Government At 11, Impeachment At 12

By Cernig

Jill over at Brilliant At Breakfast has her righteous rant on in fine style today, as she wonders what it would take to have Pelosi et al put impeachment back on the table.

The laws upon which this country was founded presupposed at least a modicum of good will on the part of those who would lead it. Checks and balances were built in to prevent any one individual or any one branch of government from gaining too much power. These were designed to protect us from the kinds of despotic individuals that would set themselves up as kings or dictators.

The words "no one could have anticipated..." have become hallmarks of the Bush Administration, but in the case of the way this bunch has circumvented every attempt by the Founding Fathers to make our system immune from people like them, it's clear that the men who rebelled against a king and created a new government, like the humanists they read, believed in the inherent good will of those that would seek to lead this nation. They never banked on bandits taking over and deciding that the laws codified in the Constitution didn't apply to them.

And so we find ourselves now with an administration and a party that puts its own gain and its own power not just ahead of the good of the nation, but supplanting the good of the nation, so that this country is now nothing but a fiefdom for the corporatocracy, to be plundered by those who seek ever more power and ever more money -- even if it means taking the entire country down.

In other words, do George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, and especially Dick Cheney, recognize that there is a kind of criminal tipping point beyond which Americans are unable to believing their government capable? And is that why as the exact nature of this bunch becomes ever more apparent, ever more brazen, and ever more appalling, the sound you hear is only that of crickets chirping?

Meanwhile, Henry Waxman goes through the motions of hearings, while the party he represents has shown itself to be lacking the courage to protect this nation from the criminals now sitting in the executive branch and their lackeys in the Senate and House. Instead, they, just like the president and his war in Iraq, choose to run out the clock rather than honor the many hundreds of thousands of soldiers who have died over the last 231 years defending this country by providing the oversight and accountability for which they were elected.

And over at Unqualified Offerings, Thoreau explains that it is no accident things have happened this way.

in some sense every gang of politicians will try to do as much as they think they can get away with. But everybody has their limits, defined largely by how far they think they can go before somebody stops them, and how much they’re willing to risk (be it jail time, political capital, personal re-election prospects, long-term prospects for the party, reputation, employment prospects after their term ends, etc.). This bunch basically said “We’ll go all the way to impeachment. This is what it takes. If there is no impeachment, the President can do anything he wants.”

If you refuse to be daunted by anything less than impeachment, then you’ll have no problem turning the government all the way to 11. Which is exactly what we’ve gotten.

With government at 11 but no sign of impeachment before at least 12, that's the way things will stay.

Jefferson, Credibility and Dems

I am hardly surprised that he was indicted, but wowie: 94 pages?

I wish the above was my line, but it is Dr. Steven Taylor's great line. As everyone knows, Rep. Jefferson (D-LA) of the alleged $90,000 brick of cold, hard cash found in his freezer, the alleged commandeering of Louisiana National Guard engineering equipment to safeguard his house/records/evidence versus shoring up levees or performing rescue and resettlement operations was indicted.

William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.

The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years.

The Republican leadership is (smartly) calling for a vote to expel Jefferson from the House. And I think the Democratic leadership has to show some balls and back up their words on cleaning up both corruption and the appearance of corruption. A $90,000 brick of cash in the freezer at the very least screams the appearance of corruption to me.

If the Democratic leadership want the public to believe that they are serious about making serious, fundamental structural change, they need to do more than pass a pretty good but not perfect lobbying clean-up bill or argue that the alleged [wink wink, nod nod] corruption of Rep. Jefferson happened during the Republican controlled times. The bill is a good start, but it is insufficient if Democrats want to be credible on this issue. Clear signals must be sent. Believable and credible signals by definition are costly signals and voting to expel may be a sufficient signal of differentiation between the two parties to be worthwhile.

The strongest political argument against this course of action is the 'bitch slap theory' of politics as advanced by Josh Marshall:

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really -- a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they're tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job....Hitting someone and not having them hit back hurts the morale of that person's supporters, buoys the confidence of your own backers (particularly if many tend toward an authoritarian mindset) and tends to make the person who's receiving the hits into an object of contempt (even if also possibly also one of sympathy) in the eyes of the uncommitted.

