WaxWorks
|
Friday, September 16, 2005
Now, No Laughing With Glee Over This One
An possible explanation for the incompetence Administration response to Katrina: Karl Rove had kidney stones.
At This Point, We Don't Know
I've always been a David Mamet fan, from Glengarry Glen Ross to American Buffalo, and I thought this Mamet article comparing the Democrats' recent strategy with a poker game was worth reading. Here's an excerpt, as the link may require registration:
If you are branded as passive, the table will roll right over you — your
opponents will steal antes without fear. Why? Because the addicted caller has
never exhibited what, in the wider world, is known as courage.
In poker, one must have courage: the courage to bet, to back one's
convictions, one's intuitions, one's understanding. There can be no victory
without courage. The successful player must be willing to wager on likelihoods.
Should he wait for absolutely risk-free certainty, he will win nothing,
regardless of the cards he is dealt.
For example, take a player who has never acted with initiative — he has
never raised, merely called. Now, at the end of the evening, he is dealt a royal
flush. The hand, per se, is unbeatable, but the passive player has never acted
aggressively; his current bet (on the sure thing) will signal to the other
players that his hand is unbeatable, and they will fold. His patient, passive
quest for certainty has won nothing.
The Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate
no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country.
Committed Democrats watched while Al Gore frittered away the sure-thing
election of 2000. They watched, passively, while the Bush administration
concocted a phony war; they, in the main, voted for the war knowing it was
purposeless, out of fear of being thought weak. They then ran a candidate who
refused to stand up to accusations of lack of patriotism.
The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became
increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize
the initiative. John Kerry lost the 2004 election combating an indictment of his
Vietnam War record. A decorated war hero muddled himself in merely "calling" the
attacks of a man with, curiously, a vanishing record of military attendance.
Even if the Democrats and Kerry had prevailed (that is, succeeded in nullifying
the Republicans arguably absurd accusations), they would have been back only
where they started before the accusations began.
Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the
poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over
Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe
that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A
possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He
didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for
his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the
man was a deserter."
This would have been a raise. Here the initiative has been seized, and the
opponent must now fume and bluster and scream unfair. In combat, in politics, in
poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is
that aggression will prevail.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Kudos
Very often politicians, and Bush has been one of the best, dodge politically-dangerous questions by claiming that they can't answer them because they are "hypothetical questions."
So I was quite pleased to see how Tim Russert handled such a dodge while moderating the Virginia Governor's debate and questioning Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore, per Taegan Goddard's great site, Political Wire:
WTOP has the exchange between Virginia gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore (R) and moderator Tim Russert at a debate yesterday when the candidate refused to answer whether he would outlaw abortion except for cases of rape, incest or the mother's life.
Kilgore replied that the question was "a hypothetical. You don't know what any Supreme Court in the future is going to do."
"If the Virginia legislature passed a tax increase, would you veto it or sign it?" Russert persisted.
"I would veto it," Kilgore answered.
"That's a hypothetical question," the NBC Meet The Press host interjected, cutting Kilgore off as a crowd of about 500 business leaders and politicians - most of them sympathetic to Kaine - broke into laughter at Kilgore's expense.
The Washington Post website has the video, which is worth a watch to see how angry Russert gets.
A Pattern of Failure of Leadership
This past weekend, I saw a program about Flight 93 on the 4th anniversary of 9/11. I've read quite a bit about the various programs that have been made about Flight 93 recently, mostly praise by conservative columnists and bloggers, who have wrapped themselves up in 9/11.
Yet, these right-wingers seem to be ignorant of the fact that the tragedy of Flight 93 very easily could have been avoided if the nation had had a confident and decisive leader that day.
The proof is right there in the 9/11 Commission Report (a document, I've come to find out, very few right-wingers have actually read, which is somewhat ironic, considering how often they cite 9/11 as a defense of this administration. Yet the 9/11 Commission Report is extremely damning of the criminally negligent response of the Administration to Al Qaeda before 9/11, so it would only make sense that the right would conveniently choose to ignore unfortunate facts.)
The 9/11 Commission Report details, on page 38, that, at 9:05 am, Andy Card told Bush that a second plane had hit the towers. As Michael Moore made clear to the world in Fahrenheit 9/11, Bush then "remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes while the children continued reading." According to the Report, Bush told the Commission that he remainded in the classroom reading "My Pet Goat" because he felt he should "project strength and calm," and "not to have the country see an excited reaction in a moment of crisis." Yet, as the Report also details matter-of-factly, Bush saw the press behind the schoolchildren and saw their phones and pagers start to ring. Yet Bush chose to do NOTHING.
By freezing under pressure, Bush ensured that Flight 93 would have no chance, as Bush did not immediately order all aircraft to be grounded once he learned of the second plane hitting the towers. This decision had grave consequences for the victims on Flight 93, for, at this time, the hijackers had not yet attempted to take over the flight. Indeed, as outlined on page 33 of the Report, it was not until 9:28 that hijackers likely took over the flight.
