The Perfect Republican Storm - Cliff Notes Version

Unclaimed Territory

Glenn Greenwald encapsulates it perfectly...

"The perfection of this scandal lies in its substance, not its theatrics. The Foley scandal is not -- as even some Bush opponents have asserted -- an aberrational, isolated, inconsequential melodrama that is unrelated to the substantive and important critiques of the Bush movement and which just coincidentally emerged as a cynical weapon that can be used to defeat the Republicans. The opposite is true. This scandal has resonated so powerfully because it is shining such a powerful light on the towering hubris, utter lack of intellectual and ethical integrity, and deeply engrained corruption that accounts for virtually every other Bush disaster -- from Iraq to law-breaking scandals to torture to Abrahmoff-type corruption schemes and everything in between...

But for so many reasons -- its relative simplicity, its crystal clarity, the involvement of emotionally-charged issues, the salacious sex aspects -- this Foley scandal circumvents that whole dynamic. People are paying attention on their own. They don't need pundits or journalists to tell them what to think about it because they are able to form deeply held opinions on their own. None of the standard obfuscation tactics used for so long by Bush followers are working here. To the contrary, their attempted use of those tactics is making things much worse for them, because people can see that Bush followers are attempting -- through the use of patently dishonest and corrupt tactics -- to excuse the inexcusable. And seeing that, it gives great credence to all of the accusations voiced over the last five years that this is how the Bush movement operates in every area, because people can now see it for themselves...

There have been some commentary in various blogs that the "Republican Pederast" scandal is going to distract everyone from such "really" important matters as Bush's Failed War and the Corrupt Republican Political Machine. But, on the contrary, it is a perfect Cliff Notes version of both.

How many divisions do you have?

Here's what you find in the restrooms of the White House and the RNC...

Update below

Hey, Supremes? How many divisions do you have? I ask this because of your recent ruling against Commandante Bush. You see, Bush owns the military, he owns Guantanamo, he's signed over 700 "signing statements" opting himself from laws passed by Congress. If anyone thinks this pack of crooks and con men are going to be moved by the OTHER branch of the government all I can offer you is hysterical laughter. It's probably not so notable that Scalia, Thomas and, now, Alito (and thank you very much for that, Joe Lieberman) voted for the Commandante to eviscerate the Constitution. To the rest of the world who once admired the United States I say, "Welcome to the Banana Republic of America."

It should be obvious that the only way for the Democrats to dispossess these RICO's (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) otherwise known as the Republican Party is to get WAY MORE than the 50% plus 1 needed to win a real election. Probably something like 60% of the popular vote and 60% of the electoral vote. There is only so much that crooked electronic voting and tossed and purged voter rolls can be expected to do.

Fortunately, there's a hint in the air, a tantalizing wiff, that that just might happen, but then the question is, "How many divisions do you have, America?"

Washington Post: High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals

The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it.

Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.

As a result, no military commission can try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former aide to Osama bin Laden whose case was before the justices, or anyone else, unless the president does one of two things he has resisted doing for more than four years: operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently.

Update: Those staunch defenders of the Constitution are already on the job...

Raw Story: Senators move to reverse effects of Supreme Court decision against Guantanamo commissions

The "N" word

No, not THAT one. The other one. The one I won't print here because I don't want to make Google's search engine link to it. The one that describes the National Socialist Party of Germany in the 1930's.

That one.

Now it can be said that the N-word Germans had given Fascism a bad name. That wouldn't be accurate because Fascism already had a bad name. Really bad. The N-word Germans just gave us Fascism on steroids with an arsenic kicker. So now a modern commentator cannot connect the N-word and any other person, political party or social movement without being laughed out of the metaphorical building. And rightfully so, I would imagine but there are times when a cogent argument can be made of certain parallels between the Chancellor of N-word Germany and you-know-who.