I have a great deal of sympathy for this argument, but I believe sending a strong and credible signal that the appearance of corruption is intolerable for Democrats in Congress especially when contrasted with the multiple indicted and thus alleged, or actually convicted Republican felons is a stronger political as well as moral position. The Democratic meta-message has to be that we are the party of responsible and reasonable adults while the GOP is overwhelmingly composed of drunken, besotted bullies.

White House - Anti-Gonzales Vote a Stunt

By Cernig

The White House has called the upcoming Senate no-confidence vote over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a "political stunt." By which they mean "it won't change our minds and the Senators know it."

President Bush's support for his longtime ally and friend will not waver, said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., on Thursday became the fifth Republican senator to demand that Gonzales leave. Meanwhile, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., suggested that Bush consider ejecting Gonzales if he decides Gonzales is doing more harm than good.

Two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, said they would offer a nonbinding resolution expressing that Gonzales was too weakened to run the Justice Department. The department is embroiled in probes of the firings of prosecutors and accusations that it has become too politicized.

``I think the time has come for the Senate to express its will,'' Feinstein said. ``We lack confidence in the attorney general.''

``We would consider it another political stunt,'' Fratto said.

He also said Gonzales does not necessarily need Congress' support to continue serving.

``It's important for any public official to have as much confidence as he can garner and it will ebb and flow,'' Fratto said. ``But it will not ebb and flow with this president and this attorney general.''

Has there ever been an executive with more contempt for the other branches of government?

Update The breaking news is that Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Artur Davis (D-AL) have written a letter calling upon their House colleagues to join the Senate in seeking a vote of no confidence in Gonzales. Both are former Assistant United States Attorneys, with a combined 10 years of experience as prosecutors in the Department of Justice. Their letter states:

At this critical time in our Nation's history, when we confront unprecedented challenges posed by global terrorism, and when public confidence in our justice system is a necessity, our country must have the service of an Attorney General who has the full confidence of the American people to enforce the law, defend the United States from threats foreign and domestic, prevent crime and seek punishment for those guilty, and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has failed to adequately and properly manage the Department of Justice and faithfully execute the duties of his office, as reflected in his mismanagement of the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys, the conflicting and incomplete testimony before Congress by the Attorney General regarding his actions, and his demonstrated inability to reassure the public that our laws are being enforced in a nonpartisan, judicious manner.

It is our belief that Congress and the American people have lost confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and the Congress should formally express no confidence in his continued tenure as the head of the Department of Justice.

Nancy Pelosi called for Gonzales resignation two months ago and I think will probably support this move.

Measuring Success in Congress

by shamanic

Media outlets are beginning to poll the public about the first 100 days of the new Democratic congressional majority, and the results, while generally positive, still leave lots of room for improvement.

The Post says that Democrats in Congress have a fairly staggering approval number of 54%, and the Congress overall gets an approval rating of 44%. I can't recall the last time a poll gave Congress that kind of approval rating, but the Post helpfully notes that April of 2003 was the last time 44% of poll respondents liked Congress.

Nearly 70% approve of the job their own representative is doing, the highest that number has been since 1998, and 53% approve of the job Nancy Pelosi is doing. By contrast, only 37% felt the same about Newt Gingrich in April 1995.

Interestingly, only 26% believe that Congress has accomplished a lot in its first 100 days. I suspect two things of that number: first, there has not been a lot of success from Congress in concluding the Iraq war. I think the incremental advances that have been made on that front are not enough to drive the number higher. Second, if people continue to feel that way, the other positive figures will drop fairly quickly.

Frankly, I think that we the public have some unrealistic expectations at this point. Everyone (except for the 30-percenters, who would follow a large rock to the bottom of a lake if they were told it was their leader) is so sick of Bush that I think we all expected a sea change with dramatic, sweeping results right out of the gate. Even if we were able to contain our expectations, we all had a secret hope that it would be so.

The Dems have made progress, and the game has definitely changed since they took the place over. I have my criticisms ("Transition the Mission"? Who thought of that worthless slogan?), but overall I'm pretty pleased, and looking forward to the return of even more sanity in government.