If Bush had immediately ordered all flights grounded, the pilots and crew of Flight 93 would have been on alert and the pilots would had been given an opportunity to land the plane, without anyone being hurt. Quite possibly, after seeing that people were onto the plot, the hijackers would not have attempted to take over the plane. It is possible that, seeing that the plane was going to be emergency-landed, the hijackers might have panicked and still tried to take over the plane. But it is certainly less likely that they would have been successful in reaching the cockpit.
Let us not think that Bush's response to Katrina is an isolated event -- it is yet another example of Bush's failed leadership.
Maybe the Exit Polls Were Right
Maybe Peter Fitzgerald can subpoena Rove's computer records for November 2, 2004. It turns out that it was well-known among insiders at Diebold that there was a security flaw that would allow an outsider to hack the voting equipment and alter votes. Before you right-wingers cry conspiracy, it turns out that the Department of Homeland Security had noted this potential security flaw on its website:
The "Cyber Security Alert" from US-CERT was issued in late August of 2004
and is still available online via the US-CERT website. The alert warns that "A vulnerability exists due to an undocumented backdoor account, which could a [sic: allow] local or remote authenticated malicious user [sic: to] modify votes."
Yeah, I find it hard to believe America would re-elect someone who's now got a 40% approval rating. But at least he's hard at work at important meetings... asking Condi if he can go to the potty. What, does he ask Cheney at lunch if he can be excused?
Apparently, Once You Become President You Don't Have to Worry About These Things
Anybody else remember this?:
"You know, as governor, one of the things you have to deal with is catastrophe.
I can remember the fires that swept Parker County, Texas. I remember the floods
that swept our state. I remember going down to Del Rio, Texas. I have to pay the
administration a compliment. James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job
of working with governors during times of crisis. But that's the time when
you're tested not only -- it's the time to test your metal, a time to test your
heart when you see people whose lives have been turned upside down. It broke my
heart to go to the flood scene in Del Rio where a fellow and his family got
completely uprooted. The only thing I knew was to got aid as quickly as possible
with state and federal help, and to put my arms around the man and his family
and cry with them. That's what governors do. They are often on the front line of
catastrophic situations. "
It's Bush during the first debate in 2000 with Gore.
Won't Get Fooled Again?
I've read some statements in the media that Democrats should back off of Roberts now that he endorsed a right to privacy and embraced a strong principle of stare decisis. (Personally, I believe he only did that in order to get Specter's vote, and ensuring that his nomination would not go to the Senate floor with a 9-9 vote). But it's important for Democrats to be skeptical, if history is any guide. All they need to do is look at the perjurious statements Clarence Thomas made before the Judiciary Committee in 1991, well before Anita Hill ever showed her face.
Of course, there is the laughable claim by Thomas that he never discussed the Roe v. Wade decision with anyone in law school, even though the decision was issued while he was a student at Yale Law School. (That statement was either an outright lie, or, if true, should have immediately disqualified him for serving on the Court). But then there were these statements which should give Democrats pause in light of Roberts' testimony:
SENATOR BIDEN: Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect the right of women to
decide for themselves in certain instances whether or not to terminate
pregnancy?
JUDGE THOMAS: My view is that there is a right to privacy in the
Fourteenth Amendment.
BIDEN: Well, does that right to privacy protect the right of a woman to
decide for herself in
certain instances whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?
THOMAS: The Supreme Court has made clear that the issue of marital privacy
is protected, and in the case of Roe v. Wade has found an interest in the
woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. I do not think that at this time that I
could maintain my impartiality as a member of the judiciary and comment on that
specific case.
BIDEN: [What about your] natural law philosophy [expressed during your
tenure in the Reagan Administration]?
THOMAS: What I was looking for were unifying themes in a political
standpoint, not a constitutional adjudication standpoint.
and
SENATOR THURMOND: Would you please briefly state your general view of stare
decisis [upholding a previous court’s ruling based on precedent] and under what
circumstances you would consider it appropriate to overrule a prior procedure?
JUDGE THOMAS: I think overruling a case or reconsidering a case is a very
serious matter. Certainly, you would have to be of the view that a case is
incorrectly decided, but I think even that is not adequate. There are some cases
that you may not agree with that should not be overruled. Stare decisis provides
continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of
case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical
concept. A judge that wants to reconsider a case and certainly one who wants to
overrule a case has the burden of demonstrating that not only is the case
indirect, but that it would be appropriate, in view of stare decisis, to make
that additional step of overruling that case.
Source: Senate Confirmation Hearings Sep 10, 1991
And, of course, nine months later, on June 29, 1992, after making these strong pronouncements, then-Justice Thomas joined Rehnquist's dissent in Casey, which stated that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. And then, in Lawrence v. Kansas in 2003, Thomas wrote this in dissent:
"And just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor
any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ' quoting
Potter Stewart's dissent in the Griswold case."
Something to keep in mind in evaluating Roberts' statements this week.
Vegas Would Probably Consider It A "Push"
It's been widely reported, in the various obits on Chief Justice Rehnquist, that he loved to bet on things, including, many reports have noted, elections.
My question is: in 2000, would he have collected from Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter, after Bush v. Gore? Doesn't quite seem fair when you get to decide the outcome, huh?
Maybe Rehnquist's bet is yet another reason why Bush v. Gore is one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. He had a pecuniary interest in the outcome!