The problem with drawing attention to these parallels is that people start extrapolating it back, in this case, to the American military, etc. and the connections start to look absurd. LET ME STATE CATEGORICALLY, THERE ARE NO PARALLELS, EITHER PHILOSOPHICALLY, MORALLY OR ETHICALLY BETWEEN THE AMERICAN MILITARY AND THE MILITARY OF GERMANY OF THE 30'S AND 40'S. Abu Graib and Haditha, notwithstanding, which I see as aberrations of long standing American military policy and military law.

Let's do a little "thought experiment" like Einstein liked to call them. Imagine that the United States had continued to finish off the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine we took about a tenth of the money we've squandered in Iraq and rebuilt the infrastructure in Afghanistan. Schools, power plants, manufacturing facilities, etc.: a modern day Marshall Plan. Now imagine how the world and the mid-east situation would look if we had done THAT. And imagine how we could then turn, along with the international community, that once was on our side, to the problem of Saddam Hussein.

It staggers the mind.

I know the Brotherhood and Sisterhood of Traveling Asshats known as the modern Republican Party will disagree but it must be a steadily dawning realization to many former War cheerleaders that George W. Bush and his clown show of an Administration has so completely and thoroughly mismanaged the effort in Iran. The military is being broken. Our nation's ability to address real threats has been severly weakened, and Bush is bunkered down in his own head and refuses to face this reality. As long as that reality threatens the Republican Party's political power there will be no real solutions to this f.u.b.a.r. situation. Bush will stumble along, berating ANY hint of failure that squeaks out in the mainstream media until circumstances change and he can put the blame on someone, anyone else.

He has his place in history to think of.

The Radical Right: Stabbing America in the back

The June 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine has an excellent essay entitled STABBED IN THE BACK!: The past and future of a right-win myth by Kevin Baker (no link available yet). In it Mr. Baker writes...

"Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is how, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies..."

What is interesting about this process is, not so much that it has emerged after things have gone so terribly wrong in Iraq, but that it was built in to the Republican narrative since the terrorist attacks on September 11. From that day, every concern advanced by the Democrats about the build-up to war, every criticism of Bush and the Republican Congress handling of security issues and their relentless drive to undermine our constitutional protections has been met with hysterical claims that we Democrats and lefties HATE America and are joining with it's enemies to destroy it. This is the same narrative that was trotted out as eastern Europe fell to Communist regimes after WWII. The same bludgeon against the anti-war lefties as South Vietnam fell and the same now as Iraq and Afghanistan become a monstrous debacle.

Another word for it is scapegoating:

"In scapegoating, feelings of guilt, aggression, blame and suffering are transferred away from a person or group so as to fulfill an unconscious drive to resolve or avoid such bad feelings. This is done by the displacement of responsibility and blame to another who serves as a target for blame both for the scapegoater and his supporters. The scapegoating process can be understood as an example of the Drama Triangle concept [Karpman, 1968].

The perpetrator's drive to displace and transfer responsibility away from himself may not be experienced with full consciousness - self-deception is often a feature. The target's knowledge that he is being scapegoated builds slowly and follows events. The scapegoater's target experiences exclusion, ostracism or even expulsion.

In so far as the process is unconscious it is more likely to be denied by the perpetrator. In such cases, any bad feelings - such as the perpetrator's own shame and guilt - are also likely to be denied. Scapegoating frees the perpetrator from some self-dissatisfaction and provides some narcissistic gratification to him. It enables the self-righteous discharge of aggression. Scapegoaters tend to have extra-punitive characteristics [Kraupl-Taylor, 1953].

Scapegoating also can be seen as the perpetrator's defense mechanism against unacceptable emotions such as hostility and guilt. In Kleinian terms, scapegoating is an example of projective identification, with the primitive intent of splitting: separating the good from the bad [Scheidlinger, 1982]. On another view, scapegoaters are insecure people driven to raise their own status by lowering the status of their target [Carter, 1996]."