Democratic Ascendance

I am optimistic about both the long term Democratic political outlook, and more importantly to me, the increased probability of a liberal/progressive agenda being discussed and implemented in the United States. Demographics, oppositional activity and generational changes account for most of my optimism.

A recent Rasmussen poll came out which showed significant strength for Democrats in Congress:

Forty-five percent (45%) of American voters say they would currently vote for the Democrat in their district while 35% would pull the voting lever for a Republican. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found 6% favoring a third-party option while 15% are not sure.

Democrats lead by five percentage points among men, by fourteen points among women. Nancy Pelosi’s party holds a staggering 30-percentage point lead among voters under 30. Separate surveys have shown that a declining number of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans. [MY EMPHASIS]

Younger voters are not common voters, but if my current generation behaves politically like every other generation, my non-voting peers will as they begin to vote on a regular basis vote in a manner consistent with the rest of their generational peers. And right now my generation is firmly anchoring into the Democratic Party on the basis of anti-Iraq war, environmentalism and social/cultural liberalism. For different reasons, the growing Hispanic voting blocs in the United States are also anchoring to the Democratic Party out of self-interest and protection incentives.

These two trends are commonly noted and often written about because they are important, they are large, and they are noticeable. Activity and district challenging has not been as extensively written about, but this information is providing significant indications of the Democrats being on the upswing with conservatives and Republicans becoming descendant.

In 2003, 2004, and 2005 when Democratic and more importantly liberal power was at its recent nadir, the activist class of the Democratic Party was still looking for fights on hostile terrain. They supported Howard Dean as a wake-up call of a long list of grievances, and they gave significant support to a series of Democrats who were running in special elections to replace long term Republican incumbents. These Democrats were able to win more often than they lost; Herseth in South Dakota and Chandler in Kentucky were victories while Hackett in Ohio was a very narrow loss. These local, long shot successes helped to build a common consensus to support an aggressive wave strategy of running and funding candidates in as many seats as possible. The early belief was that the vast majority of these non-traditional races would be blow-outs with a purpose; fixed and hold Republican incumbents and force disproportionate Republican resources to be diverted to races that normally would not be contested. By October several of these long shot races were first and second tier races, and on election day, some of the fourth tier races became Democratic pick-ups with liberals replacing conservatives.

I am not seeing any comparable level of organization or commitment for a political counterattack on the right against traditionally Democratic seats. The NRCC is targeting Democratic seats held by conservative Democrats in moderate to slightly conservative districts. This makes sense to challenge the marginal seats of the Democratic coalition, but the NRCC is targeting eleven seats at this time, when they need at least fifteen net pick-ups to win. Additionally, the traditional liberal netroots complaint that a narrow focus strategy of the DCCC comes into play; to gain a majority, the narrow focus system needs to win every seat and no friendly seats can be unlikely losses.

More importantly in my mind is the state of play of a seat in Massachusetts. Marty Meehan (D-Lowell) is a long term Democratic Rep of the Merrimack Valley, but he is retiring to take over the University of Massachusetts-Lowell [which was my first ISP on a 1200 Baud modem] this summer. This is a strongly Democratic seat, but no more so than South Dakota-At Large or OH-2 were strong Republican seats. Dems mounted strong challenges for both seats, winning one, and losing one.

Left in Lowell, an excellent Massachusetts political and activism blog, is tracking this race and the entire field is composed of Democrats. Local backstabbing, back stories, and back-room deals will determine the primary winner and the primary winner will trounce token, at best, Republican opposition in the general special election.

Right now, I believe that the GOP and its activist classes are still in a state of apathetic ass-covering trauma while the Democratic leaning activist classes are still highly motivated and looking to be as aggressive as possible in winning as many elections as possible while still forcing the party to respond to a progressive voice and vision.

Righwing Pimps "Syrian Chalabi" To Smear Pelosi

Glenn Greenwald is in fine form today, helping his colleague Gary Kamiya expose the depth of denial that the corporate media has about acting as stenographers for Bush's various narratives for war against the "axis of evil".

But there may be some shills so radioactive even the MSM won't touch them.

Clifford May at NRO today:

Farid Ghadry, head of the Reform Party of Syria (a liberal democratic political party in exile) is writing that Nancy Pelosi's visit with the dictator Assad has damaged the dissident movement in Syria. But the elite media appear to be uninterested in that aspect of the story.

