Bloodless Coup

Here's a great clip of Wesley Clark Jr. speaking rather frankly about John McCain & many others; Enjoy! http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2006/5/17/213321/962

When reading Salter's thoughts, why is it "bitchy" is the first word that comes to mind. That surely is a world away from Karl Rove. Bear in mind, I have great support for Bush huggers and Iraqi Freedom cheerleaders, but McCain isn't my choice, and I doubt he'll be the choice of other conservatives. I'll support Jeb, Condi, or Giuliani, but I'm not going out to vote for McCain even if he is the Republican candidate. I'd much sooner vote for Lieberman if it came down to the two of them. We need somebody with at least a little character.

I think McCain has betrayed the ideals he's espoused by getting into bed with the right, but to suggest he lacks "at least a little character"!? Really, Morris, in what does character inhere? Did Bush show his character when he was putzing around in the Guard while McCain was choosing extra time in hell rather than leave his compatriots? Did Bush show more character when he turned a war against terror into a war on WMD's into a war for freedom, depending on the emerging facts and the polls?

Jeb's a lightweight, Condi's been in bed with the Moron in Chief for too long to take her seriously, and Giuliani is the only pol who might hate the first amendment and freedom of the press more than Bush and Co. Lieberman, like Condi, is hopelessly compromised by the company he keeps, literally and figuratively.

But yeah, McCain lacks character.

As for Salter, Bitchy is exactly what he sounded like. He could have chosen not to dignify the speech with an answer rather than come off like I and my friends did when, as 20-ish editors of a countercultural college weekly, we wrote angry, scurrilous, self-indulgent and petulant letters to the editor of the uber-corporate daily paper at my large state school. We were 20 and trying to be dicks -- what's Salter's excuse?

If McCain is so keen on straight talk, he should just take his punch. Rohe, in her speech and in her comments at Huffington Post, sounded like she had more poise, integrity, and honest (as opposed to opportunistic) conviction than anything I've heard come out of the right in 10 years.

I too am sort of confused by what you mean by chararcter Morris. Jeb? Why does he have character? Condi - wily, ambitious and sychophantic, and what strengths we do see in her as SecState simply prove she lacks what I'd consider "character" (since she rolled over and played dead when she should have known better to advance her own power - or if that's not what she was doing she's far too incompetent to be trusted with the keys to 1600).

And yeah, the bitchiness is a big part of why I felt the need to comment on this event. It shows the possibility that McCain is ridiculously thin-skinned, maybe even more than Bush (which, if the next president is as power-and-secrecy mad as this one is could have bad consequences). And beyond that it suggests that this guy who could have real power over our lives has a temperment and disposition better suited to winning College Republican elections (dirty) and snarling at the weak than to actually doing anything to help the average American. I really can't get over it. The CoS to one of the most prominent people in the country lurking in the comments of an antagonistic blog, spewing unfair bile. The dude either has some serious issues, or he's under orders to play really nasty. Neither one of those helps improve my view of John McCain.

Character is having a vision of what's right and sticking to it. Bush gave us a bunch of reasons to take out Saddam, and unlike the Bush haters, some people actually kept listening after the first one. Some people think freedom's important for more than Mexicans who want to work in the United States. And you're speaking for the wrong party about polls and focus groups. I'd think you'd be smart enough to know that if Bush was truly governing by polls we'd have left Iraq a long time ago. But Bush is doing his best to make a peaceful Middle East by doing more than inviting a terrorist to camp. Leave the polls attacks where they belong, for Hilary, Gore, and McCain.
Bro,
If you want to support Hilary in 08, I suggest you take ambitious as an attack word out of your vocabulary. The fact that Dr. Rice shares a vision with Bush does not in fact make her anything but like most of this country, as was evidenced by Bush's victory in 08. The only trouble is, most of our country doesn't have the guts and will to keep up with her. Everybody's figured out we're winning in Iraq except the reporters, and too many still get their news from CBS document forgers, and not so fair and balanced ABC.

and where are you finding evidence of condi's "vision?" please. being a yes woman to a man you imagine to have vision doesn't imbue her with vision; even cowed, powell at least had the sack occasionally to disagree with bush. condi can't even muster that much.

bush has character because he has a vision of what's right and sticks to it, eh? bush isn't the creation of polls? explain to me, morris, how a man who for most of his adult life, including after he was born again, has not attended church on a weekly basis manage to paint himself as devout and his opponent, a dedicated catholic who attends weekly mass, as a heathen? explain to me, morris, how a once halfway well-spoken governor (he unequivocally defeated ann richards in at least one debate, and she's a far more effective debater than kerry will ever be) who governed in a tough, conservative state from the center-right, developed a presidential platform that involved so much religion it made the areligious gag and the uberfaithful rejoice, so much right-wing rhetoric that it satisfied the most fringe group folks on the right, and yet just enough moderate buzzwords not to alienate the base.

if you really believe a) that bush is a man of conviction and b) he didn't win both elections by narrow margins due to a phenomenally acute understanding of how to slice up america demographically and appeal just enough to each to portray himself as the lesser of two evils then we have nothing to talk about, but if you believe either of those things you're so effing wrong it's pitiable.

