Month: December 2003

The case that Muslim military chaplain James Yee was a spy for Syria or anyone else has been falling apart. It’s not even clear that the documents he was carrying – the original basis for the charge – were in any way classified. For this, he was put in solitary confinement for three months. Worse, the military – having failed to make their case – subsequently used their search warrant to reveal an extra-marital affair by Yee and are now prosecuting him under military law for this indiscretion. This is called framing someone. The trial has now been suspended because the prosecution cannot prove the classification of the documents in question. This seems to me to be a text-book case of military abuse of basic standards of fairness. A Muslim-American, who may well be completely innocent of all espionage charges, may now face years in jail for having an affair.

THE FRAMING OF JACKSON: I might also add that I’m deeply suspicious of the attempt to nail Michael Jackson for alleged child-abuse. I haven’t commented on the case because it’s really a piece of celebrity insanity. But if it’s actually a case of prosecutorial misconduct, it becomes a serious matter for public concern. You only had to watch the prosecutors’ news conference to see that they were trying to use the law – any way they could – to destroy an eccentric figure they despised. If the case falls apart, these witch-hunters need to face public accountability.

“Your quote of the day from Ward Connerly makes a good point about the need for conservatives of all stripes to stick together in the current political climate of our country. To adopt a pithy phrase from Benjamin Franklin, we “either hang together or hang separately.” But I think it would be remarkably short-sighted for those of us on the libertarian end of the conservative movement to underestimate the amount of betrayal that many social conservatives feel, not only about the issue of same-sex marriage, but also about the failure to substantially alter the political and judicial culture on a host of other issues (abortion being the most obvious issue, but many social conservatives are also disappointed that divorce, in the face of a mountain of social science data on its detrimental consequences for children, is not a topic of discussion within the broader political culture as well). Libertarians often treat social conservatives as useful idiots – folks who are good to have around because they tend to vote Republican, but not really the folks you want to have sitting at the “grown up table” deciding social policy. That may be a correct judgment in substance (although I don’t think so), but it is a disastrous way to run a coalition.” – more criticism (of my coverage of the Dems) on the Letters Page.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I am not trying to say that [the Americans] are angels! They have their interests; they came to Iraq for that reason, not to free the Iraqis. But the fruit is, in fact, liberation.” – Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk, speaking to an Italian journalist.

I’ve been reading the transcripts so far in this election but watched last night’s debate in full. What a truly depressing spectacle. The sheer torrent of tired cliches, dead metaphors, and hoary old stem-winders was enough to numb what’s left of my cold-riddled sinuses. The sheer lack of talent on the stage was what struck me. Only four candidates seemed the faintest bit credible: Dean, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman. Edwards revealed why he hasn’t caught on – not just the accent, but the exhausted and obviously phony Shrum-like rhetoric about “special interests” and lobbyists. I kept thinking to myself: the guy’s a trial lawyer. Who does he think he’s kidding? Moseley-Braun is a complete embarrassment. She has nothing to say except “I’m a black woman.” She is, of course, an insult to black women, most of whom do not respond to life’s problems by reiterating ancient boilerplate about helping kids and moving forward. Kucinich was mesmerizing in his way, with his huge ears and beady little eyes. He kept arguing as if there were 170,000 U.N. troops sitting around, waiting to be told that it’s time to replace all those Americans in Iraq. Presumably he knows this is a fantasy. He doesn’t seem to be illiterate. He puts sentences together with correct structure and grammar. So how can he keep reiterating something that is as feasible as handing Iraq over to Martians? And why wasn’t he laughed off the stage?

