No Joe, Both Sides are Not Just as Bad

Filed under "Goodbye and good riddance." On his way out the door, retiring Senator Joe Lieberman, sole member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, is on his way out the door and we wish him a hearty "get the hell out and don't come back." But as he leaves, he takes the opportunity to catapult one more projectile of BS at the castle walls of reality.

New York Times:

...Even amid the current meltdown in Washington and the consistent Republican opposition to Mr. Obama, Mr. Lieberman insists on blaming both parties equally in a way that some Democrats say works for him but ignores reality.

"The Republicans will say not only in the fiscal negotiations, but in general, they were constantly bending and willing to compromise, and it's the Democrats' fault," he said. "But the truth is, they're both right. It's both their fault."

"I understand the reflexive establishment posture, which suggests partisan observations are necessarily wrong, but consider recent events," says Steve Benen, "the fiscal talks have broken down because Republicans won't compromise and accept meaningful concessions; the farm bill and the Violence Against Women Act are stuck because Republicans won't vote on them; efforts to reduce gun violence face extremely long odds because Republicans are beholden to the NRA; a U.N. treaty on disabilities was killed because Republicans believed extremist conspiracy theories; the process of filling President Obama's second term cabinet is stalled because of Republican smear campaigns; and another debt-ceiling crisis is underway because Republicans are threatening to hurt Americans on purpose unless Democrats pay a steep ransom."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

No John, 'The Surge' Didn't Work

Last week wasn't John McCain's best week. A market meltdown exposed the shortcomings of McCain's ideology of deregulation and set him back on his heels. With 83 Wall Street lobbyists working on his campaign, McCain not only found himself in the position of being a Washington insider running against the Washington establishment, but as a Wall Street insider running against Wall Street. That didn't work so well. It was a gaffe-filled week for McCain-Palin, with both the candidate and running mate scrambling to find some sort of footing in the new political landscape.

In fact, the week was so bad for McCain that conservative columnist George Will took him out to the woodshed on ABC's This Week Sunday, telling the panel that he blew it on the economy.

"I suppose the McCain campaign's hope is that when there's a big crisis, people will go for age and experience," George Will said. "The question is who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and unflustered. It wasn't John McCain, who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence said let's fire somebody and picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration."

On the same show, Sam Donaldson wondered if there wasn't something wrong with McCain's head, asking if McCain wasn't "getting his talking points confused" and saying that "I think the question of McCain’s age is back on the table."





McCain made some foreign policy stumbles last week; confusing Spanish PM Zapatero with the Zappatistas in Chiapas, Mexico and the Colombian FARC, for example. This didn't get a lot of press, but enough to ding his claim to foreign policy expertise. We've already dealt with his fumbling on the economy, so that's scuffed his experience argument -- his experience consists of doing the kind of stuff that got us into this mess. Pretty much all McCain has left is the "right about Iraq" argument.

Of course, that argument ignores the fact that McCain was wrong about Iraq from the start, while Barack Obama opposed the invasion, but it seems to be working well enough for him. McCain's argument here is that, as long as we screwed up and invaded a nation that proved to be no threat to us, we might as well go ahead and win. That this is just winning for the sake of winning is, apparently, beside the point. In McCain's world, if you mistakenly pick a fight with someone and find out it's the wrong guy while you're pounding him stupid, you keep up your unjustified crime of assault and battery if you're winning. This is what John McCain refers to as coming home "with victory and honor." In John McCain's world, mistakes with death tolls in the hundreds of thousands can only be rectified by killing even more.

So it is that John McCain continues to tell us "the surge worked!" Of course, if it had worked, you'd assume the war would be over and people would be coming home. But I guess you'd be assuming wrong. Back in January, John McCain and Joe Lieberman co-authored an op-ed with the title "The Surge Worked." Subtlety isn't the strong point of these two.