Nor are they intrigued by Farid's charge that Assad "has built four different bases in Syria that we know of to train terrorists to send them to Iraq."

And the stalwarts at Pajamas Media soon picked up the hint:

“Five years of investment by the US State Department and the Bush administration in organizations and people who have committed their lives to helping their oppressed countries is being flushed away by the Democrats in Congress who, with the visit of Pelosi to Syria, have shown that they favor the stability of dictatorships to freedom even if they had a direct hand in killing American troops in Iraq.” (Reform Party of Syria, via Cliff May @ NRO)

It looks too good to be true - the head of a "liberal democratic" Syrian opposition party in exile denouncing Pelosi for enabling terrorism. Why wouldn't the MSM love it?

Maybe because it is too good to be true, as a quick read at Ghadry's SourceWatch file will reveal. It's too long to go into detail but I can hit the high points. Shared an office with Jack Abramoff. Member of AIPAC and the Committee on the Present danger. Speaker at JINSA. Met Chalabi in Richard Perle's living room. Friend of Elizabeth Cheney who is currently the administration's appointee for Near East affairs at the State Department. And as one Syrian observer wrote "Unknown in Syria, hated by Syria's liberals, won't work with anyone but himself, hasn't seen Syria since he was in short pants, loved by the State Department - does the name Ahmed Chalabi come to mind?" In other words, the guy's a neocon stooge quite possibly incited to his op-ed by Cheney's daughter.

Nor is the man the only problem. The message - entirely made up of GOP talking points - is just as bogus.

Some lessons, it seems, can even be learned even by mainstream journalists, if not by the rightwing noise machine.

Pundits pile on Pelosi

It's no surprise that Bush's few remaining true believers, and the steno press that breathlessly reports their every word verbatim, have worked themselves into a frothing hysteria over Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. It beats the heck out of focusing on the administration's many glaring failures. One might think even they are tired of hearing themselves mouth the same empty platitudes about the "signs of success" of Bush's failed foreign policies. Their fatigue is almost palpable as the echo chamber empties and even stalwart supporter Fred Barnes can't seem to muster his former enthusiam, as evidenced by today's half-hearted rehash of yesterday's RNC talking points on Nancy's trip.

Yes, we can all agree that it's the President's perogative to make foreign policy and take the lead in diplomatic relations. But it's the Congress' constitutional responsibility to become informed about the policy options through on the ground contact. As Scott Lilly points out at Center for American Progress[via]:

Congress cannot meet that obligation by sitting behind their desks in the Capitol and receiving briefings (from the executive branch) on how effective their strategies are or how well they are executing them. They need to get out and kick the tires.

And sometimes they might even need to recharge the battery:

In the administration’s perverse view, the only legitimate time for negotiations would be after the most contentious and difficult issues — Syria’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its meddling in Lebanon and open border with Iraq — have already been resolved. Thus, what ought to be the main agenda points for diplomatic discussions have been turned into a set of preconditions designed to ensure that no discussions ever take place.

Pelosi wasn't over-reaching, she was reaching out, there's a difference and as far as violating the Logan Act, Mahablog notices that there has been only one indictment and no convictions under the Logan Act since 1803. Not to mention, if Pelosi is in violation, so are hundreds of other Congressman. Maha cites Hastert's adventures in foreign policy adventurism in Colombia while Glenn Greenwald is digging up other culpable culprits -- oh look, there's Newt Gingrich making foreign policy pronouncements all over the globe.

It's almost amusing to watch the usual suspects add their own foot stamping to the Imperial temper tantrum; that's their job. What rankles is that the major media follows suit instead of doing theirs by putting the rightwing wailing into context. You have to wonder why it's the putrid pundits who are pulling down the big bucks for carrying the murky White House water, when it's the bloggers who are doing all the heavy lifting in clarifying the facts.

Pelosi And That Message

Seriously, is Nancy Pelosi becoming the new Hillary Clinton for the extreme right? She can't blow her nose nowadays without some uber-right pundits popping up to decry her desecration of Bush's no-booger policy and claim that the only way to correctly rid one's nose of boogers is with a 2,000lb bunker-buster.