Morris you're really asking for it, so point by point:

"If you want to support Hilary in 08, I suggest you take ambitious as an attack word out of your vocabulary."

I don't necessarily view "ambitious" as an attack word, not at all - and I have no desire to support Hillary in '08.

"The fact that Dr. Rice shares a vision with Bush does not in fact make her anything but like most of this country, as was evidenced by Bush's victory in 08."

So her vision is identical to someone else's? Quite the visionary. And you sure as hell are bold using the present tense in this sentence given that Americans don't remotely approve of the job Bush is doing (which would seem to imply) they don't agree with his vision. The man's more unpopular than Clinton ever was - more unpopular than most recent presidents for that matter. And the fact that Bush eked out a tiny win over a liberal senator from Massachusetts married to a powerful, forceful, rich woman with an accent isn't a testament to the American people believing in what Bush stands for, or even believing in it in November 2004. As I've noted repeatedly - the poli sci research shows that people vote for presidents for a host of reasons - many of which have little if anything to do with their policy proposals. For example (again), nationally people preferred Carter's policies to Reagan's in 1980 - but Carter only managed to win, what, 6 or 8 states?

"The only trouble is, most of our country doesn't have the guts and will to keep up with her."

Hmmm - what one man sees as "guts" a country sees as ineptness, stupidity, and running full-speed-ahead into torpedoes everyone else can see.

"Everybody's figured out we're winning in Iraq except the reporters"

That's just so plainly false I don't even know where to begin with it.

"too many still get their news from CBS document forgers"

Cheap shot and completely inaccurate - again something that you include I guess to try to be funny, but something that's a 100% outright lie.

"and not so fair and balanced ABC."

And 1) what the hell does that mean? and 2) I think you vastly overestimate ABC's power and insult millions of Americans, basically asserting they can't think for themselves and mechanically follow whatever comes out of the mouth of Elizabeth Vargas.

not that i care much for any television news except lehrer's and russert's (the latter only occasionally, but it's something) i'll take CBS's document forgers and ABC's not so fair and balanced coverage over FOX's watered down, baby-food-processed, unabashed partisonship and overt bigotry any day. if i want to learn something, anything, lehrer's the only one of the above even worth consulting occasionally.

Moon,
How many times did Jesus go to church? Or if you like, how many times did the Buddha or Lao Tzu go to church. Equating spirituality with church attendance makes no sense, because those who feel connected to their higher power in a personal way don't need stained glass to connect with their higher power. And I hate to break it to you, but I didn't read his platform. What I care about it what he's done, and why he's done it. Of course the anger party won't believe that he could have any motive but revenge for going against Saddam, because that's their motive for going against everything conservative for what Bush did, and what Gingrich did before that, so it's a little hard to believe that he could be motivated by compassion and faith in humanity, and I get that. He's conservative, so the anger party believes everything he does is corrupt, because it's self-reinforcing to punish, and though they'll argue against punishing criminal, liberals never fail to punish conservatives who I guess have it coming, or at least believing that allows you to keep feeling good about your anger at...whatever.
Bro,
What was the number one issue in 2004? The reporters said it was the values voters, you know the conservative robots that Svengali Rove ordered to the polls because it was their chance to beat up on gay rights. Or, if you don't believe people are robots, it was people who had a sense of right and wrong that didn't fit Kerry's plan. So what did Bush do? This President who has no vision and plays to the polls nominated a moderate conservative to the Supreme Court. Then he followed that up with suggesting that an Arab country can run an American port. Suddenly, he lost a great deal of support, not among moderates and liberals, but among conservatives. I don't want to go out on a limb here, but do you think it's possible that maybe it is the extremist conservatives with a different idea of what's right and wrong who wanted Roe v Wade overturned and who don't trust foreigners that have turned against Bush? Liberals didn't like Bush before recent polls, and they don't like him now. What's different now is that more ideologically extreme conservatives disapprove of Bush, because he's not conservative enough, because he wants to give current illegal aliens rights in the process of closing the border.

So, what - you are equating a tin ear for politics with vision? Is that it? I'm not sure I get your point.