ALSO-RANS: Clark was dull. He joined in the major, communal self-deception of the Democrats: that after 9/11 the whole world – especially the French – were all desperate to join in a war against terrorism and terrorism-sponsoring states, if only we’d asked them nicely. I guess you could make some kind of case that a real diplomacy offensive might have won the second vote in the Security Council for war against Saddam. But the French were just as intransigent with regard to Saddam throughout the 1990s. They vetoed the final inspection proposal before even Saddam did. But looking at reality in international affairs would rob the Democrats of blaming every single problem on the planet on George W. Bush. The deeper quandary of a uni-polar world where only the U.S. has the military capacity for world policing – and yet is resented for doing what is necessary – didn’t seem to register. As for Sharpton, he had a few good lines. And he destroyed Ted Koppel at one point. But he’s a buffoon, another insult to black voters’ intelligence. He’s not a serious candidate for high office or any office. It seems absurd that real potential presidents have to stand on the same stage. It’s not a racial thing. He’s no crazier than Kucinich. But at least Kucinich has done something in elective office, if only bankrupt a city.

KERRY’S AWFULNESS: I liked Lieberman the best substantively. He’s the only one even to suggest that Saddam was a past and future threat to the U.S. He was the only one who didn’t seem desperate to pander. He was the only one who seemed to relish the liberation of people from unspeakable tyranny. The rest greeted the greatest world event in the last year as if it had been a trip to the dentist’s. Dean was quiet, terse, punchy – not a great performance, but an understandable one if you’re sitting on a lead that large. His only weak moment came when he tried to talk his way out of his previous raising of a conspiracy theory about 9/11. He now describes such theories as “crazy.” So why did he raise them in the first place? Gephardt seems to me to have improved a lot in his demeanor, his ability to speak candidly, and his focus on the usual Democratic policies of taxing people more so that the government can take better care of them. I don’t buy the argument – none of the candidates said a single word about wealth-creation – but, hey, I’m not a Democrat. If I were, Gephardt would seem the best option – more stable and somehow more decent than Dean. Kerry looks the part; he has a great voice, a firm manner, and speaks well. I just don’t buy his spiel. When he proposes a world religious summit – with the Dalai Lama included – to talk about issues of politics and religious fundamentalism, you can’t help your eyeballs from rolling reflexively back into your head. When he assumes that all you need is global conversation to end global conflict, you wonder whether he has the faintest clue about the kind of enemy we face. When he argues that the Bush administration has done nothing about AIDS in Africa, you realize he simply cannot believe that such a policy could ever have originated from the other side. He’s the only candidate you just know for sure would be a terrible president – indecisive, vain, out-of-touch and incapable of rising to the occasion. Dean, Lieberman and Gephardt all strike me as men who could grow in the office. Not Kerry. He’s Gore, without the charm.

So far, so great. Thanks so much for all the contributions, especially from those of you who’ve already given these past two years. You’ve come through again. We still have a way to go, though. The reason is simple enough. The very success of the site – doubling in traffic roughly every twelve months – has also meant ever-expanding expenses, bandwidth and workload. We’re now catering to the same number of readers as established political magazines, but we have essentially an editorial staff of one. It was once relatively easy to deal with the work part-time. No longer. From filtering through over 700 emails a day to scanning the Internet for stories and ideas to writing tens of thousands of words a month, this blog is a full-time job. I love it; I’ve learned an enormous amount from it; but it has meant giving up other assignments, postponing a book contract, and working on weekends and in the early hours of the morning. I’ve rarely missed a day in the past twelve months, apart from the yearly August breather. And I am not beholden to any big media entity. But that’s why I need your support – to keep this site independent, aggressive, timely and indebted to no-one but you. In an election year, that’s even more important than usual. So please help out – and prove that this kind of independent, reader-supported blog can work financially. If you read the blog regularly, we’re asking for the same amount as a good cup of coffee a month. If you think this site is worth that, and you want to keep it afloat, please help. All the details are here. Without you, this new experiment in online journalism is impossible to finance. With you, it can go from strength to strength. So please don’t delay. Click here.

PAY TO PLAY: One of the best decisions yet from the Bush administration – cutting Russia, France and Germany out of Iraqi reconstruction projects. The rationale is obvious. Our allies have to understand that membership has its privileges – and that betrayal has its consequences. Why should U.S. tax-payers help line the coffers of companies from countries that did all they could to keep Saddam in power? Let Britain, Japan, Italy and Australia benefit from their solidarity.