After years of mismanagement of the war, many people had grave doubts about whether success in Iraq was possible. In Congress, opposition to the surge from antiwar members was swift and severe. They insisted that Iraq was already "lost," and that there was nothing left to do but accept our defeat and retreat.

In fact, they could not have been more wrong. And had we heeded their calls for retreat, Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran.

Instead, conditions in that country have been utterly transformed from those of a year ago, as a consequence of the surge. Whereas, a year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq was entrenched in Anbar province and Baghdad, now the forces of Islamist extremism are facing their single greatest and most humiliating defeat since the loss of Afghanistan in 2001. Thanks to the surge, the Sunni Arabs who once constituted the insurgency's core of support in Iraq have been empowered to rise up against the suicide bombers and fanatics in their midst -- prompting Osama bin Laden to call them "traitors."

Woohoo! We're just doing a bang-up job of beating the living hell out of the wrong guy. Yay for us. McCain, who claims credit for the idea, seems to believe that "send in more troops!" is a masterpiece of military strategy and not the most obvious thing in the freakin' world. If you listen to McCain, Bush, and just about any random Republican, the surge is the greatest military strategy since the D-Day invasion of Normandy. That Lieberman's and McCain's argument relies on pure BS shouldn't be lost on anyone -- neither al Qaeda nor Iran was responsible for the largest share of violence in Iraq. The country was in a civil war. The violence was mostly Iraqi on Iraqi.

And a new study by the University of California shows that it wasn't the surge that was so successful, but the civil war. What many suspected was the case turns out to be the case -- violence in Iraq fell because a period of ethnic cleansing went so well that the cleansers ran out of people to attack.

Foreign Policy:

Using free satellite imagery from the Department of Defense, researchers tracked electricity use in Iraq before, during, and after the surge took place. Electricity use (as measured by visible night-light) in Baghdad fell, notably in certain outlying neighborhoods where incidents of ethnic violence were documented by The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces in Iraq.

"If the surge had truly 'worked,' we would expect to see a steady increase in night-light output over time," says Thomas Gillespie, one of the co-authors, in a press release. "Instead, we found that the night-light signature diminished in only certain neighborhoods, and the pattern appears to be associated with ethno-sectarian violence and neighborhood ethnic cleansing."

"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," said John Agnew of UCLA. "Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning."

I'd also add that the fact that the violence is down does not equate peace. Iraqis still suffer an unacceptable level of violence and the fact that the violence was once worse doesn't mean a whole helluva lot to people still having to deal with it on a daily basis. In fact, Iraq is so violent that the middle east still suffers from a massive refugee crisis, as people chased from their homes are too afraid to return. Yet Republicans would have you believe that Iraq is all sunshine, rainbows, and group hugs. "Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq," President Bush told us, while neglecting to tell us that everyone else was as well -- on the run from racist killers and religiously intolerant psychopaths.

So, add McCain's "the surge worked!" triumphalism to the list of failures he chooses to showcase. The surge didn't actually accomplish anything -- in fact, despite the constant assurances that the surge is over, there are still more troops in Iraq than there were before the escalation. The escalation is ongoing -- making the word "surge" an abuse of language.

Every time McCain talks about this "surge," remember what really happened. Remember the dark and empty neighborhoods, cleared of the hated minorities and ungodly heathens. Remember the fact that one in five Iraqis is a refugee, chased out of their homes and still afraid to return. Remember that "the surge worked!" really means "ethnic cleansing was successful!" when translated from propaganda-speak into English. When McCain and the Republicans celebrate the success of their escalation, remember that what they're really doing is proposing a toast to hatred, intolerance, and violence in the name of religion -- none of which would've happened if we didn't invade in the first place.

Whether you're willing to drink to that depends entirely upon how much reality you're willing to ignore.

-Wisco

The Future is not Welcome at the RNC

One of the measures of how well the Republican National Convention went last night is whether it knocked the Sarah Palin stories off the front page. Or, at least, changed the tone from scandalous to... I don't know, something other than scandalous.