It's also interesting that George W. Bush is being fitted out for his goat suit by the radical right. One of the major attacks emerging against him from that quarter is that he is a LIBERAL and has betrayed the principals of conservatism. Every fawning peon to Bush from the last 5 years has been conveniently forgotten. His elevation to the godhead of the Conservative cause is now no longer applicable. Never mind that this idiot son was foisted on the country by a radical right slavering for absolute control of every aspect of the government. Never mind that the attack on governance and the resulting failures (9/11, Katrina, Iraq) can be laid on the doorstep of the RNC. No, it's the Liberals fault.

It's time we hammer home exactly who is to blame for everything that has gone wrong since President Gore was denied his office. America was not "stabbed in the back" by some crazed lefties. It was betrayed by the Radical Right of the Republican party who's hatred of New Deal protections and progressive government became a maniacal obsession. To them the Constitution of the United States was a convenient myth to be set aside when the chance came for Real Power.

It's time to put the blame for these Un-American activities exactly where it belongs: The Republican Party of the United States.

Helen Thomas: Want More Bush? Elect McCain.

Common Dreams

WASHINGTON - In his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain is moving to the right.

The Arizona Republican, who failed to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, is the most visible Republican on television, outside the White House, and seems to never pass up an opportunity to appear on Sunday talk shows.

All this appears to be part of his effort to transform his image as a maverick independent so that he can make his pitch to the conservative Republican base that will vote in the party's primaries and caucuses two years hence.

McCain's focus is on Southern states where he will have to show his dedication to the conservatives who dominate the GOP. He was scheduled to be the main speaker at the Lincoln Day dinner in Lakeland, Fla., on Saturday. Later this spring, he will deliver the commencement address at Liberty University at Lynchburg, Va., the school founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell.

Falwell has indicated there are still some bridges to mend with McCain, who had called Falwell "an agent of intolerance" in his first bid for the presidency in 2000.

Although Falwell has not endorsed McCain, he has said that the senator "could be the GOP's best hope" if Sen. Hillary Clinton is nominated to head the Democratic ticket in 2008.

Falwell also says McCain is in the process of "healing the breach with evangelical groups."

Asked to explain his change of attitude toward the evangelist on "Meet the Press" Sunday, McCain said: "I believe that the Christian right has a major role to play in the Republican Party. One reason (that) is so is because they're so active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be part of our party."

McCain also has gone out of his way to cozy up to President Bush after their bitter rift in the 2000 presidential campaign. McCain has said he does not look back in anger at old political battles. That's wise -- he's going to need Bush's backing in a presidential bid.

McCain also has taken other stands that should put him in good with Southern conservatives. Hailing from a military family -- his father and grandfather were admirals in the Navy -- he is a strong supporter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and believes the number of U.S. troops there should be beefed up.

He is against abortion rights and gun-control laws and believes students should be taught the religion-oriented "intelligent design" theory of creation as well as the theory of scientific evolution.

His painful experience as a POW during the Vietnam War led him to buck the White House on the question of using torture to interrogate detainees and prisoners of war. Despite White House opposition, he triumphed with a 90-9 Senate vote on his anti-torture amendment to the defense appropriations bill.

Well, almost.

In signing the bill, the president issued a statement that under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, he did not have to abide by the anti-torture amendment. This is a dubious claim of presidential power that should be challenged.

McCain's political record is not entirely pristine. He was a member of the so-called Keating Five -- five senators linked to Charles Keating in the savings and loan scandals in 1991. But a special investigator found that McCain had not been substantially involved in influence peddling but criticized him and three others for "questionable conduct."

That searing experience may explain why McCain has been an avid advocate of campaign finance reform.

With his "hail fellow well met" persona and tendency to jaw with the media and pundits in the back of the campaign bus, he has created the impression in some quarters that he is a "moderate."

Forget it. His voting record speaks for itself.

McCain is working hard to prove his staunch conservative credentials as he woos the far right in his party.

If he wins the presidency, the country can expect a continuation of Bush's aggressive foreign policy and ultra-right domestic programs.

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.