Bill Kristol thinks so.

I have to say I think David Brooks gets the Internet all wrong today. I can’t put it better than Jeff Jarvis, so I won’t:

Maybe Brooks’ last view of the Internet was an AOL chat room, but in this Internet – this personal Internet of relations and reputations – long term certainly matters. And though this is an immediate medium – a helluva lot more immediate than a coupla-times-a-week column laboriously produced on paper – it’s also true that if you’re too “blunt and forceful at the moment” – you can and will reconsider it later… or others will reconsider it for you. On the Internet, this Internet, we’re not “loosely tethered, careless and free” – in fact, we’re making stronger relationships than many of us have in the world sometimes known as the real one. And we watch what we say because somebody’s fact-checking our ass. And we take on the responsibilities that come with all that.
Mr. Brooks: I’ll be happy to give you a guided tour of this Internet and show you how it’s the opposite of what you say and also how this new medium of strong relationships and of power rising from the bottom is – like or not – what has powered the Dean campaign and what will change politics as we – or at least you – know them.

Amen. If anything, the web will come back to haunt Dean in some respects, because his positions have been so fluid they’re eminently fiskable. But Jeff homes in on a key paradox of the new medium: it may promote anonymity, but it also promotes consistency. A blog, for example, is both one day’s posts – but it’s also the accumulation of days and months and years. It’s a very good indicator in the long run of the quality and variety of someone’s mind, and even, to some extent, their character. That’s why it’s easier to get a sense of who someone is from reading their blog than by reading a column once a week. It’s more real then the old media – not less.

WHERE HAS LIEBERMAN BEEN? Here’s the weirdest statement I’ve heard in a long while:

“I was caught completely off-guard,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore’s running mate in 2000 and a hopeful for the nomination, said Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show. That many of Gore’s positions are opposite to those of Dean made the decision a surprise to him, Lieberman said. “Al Gore has endorsed someone here who has taken positions diametrically opposite” of the former vice president, Lieberman said. “What really bothers me is that Al is supporting a candidate who is so fundamentally opposed to the basic transformation that Bill Clinton brought to this party in 1992,” moving it to a more middle-of-the-road stance on economic policy and other areas, he said.

Did Lieberman listen to his running mate in 2000? From the convention onwards, Al Gore remade himself as a left-wing populist. He renounced his previous positions in one bold stroke, making it impossible for people like me to support him. (I know it may sound hard to believe but in the spring of 2000, I fully expected to support Gore, if McCain didn’t win the nomination. The convention speech ended that particular aspiration.) Lieberman is either incredibly naive or was completely deceived three years ago. And he did his own major switcheroo on the issues last time as well. To my mind, the Gore candidacy was the beginning of the Democratic swing to the left. Dean is merely the natural progression. Dean-Gore is the left-wing synthesis. Only Hillary can stop them now. (Note to self: I wonder how Sid will spin this. It’s a tough one for him, I’d say.)

EMAIL OF THE DAY: Here’s a reader who understands exactly what I’m getting at:

Maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention before, but Al Gore’s candidacy in 2000 is really what turned me away (possibly forever) from the Democratic Party. It wasn’t just that I found myself disagreeing with him on issues (I did), but it was primarily the rhetoric. It started with his statements on Social Security. He campaigned on fear and appealed to that basest of human instincts – selfishness. The “what’s in it for me” instinct. As I listened more carefully, I discovered that on virtually every issue, Al Gore’s theme was centered around getting people to think that someone else was profiting and they were losing out. Taxes: the rich are getting richer AT YOUR EXPENSE. Social Security: “YOU will end up in the poorhouse; “THEY” will be taking something away from you.” (Never mind that your children will not even have Social Security if we continue on this path – don’t look to the future; worry about yourself first.) On and on. Are YOU better off than you were four years ago? (Oh, how I despise that question!) It’s all about “THEY” versus “YOU”. It’s never “WE are facing this issue, and here’s what I think is the best solution for US.”
The “angry” Democrat wasn’t created when Bush was elected. He was already angry because Al Gore told him he should be – because someone else was getting something he wasn’t.