So the first thing I did when I logged on this morning was check the top headlines at Google News. Headline #1; "High-profile teen pregnancies in spotlight." The first sentence; "The revelation that Bristol Palin, the 17-year-old daughter of GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, is five months pregnant puts teen pregnancy squarely in the spotlight again this summer."

Mission most definitely not accomplished. Despite Fred Thompson's assertion that "the selection of Governor Palin has the other side and their friends in the media in a state of panic," blind panic isn't the vibe I'm getting. I think the word Fred was searching for here is "glee."

George W. Bush managed to accomplish what most of the party preferred -- to both be there and not be there, giving a relatively short address via video. I don't know that having GWB on a giant screen, distributing talking points like Big Brother was all that great an idea, but what's done is done.

And making the headliner Joe Lieberman was almost inarguably a mistake. He's about as exciting as reading a dictionary. Worse, he topped off a night of "Yay for Sarah Palin!" with a weak endorsement. Newsweek's Adam Kushner calls Lieberman's address "languid," "pleading," and "placid." The guy is famous for being boring. The RNC seemed to recognize this fact by making Lieberman's speech as short as Bush's.





A few high-profile personalities were entirely absent last night. The economy wasn't there, health care wasn't there, foreign policy wasn't there. In fact, to a very large part, the future was absent. Thompson's speech, though well delivered, was mostly about John McCain as a POW and what an awful mistake it would be to elect Obama. No real specifics, but that was really to be expected -- Thompson's speech was basically a McCain bio. It skipped over a few unfortunate facts -- no mention of the Keating Five. But no one expected there to be.

In the relaying of how awful his treatment as a POW in Vietnam was, Thompson also skipped over the fact that he appeared in propaganda films for the Vietnamese where he "confessed" to war crimes. I don't blame him at all, I would've done the same thing. But when Thompson said, "John McCain's bones may have been broken but his spirit never was," he wasn't exactly telling the truth. McCain broke under torture. But only terr'ists are supposed to break under torture, because they're cowardly, so history must be revised. American heroes are supermen -- torture doesn't work on them. That this isn't true is beside the point.

Throughout all of this, there was a sort of funereal vibe. As I said, it was almost all about the past, things that have been done. Not things that will be done. The future made a few appearances in the form of all the drilling we're going to do, the glorious victory for the Homeland in Iraq, and the way that McCain-Palin is going to be the winning ticket, but otherwise, the future tense was largley banished from the hall. This gave the proceedings a sort of backwards-looking feel which, combined with all the militarism, gave everything the feel of a military funeral. A eulogy for John McCain.

I'm looking through headlines and the sad fact is that the Republican National Convention didn't make much news. They needed a rallying cry, they delivered an infomercial. If they're going to get some action in the polls, they're going to have to stop playing it safe. They're going to have to talk about the future. It doesn't look like it's going to go that way. The Palin pick has forced the GOP into damage control mode, which in turn forces them to focus on the past. They need to find some way to get past Sarah Palin and McCain as POW and start talking about what they want to do and why it's a good idea. So far, they haven't.

Some are speculating that Palin will be replaced. From the sound of things last night, I have deep doubts over whether that will happen (yeah, I realize I'm disagreeing with Rachel Maddow here. I'm as surprised as you are). At any rate, it'd have to happen today, before she gives her acceptance speech tonight. Once she accepts the nomination, it's a done deal.

Getting rid of Sarah Palin would be a bigger scandal than selecting her was and I don't see McCain making another disastrous mistake so soon. Even if he's just making these decisions using a Magic 8-Ball, the odds are against it.

Maybe the GOP is in denial and that's why the future is an unwelcome guest at the convention. After all, when your future looks like this, it's difficult to stick your hand into that fire. It just goes against human instinct.

-Wisco

The Man Everyone Loves to Hate

OK, so now we've got an official Democratic nominee. As the roll call vote unfolded, the State of New York stopped the voting and Sen. Hillary Clinton moved that they forego the vote and nominate Barack Obama by acclamation. The motion carried and Barack Obama became the party's nominee.

