later this week, but here’s the gist: Roberts’ decision is part of an on-going process of elevating the president beyond the reach of law — essentially a slow-rolling coup d’etat, replacing the old American Republic (or what’s left of it) with an authoritarian “Commander-in-Chief State.” (Deep Blade has more examples of this process here.) How so? Here’s a preview of the column:
Go read.
{P.S. Yea, I know I’m not supposed to use the Fword, but on days when males sit around quote rationally debating accelerating their war on women, as you are doing here, it simply cannot be avoided.}
Posted by: jj | Jul 21 2005 4:40 utc | 97
I’ve got it: The Dems are the mob wives, living in suburban splendor in Long or Staten Island, pretending furiously that the money comes from the garment trade, and getting slapped around. Hey, there’s nothing wrong with being a corporate attorney! Ow, ow, stop that. Yeah, let’s go into family counseling and judiciously talk this over with Vinnie “The Knife”, they only call him that because he trims fabric so well.
Anyways: as usual Razor had at least one sharp observation. Talking to ourselves again. That bruise looks pretty bad, but there’s a sale on at Niemann Marcus.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 21 2005 5:14 utc | 98
But did you mean Clausewitz or Horowitz?
Clausewitz said: “war is politics by other means.” Horowitz turned it around: “Politics is war by other means.” I was quoting Horowitz.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 21 2005 5:15 utc | 99
Lookit this 3 days ago everyone had an opinion on Rove; today everyone wants to be heard about a bloke who is so typical of his breed that he might as well have come out of a box. Whose setting what agenda?
To me (on the outside) the situation is simple if you have to become as evil as the enemy to defeat him then only evil has won.
Don’t be automatically giving yourself over to the dems just because they aren’t the repugs. Make those flabby, combed-over windbags come after you. The biggest problem the left has in the US (seems to me) is that the left acts like the dems are the only option, therefore the politicians who care a lot more about winning than anything else regard you mob as being in the bag and go courting the middle. If the pollies had to come over and meet the left, the chances are they would drag some of the middle with them but they won’t do that if you don’t make em.
I don’t have any particular torch for Nader but how dare the sleazy, out of touch, hubris sodden fools that pretend to represent ‘ordinary people’ blame ordinary people for their loss, when it was the dems failure to articulate ‘ordinary people’s issues that created the need for a Nader?
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 21 2005 5:18 utc | 100