This president caves frequently, and often on things the far right might not like (remember Social Security privatization, or his opposition to McCain-Feingold), so some definitely aren'y excited by him, but - well, what is your point? Limited political smarts or respect for popular opinion = visionary?

do you think it's possible that maybe it is the extremist conservatives with a different idea of what's right and wrong who wanted Roe v Wade overturned and who don't trust foreigners

I'm sorry, are you saying this doesn't describe Bush, who either wants or speaks as though he wants Roe v. Wade overturned, won't expressly repudiate in words or actions the far right fringe that thinks access to contraception is a horrible idea, and trusts foreigners so much that he almost broke his hand ordering recantations of scads of international agreements and never misses a chance to signal that he doesn't give a damn what commitments our country has signed or what progress toward multi-lateralism his predecessors had made, effectively recreating America's image in the world as imperial despot that has no concern for what anyone outside its borders thinks? This is the moderate Bush you're trying to describe by opposition? Try again, Morris.

The Democrats are the "anger party" at the moment, because everything they predicted about Bush in 2000, and everything they pointed out about his shortcomings as President in 2004, has proved utterly true and to the country's grave detriment. But your attempt to substitute for argument this ridiculous neologistic cognomen for a complicated suite of political positions is a transparent evasion.

Despite your heedless smears, I don't consider it "punishing" equivalent to imprisonment or execution to take away a Republican's seat at the table, and except for suggesting that those who broke the law far more damagingly than any streetside drug dealer ought to be punished exactly as they would have us punish said dealer (real time in a shithole, not a few months in Club Fed), all I've ever suggested is that people who disserve and embarrass their offices lose them. Not a one of them doesn't have a lovely, lucrative career in the private sector waiting for them, and I bid them Godspeed.

I've certainly never suggested criminals shouldn't be punished, and I don't know a single Democrat, who identifies with the party, who feels otherwise. Indeed, in virtue of my professional position, I know more about f*&king people over who screwed up than you ever will. And when my job requires it, that's exactly what I do with neither relish nor regret. "Professionalism" is the watchword here, and in the political sphere, I simply don't see as much professionalism on the Republican side of the aisle. There is corruption and misconduct in both camps, but both camps have great, highly-paid attack dogs so why is it, do you suppose, that the recent run of stories has shown far greater corruption and misconduct in yours. Could it be because there's simply more there? I'll tell you a secret, the causes liberals tend to get in bed with don't, by and large, have the resources to retain a pet congressman; the Republicans, who serve corporate America before anyone else, will always be the more corrupt party in virtue of that fact.

You might be right about the whole church thing, but don't try to sell that to the evangelicals who ensured Bush's election. If this were such a laudable thing, infrequent church attendance, then why didn't Bush just own up to it, instead of hammering home how Born Again he was after he did everything a would-be President shouldn't do (DUI; snorting coke; the sort of thing the GOP was snarling to dig up on Bush's predecessor in the White House -- it was unthinkable to have a President who experimented with marijuana, but a man who broke the law in a potentially lethal way (not the victimless crime drug use simpliciter tends to be), a man who used a drug a hundred times more powerful and infinitely more deadly than marijuana -- hell, just repent tomorrow, that's good enough for us).

Thing is, Bush has never owned up to anything, church, coke use, whatever -- never just admitted a mistake, never acknowledged a youthful indiscretion, never allowed that he might be wrong about something. The Buck always Stops Somewhere Else. I'll take personal integrity and accountability over vision any day. Bush has neither (of course, it didn't elude me that you haven't spoken at all to the fact that Bush isn't anything like the once-moderate Texas governor, the "uniter" who reached across the ideological chasm to bring people together, but then how could you -- the only way we'll see that Bush is by digging up archival footage of his almost quaint by comparison gubernatorial tenure).

As for Bush's motive for chasing Saddam, that you would construe the sophisticated countersuggestions voiced here time and again as amounting to insinuations that he did it for revenge is so utterly disrespectful to all the intelligent, defensible ideas forwarded here that I'm almost speechless. I, for one, have never suggested, except perhaps out of exasperated pithyness, that Bush did it out of revenge. I think he did it for a lot of inappropriate reason, but if revenge factors in at all, it's way down the list and I've never claimed otherwise.

And I don't need to impute a motive to him because I can choose from the three or four he's used interchangeably depending on what he thought might fly at a given time. That's not how Roosevelt did it, or Kennedy did it, or even Reagan did it. Bush is a mealy-mouthed opportunist hiding behind the skirts of his office and the systematic prevarications of his demonstrably scurrilous staff.