Tonight, Barack Obama will speak to a crowd at Invesco stadium as the party's nominee. After this stupid-long campaign so far, it seems crazy to say it, but the general election is nearly underway. At least, in an official sense. Party nominations have become formalities in recent elections, tightly scripted and choreographed, without unpleasant surprises.

So, for all intents and purposes, we have a Democratic presidential candidate, a Democratic running mate, a Republican presidential candidate, and a big ol' honkin' question mark. Who is McCain's choice?

Signs point to Lieberman, but signs can be (deliberately) misleading.



First, there's the fact that there's a web ad out there, featuring McCain and Lieberman together -- two smiling faces above the words "McCain: Join Our Team." NYT columnist and founding neocon WIlliam Kristol wrote that McCain had his eye on Joementum.

He could select the person he would really like to have by his side in the White House -- but whose selection would cause palpitations among many of his staffers and supporters: the independent Democratic senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman.

On the other hand, Bill Kristol is famous for being wrong on an extremely regular basis. So regular that close observers wonder how the hell he manages to find work as a pundit. This was a man who helped found an organization devoted to invading Iraq, so I guess his blowful political analysis should surprise no one.

But there are other reasons to suspect Lieberman is the choice.

Politico:

Republican strategist Karl Rove called Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) late last week and urged him to contact John McCain to withdraw his name from vice presidential consideration, according to three sources familiar with the conversation.

Lieberman dismissed the request, these sources agreed.

Lieberman “laughed at the suggestion and certainly did not call [McCain] on it,” said one source familiar with the details.

“Rove called Lieberman,” recounted a second source. “Lieberman told him he would not make that call.”

Golly! Karl Rove must be really worried that it'll be McCain-Lieberman '08. If it's true, Rove has reason to worry. See, no one likes Joe Lieberman. In his home state of Connecticut, Lieberman's approval ratings are through the floor because of a combination of his support for John McCain and his relentless bullcrap in support of the occupation of Iraq. Lieberman scores a 45% approval, down from 52% in March -- the first time he's fallen below 50% in 14 years. If he were running for re-election today, it's likely that he'd lose.

Then again, when it comes to Connecticut, McCain literally has nothing to lose. He'll be crushed by Obama there -- polling 35%-56% in July. No choice he'll make will make any difference there. Those electoral votes will not be McCain's.

Then there's the idea that choosing Lieberman would help McCain with the Jewish vote. It wouldn't. Only 37% of US Jews have a favorable opinion of Joe Lieberman. Barack Obama -- that secret mooslum -- scores better than that with US Jews. Fully 60% view him favorably.

Finally, the base doesn't like him because he's pro-choice and everyone else in the GOP doesn't trust him because he's a proven turncoat. The only person who seems to actually like Joe Lieberman is Joe Lieberman. In short, he'd be an amazingly awful pick.

So all of this talk about Lieberman may be a head-fake. The McCain campaign may be leaking Joementum hints to make any other choice look better. McCain could even claim -- falsely -- that Lieberman was the easy choice, the politically expedient selection, but that he put politics aside and put America first with whatever other awful choice he makes -- compared to Joe Lieberman, even Mitt Romney would look good.

"I'm going to give you some straight talk, my friends," McCain could say (he always slaps a big "straight talk" label on BS). "I could've gone the easy route. I could've reached across the aisle and compromised and accepted Joe Lieberman as my running mate. But a Republican President deserves a Republican Vice President, so I made the hard choice and chose ___. The presidency's about making hard choices, my friends."

McCain's reportedly already made his choice, which he'll announce tomorrow (or leak tonight during Obama's address). I have deep, deep doubts -- despite all the obvious hints -- that it'll be Joe Lieberman.

Then again, I could be wrong. John McCain hasn't been known for extremely wise choices in this campaign. If he wants to chain that anchor to his foot, you won't hear me complaining about it.

-Wisco