And then it turns out she was only scratching her nose, not booger-mining after all...

Today, the outrage is all directed at her meeting with Assad of Syria. Yesterday, the booger-hunting story was that Bush had decreed that no-one should ever talk to Syria ever again (except for the Republicans he sent a few days ago, and the Europeans who have ignored his idiotic macho-man talk all along). So Pelosi goes anyway, and conveys a message from the Israelis - one that it should have been Condi Rice's job to give only Bush won't let her do her job. Damn, said the rightwingers.

But "Aha!", up pops a statement from the Israeli PM which they can now pounce upon and claim Pelosi got the message wrong. And in their zeal to stomp any nasal mining not officially sanctioned by the Decider (remember those Republicans he sent?) they duly do so.

Allahpundit / Hot Air: Did Pelosi give Assad the wrong message from Israel?
Ed Morrissey / Captain's Quarters: Why Foreign Policy Belongs In The Executive Branch
Gateway Pundit: Oops!... Pelosi Gave Wrong Message to Syrian Regime

Ed Morrissey speaks for them all:

Pelosi somehow forgot the part about ending support for terrorism when she met with Assad. She told the Syrian dictator that Israel was ready to meet with Assad on a peace proposal, which only told part of the story. In delivering only part of the message, Pelosi not only arrogated to herself the role of American foreign policy director -- which Condoleezza Rice has as Secretary of State -- she did the same with Israel's foreign policy as well.

Not a bad night's work for an incompetent.

The trouble is - Pelosi got the message straight. The New York Times has the details:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her delegation said they had frank words with President Bashar al-Assad and other senior Syrian officials here on Wednesday, pressing the president over Syria’s support for militant groups and insisting that his government block militants seeking to cross into Iraq and join insurgents there.

...Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had conveyed a message to Mr. Assad from Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, that he was ready to negotiate for peace.

Shortly afterward, however, Mr. Olmert’s office issued a clarification of his message, insisting that, “although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the axis of evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.”

To begin serious peace negotiations, the Israeli statement said, Syria must end its support of terrorism and its sponsorship of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations; refrain from providing weapons to Hezbollah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon; stop its support of terrorism in Iraq; and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the government in Iran.

Members of the delegation said that among the issues they took up in Damascus was the case of the three Israeli soldiers being held by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah — which is supported by Iran — and the Palestinian group Hamas.

...Ms. Pelosi, who left for Saudi Arabia, took pains at the news conference to insist that she was not contradicting the Bush administration’s actual policies in the Middle East.

“There is no division on policy between us and President Bush, be it on Israel, Palestine or Syria,” she told reporters before leaving Damascus International Airport. “As a mother I will exhaust every remedy for peace.”

Some local commentators used that comment as a springboard for criticism of Ms. Pelosi.

“There was a feeling that this visit had more to do with domestic politics than us,” said one, Jihad Yaziji, editor in chief of “The Syria Report,” an online magazine, who attended a dinner in honor of Ms. Pelosi on Tuesday night. “If she isn’t going to be very different from Bush, then why did she come?”

It seems clear that Olmert's statement wasn't aimed at Pelosi, but at the American Right and its media stenographers for having selectively quoted Pelosi in order to create an unhelpful faux-scandal out of whole cloth and because they totally misunderstood why he gave her the message to pass on in the first place.

Writes The Times: "At the White House on Tuesday, President Bush told reporters that he saw little point in talking to Syria now. “Sending delegations hasn’t worked,” he said. “It’s just simply been counterproductive.”" Obviously Olmert disagrees - just like everyone else outside the Bush cheerleader squad - believing you can send a tough message while still talking. Pelosi passed on that tough message at his request.

Back to booger-hunting, Ed. If only Nancy was married to Bill Clinton, it would be so much easier.

Mysogeny Pop-Quiz

Newshog's best friend and secret, Kat, sends us mails with news we might not have seen and often includes thought-provoking comments of her own. I wish we could convince her to blog for Newshog regularly. Today, her mail was so spot on that I'm going to include it here.