Al Gore and George Soros: a match made in heaven.

Sorry to be flip yesterday. On a more properly serious note: the Gore endorsement is, I think, a Very Big Deal. Above all, it reveals the real struggle within the Democratic Party. In 2000, Gore broke decisively with Clinton and the center. Some say this was pure expediency or just Shrummery. I actually think it was genuine. Gore has emerged in these last few years as a real left-wing populist. He wants to soak the corporations, enlarge the welfare state, raise taxes and stand up for minority civil rights. He’s also a Bush-hater for understandable personal reasons. A man who has spoken for MoveOn is a natural Dean supporter and his endorsement, when you think about simply the issues, is an obvious one. What you are seeing among the Democrats right now is therefore a classic right-left split, with the Clintons representing the right (and the party establishment) and Dean emerging as a left-wing threat to their power (using the web to foment his peasants’ revolt). Gore ran against Clinton last time (it’s what lost him the election, in my view); and it makes perfect sense for him to join the anti-Clinton insurrection now. Hillary’s positioning as a hawk might even have been a pre-emptive strike against Gore-Dean. So we have a real ideological split here, and the future of the Dems as a mainstream party is at stake.

THE POLITICS: What’s in it for Gore? As John Ellis points out, a lot. You have to remember that just because almost everyone else on the planet thinks Al Gore’s political career is over, Al Gore doesn’t. By endorsing Dean now, he stands to get a major job in a potential Dean administration. Secretary of State? Supreme Court Justice? Who knows what elaborate scenarios Gore has been contemplating in his own mind. And if Dean goes down in flames (which must surely be the likeliest eventuality), Gore has allied himself with the energized, leftist Democratic base, and could position himself in 2008 as the real soul of the party – unlike that centrist opportunist, Senator Clinton. In fact, the minute after a Bush re-election, the Gore-Clinton struggle for control of the party begins again in earnest. To my mind, this is somewhat delusional of Gore. No sane political party would ever give him another chance at the presidency, after he threw it away with such spectacular incompetence in 2000. But all politicians have to be a little delusional; and Gore is nothing but a politician. For Dean, this kind of endorsement helps build momentum toward inevitability. And it also marks the first time that a major establishment figure has essentially blessed the new forces of web-based anti-war upper-middle-class activism that has propelled his candidacy. Gore, of course, helps with blacks, for good measure, a group now indispensable to any chance the Dems have next year. So there you have it: the left-wing take-over of the Democrats continues apace. And only the Clintons can stop it.

Of course, one problem with the Gore-Dean juggernaut is that it makes an anyone-but-Dean candidacy more likely to emerge at some point. Clark was the obvious option, but he’s so bad a candidate I can’t see him pulling through on a centrist message (especially since he’s been getting shriller and shriller on the stump). Kerry … oh, never mind. Lieberman could have done it, but Gore’s knifing him in the front rather knocks that scenario into the delete file. Edwards? He’s run by far the most appealing campaign to my eyes, but he cannot hope to compete in the big leagues yet, especially with the kind of flattening momentum Dean now has. So Gore manages both to set himself up for 2008 and dent a few potential rivals at the same time. Smart and bold.

THE EMAIL SCREW-UP: TNR gets sent a pitiful email from the Kerry campaign, with an aside meant for campaign staffers only. Can they get any more pathetic?

INDYMEDIA STRIKES AGAIN: A new design for the American flag.

“The decision by Mr. Gore seems likely to help Dr. Dean rebut what has been one of the biggest charges raised by his opponents: That he is a weak candidate who would lead the Democrats to a devastating defeat next year. Mr. Gore has repeatedly said that his top priority next year is helping the Democratic party defeat Mr. Bush.” – analysis from The New York Times.

If that doesn’t stop the Dean campaign in its tracks, what will? Did Gephardt put Gore up to this? Did Kerry? Did Soros?