Month: September 2008

"Whatever the New York Times once was, it is not today by any standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama organization that every day attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor Palin, and excuses Senator Obama," – Steve Schmidt, McCain’s chief "strategist". Boy oh boy.

The Second Circuit has just issued a unanimous decision ordering the Bush administration to release photographs of terror war prisoners, following the ACLU’s FOIA request. Slowly but surely, the war crimes of the Bush administration are being brought into the light of day. Justice will come.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Defense – Get more Business Documents

Some thoughts on the future of the cell phone:

Your phone knows a lot about the world around you. If you take that intelligence and combine it in the cloud with that of every other phone, we have an incredible snapshot of what is going on in the world right now. Weather updates can be based on not hundreds of sensors, but hundreds of millions. Traffic reports can be based not on helicopters and road sensors, but on the density, speed, and direction of the phones (and people) stuck in the traffic jams.

Their interaction with the press is in complete disarray. Steve Schmidt even lies when trying to point out others’ lies. But the end of the Politico piece is amazing:

Asked about the series of errors, McCain aides could not provide evidence to back up Schmidt’s assertions. One McCain aide, Michael Goldfarb, said Politico was “quibbling with ridiculously small details when the basic things are completely right.”

Another, Brian Rogers, responded more directly: “You are in the tank,” he e-mailed.

We’re all in the tank. Anyone asking a fricking question is "in the tank." I’m with Coates:

It’s clear that the McCain campaign has basically decided on using the Bush playbook for handling the press. But I think the campaign made one critical error. The whole bully/lie/clamp-up method of handling reporters works swimmingly if you’re already in power. Not so much if you’re still trying to get power. It’s fine to appoint unqualified hacks to office, especially if you’re in your second term. Not so much when you’re still running for your first.

It’s very important for people to realize that the McCain-Palin ticket is explicitly running on war against Iran. If McCain-Palin is elected, there will be war. If Obama-Biden is elected, there is a tiny chance there won’t be. In terms of the future, this is the critical issue to be decided. Someone – probably Scheuneman – wrote Palin’s op-ed/speech on this. It could not be clearer:

"We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator’s intentions and to call for action to thwart him. He must be stopped. The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us."

She and/or McCain will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. This much we know. It isn’t a matter of if but when. For McCain, it is a matter of fighting wars to win, instead of accepting any limits on American power. For Palin, it is a matter of theological destiny. For Americans, it may be a decision about whether America will start a Third World War or try to prevent it.

Larison makes a strong case for not letting contempt determine political support:

It makes your loyalties hostage to the most idiotic of your opponents, and it compels you to ignore your interests and any semblance of independent thought.

I would add another point–even those who seem to break from the herd and back a candidate from “the other side” to repudiate all the worst elements on your own “side” are falling prey to what Conor calls the politics of Schadenfreude, as an important part of the rationale for conservatives backing Obama or conservative Democrats backing McCain is not that these candidates better represent them but that they function as scourges for elements in their own party that they find appalling.  We hear it all the time–an Obama victory would be a judgement on the neocons, or Democratic defections would be a repudiation of Obama’s progressivism–and somehow we do not see it as part of the same moral blackmail that keeps the two-party system functioning.  If we voted our interests and paid no mind to the kinds of people who would be outraged by the victory of one candidate or another, we would quickly realize that neither party represents us and serves mainly as a rallying point for our undefined grievances against other people, most of whom we have never met.

Agreed. But sometimes contempt is merited. And it is silly not to say it if one believes it. I do believe that the current GOP is contemptible in all its permutations – from the base to the intelligentsia. I can still call myself a conservative; I can still see Obama’s flaws and where I disagree with him. But my political judgment, honestly held, proudly expressed, is that destroying this Republican party is essential if this country and the world are going to recover from our current morass.

The McCain campaign sticks with its gay sex online entrepreneur. Encouraging in a way.

Derb has this to say about doubt and faith:

It’s no crime to change your mind, and a believer might of course doubt his belief. There’s a lot to be said, though, for just getting on with life, and in particular for resolving your doubts. Having come to doubt you’re on the right path, weigh the evidence as best you can. Then either stay on the path or (as in my case) get off it onto some other. What seems unconvincing to me is the claims by some believers to have wrestled with doubt for years or decades. To people making those claims, the only thing I can think of to say is: "Isn’t it time you, like, made up your cotton-pickin’ mind?"

Well, yes. Constant doubt would mean paralysis. No one lives with that kind of doubt or you would be immobilized. But constantly holding your beliefs at some distance, being willing always to reassess and review them, is essentially a description of the scientific method. In practical life, we need to believe basic things in order to function. But when reality and experience reveal them to be untrue, we have to discard them. So let us review: there were no WMDs in Iraq; the US cannot afford its current entitlement state; the stock market remains over-valued; Iran will one day become a nuclear power. Now deal with these facts and stop peddling denial as conservatism.

Patrick Ruffini, and what the GOP now stands for:

God Himself couldn’t have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That’s why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say "No" and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress.

…A bailout may be inevitable, but so to can be the political benefit for Congressional Republicans if played correctly.

This is what young conservatives now specialize in: cynicism of epic proportions.

Steve Schmidt attacks the New York Times for doing its job. It’s all these people have left. Lies, lies and demonization of anyone asking questions.