Would you mind humoring me for just a couple of minutes? Please? This is probably going to seem dumb, but it may not be a complete waste of your time, since it could easily lead to a Newshog post. Of course I'm going to explain what I'm on about below, but if you decide to humor me, for the moment I'd really appreciate it if you would restrain your natural curiosity (i.e. refrain from scrolling down to my explanation), and just take this as it comes.

I just want you to (mentally) name a few influential people - say, around 4 to 10 people - in each of the categories I'm going to ask about. I won't even ask you to write down any of the names that come to mind, but I do want you to jot down the number of people you name in each category. In other words, if I were doing this myself, for each question I would just count off whoever comes to mind on my fingers, and then jot down the total. If no one comes to mind for a particular question, don't strain your brain - just skip it. Oh yeah - please, don't name anybody more than once, and don't name anyone not currently living.

Who are (or who do you think are)...?

1. ...the most influential members of the Bush administration?
2. ...the most influential members of the Senate?
3. ...the most influential members of the House?
4. ...the most influential people in the Republican party?
5. ...the most influential people in the Democratic party?
6. ...most likely Rep. candidates for the presidency in '08?
7. ...most likely Dem. candidates for the presidency in '08?
8. ...the most influential right wing bloggers in the US?
9. ...the most influential left wing bloggers in the US?
10. ..the most influential op/ed (print) columnists in the US?
11. ...the most influential tv news people (whether anchors, reporters or pundits) in the US?
12. ...a few of the most influential religious/spiritual figures (I won't call 'em 'leaders') in the US?
13. ...a few other influential people in the US who aren't (or, are no longer) primarily thought of as being associated with either politics or religion?
14. ...a few of the most influential scientists in the US?
15. ...a few of the most influential business people in the US - or most well-known or successful, if influence per se doesn't come to mind?
16. ...a few of the most influential - or most well-known - academics in the US?
17. ...a few of the most influential US people in NGOs (in the broadest sense of that term, including every org. from Greenpeace to the Red Cross, etc.), if any?
18. ...a few of the most influential authors/writers in the US (regardless of genre)?
19. ...a few influential people in other departments of the US government, or in state governments?
20. ...a few people, in any area not covered by any of the above, who are influential on a national level?

Okay, now add up the total number of people you named.

Now, out of that total, how many of the people you named were female?

Condi, Hillary, Nancy, and Oprah probably made the list. Did any others? No? If not, don't worry about it - I can't think of any others either. The only reason Maya Angelou (sp?) came to mind, as a possible dark horse in the writers category, is not because I've actually read any of her stuff, or think she's influential, but because Oprah's been drilling her name into viewers' heads for years. Even if you managed to think of a couple of others, there were probably no more than 6 nationally influential females on your list - out of 300 million people, and from every arena of our society combined. And, no, I'm not surprised by this, and I know you aren't either. We may not overtly think about it very often, but we're all subliminally well-aware that, in our society, this is considered normal - even natural. So what's my point?

Well, as I was pondering whether or not to send you Bob Herbert's Sunday nytimes editorial 'Why Aren't We Shocked', I initially thought (probably due to a caffeine deficiency), 'this isn't exactly political news - although it should be.' But then the coffee began to kick in, and I realized just how political it actually is. At which point I became annoyed with Herbert because, as good a job as he's done of pointing out the cause, he gives short shrift to the effects.

As Herbert says in the editorial, and says well, "...we have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that violence against females is more or less to be expected. ...The disrespectful, degrading, contemptuous treatment of women is so pervasive and so mainstream that it has just about lost its ability to shock. ...We're all implicated in this carnage because the relentless violence against women and girls is linked at its core to the wider society's casual willingness to dehumanize women and girls, to see them first and foremost as sexual vessels ” objects” and never, ever as the equals of men."

Although Herbert includes a plethora of appauling examples to drive home his point, he completely fails to mention this hugely important effect: 'a society saturated with mysogyny' is utterly unable to perceive women in general as leaders - in any field of endeavor. Which is why, out of a population of 300m, only half a dozen or so women have managed, individually, to become nationally influential despite our society's persistent and overwhelming mysogyny towards females in general. Although I haven't paid much attention to what's been said about Pelosi, I know that Condi, Hillary, and Oprah have all had to endure many years of relentless personal attacks - attacks which have included everything from their choice of hair style and clothing to accusations of lesbianism and/or sexual frigidity. And the situation is progressively getting worse rather than better. A few decades ago, females at least had a few admirable fictional role models such as Nancy Drew, Supergirl, and Wonder Woman. But today, with only this handful of beleaguered women serving as role models of female leadership (amidst a veritable media deluge of pop-culture 'heroines' such as Paris Hilton), how could society's mysogyny be anything other than self-perpetuating?

Excellent stuff, Kat. Thank you, sincerely. C

Sshh - Don't Rock That Democrat Boat

Am I the only one worried about the nasty scent of a good old-fashioned shafting on the breeze? It's coming, and the folks on the receiving end are the liberal "netroots".

The Democrats did a rollover on Hayden's confirmation as well as the confirmation of a Bush crony as a judge when said crony was accepted by all the experts as singularly unqualified. Pundits like Robert Kagan are already talking about 2008, saying things won't change very much in foreign policy terms if a Dem gets the White House. Kevin Drum notes an LA Times op-ed that says liberal hawks are determined to woo the populace by not appearing to be "squishies" on terrorism.

Michael Hirsh is asking if the Democrats are scared of their own shadows and points out that what the new crop of "strong" Democrats are most afraid of are their own left:

They are the ones who so fear that a leftie like Nancy Pelosi will become speaker of the House, they actually question whether it would be a good idea for the Dems to take control in 2006. They are the ones who think they can outhawk Bush on Iraq and promotion of democracy around the world, but they are mainly driven by a fear of criticizing the premises of his foreign policy, which is to say, his war on terror. While nitpicking and nattering over Bush’s “errors of execution,” they still embrace his fundamentals. In other words, they all continue to sound like unreconstructed John Kerrys, frightened of seeming soft. When they get together, this fear is virtually all they talk about. It is a fear that reeks from the party’s new draft platform for 2006, causing Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, to crack to liberal hawk Peter Beinart recently: “If you have to say you’re tough, you’re not.”

But as David Sirota has been saying forever, and is saying again as people like H. Clinton and Chuck Schumer play kiss-ass with Henry Paulson, these scaredy-cat hawks are the ones with the real power and the real connections in the Democratic Party.

there really is a tightly-knit bipartisan economic consensus that governs Washington these days - a consensus based on the intermingling of politicians of both parties and the financial elite; a consensus that has transformed public policy from a protector of ordinary citizens into the personal sidearm of Big Business...it sends a message of happy complicity. Here you have Bush nominating a Wall Street fat cat - a situation ripe for Democrats to use as a way to differentiate themselves as a party that will stand up to such. And yet, many high-profile Washington Democrats are so comfortable in the minority and so awash in corporate cash that they subvert their own party’s potential success out of deference to the Establishment. In the process, they display that their true devotion is not to the public or even to their party - but to Big Money.

And you know what? The big-name bigmouths of the left "netroots" are trying to pretend that it isn't happening. They are staying quiet and hoping that the truly powerful figures of the Party will allow them to keep their access and their party-circuit invites and their pretensions to some small power of their own.

I've a small illustration. I sent out over two dozen invites to A-Listers to read and comment on my last post about "the question", many to individuals I've had good responses from in the past. I got exactly zero response. Now I can imagine some went unread in the flood of mails such A-List bloggers get but all? Do the recipents then think that "the question" is redundant because of course people like Hilary and Chuck wouldn't use Bush's Presidential powergrab as a precedent to do the same themselves? I've no clue. No one wants to talk about it even to say that much.

Here's what I think is happening. The A-List bloggers are by and large bright folks who realise that they keep their A-listing, now, because they have some access to the truly powerful. To keep that access, by 2008 most major leftie bloggers will be as much mindless cheerleaders for the party line as rightwing A-Listers were for Bush for so many years. They know that from now until 2009 the "netroots" are going to be milked dry for money and activist manpower by the party machine. They know that the reward for that work and cash is going to be akin to what the GOP gave the religious right when they did it for Bush - nada, zip, nothing, a few token bills easily overturned or emasculated.

And they are all keeping their heads down ostrich-style in the sand and hoping no-one notices what's coming down the pike.