The Dish

“The one thing I wanted to see last night was Mary Cheney on stage with her family after the president’s speech. That would at least have given me some sign of hope, but it was just asking for too much from this crowd. And, I’ve considered myself a moderate of this crowd for a while now. It really bugs me. I’m RC, married with two little kids living in the burbs of Chicago and I can’t get over how much this bothers me because it wouldn’t have been something to get to me before.” Steve Waldman makes a similar point at Beliefnet:

What possible explanation is there here that doesn’t make the Cheneys look like ghoulish parents? I suppose we should wait for more information; perhaps she had an appendicitis attack and was immobile. More likely, either they discouraged her from appearing or she voluntarily exiled herself, not wanting to embarrass her dad, at which point dad should have said, “I love you. You belong up here with me.”
As I wrote earlier, perhaps Mary said she couldn’t wound her partner by going up their without her. If that was the case, the compassionate thing for the Cheneys to do would be take away the awkwardness by having the podium scene without spouses. They would have produced a slightly less cheery photo up but made a powerful statement about love, pride and family.
And this has nothing to do with one’s position on gay marriage. Having Mary Cheney up there would have in no way contradicted either Dick Cheney or George W. Bush’s policies on gay marriage. Bush should be asked about this, too. Powerful evidence was offered that, on a personal level, Bush is a compassionate man. So why didn’t he go to Cheney and say: “Hey, don’t sweat it Dick. Mary is part of our family. Don’t worry about the politics”?

But that’s not the way they are, is it? The Republicans talk about family values; but they believe in disappearing their loved ones when politics demands it.

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: “I always find historical analogies interesting and have been pondering how the current Bush Administration compares to governments in time of change. I think there is a Bismarck analogy, but not exactly the one you used.
I agree with your discussion of Bismarck’s domestic and foreign policies. He was a firm believer in German military might, but an even bigger proponent of a pragmatic diplomacy to achieve his goals. After German unification, he was the architect of a sort of collective security system for Europe. The Reinsurance Treaty between Germany and the other great powers called for the each to come each other’s aid if attacked by one of the signers. Thus, Germany removed the threat of a two front war and the other continental powers received some assurance from being invaded (again) from what was becoming the dominant economy in Europe. The arrangement left Britain blissfully untangled in continental matters and free to focus on Empire. In the late 1800s this arrangement resulted in the biggest rivalries being between England and France in Africa and England and Russia in central Asia. It left Germany out of the colonial game, but allowed it to rapidly grow it’s economy. Unfortunately, this arrangement required a lot of diplomatic dexterity on Germany’s part, some might say, a nuanced approach.
The new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was cool to this approach and thought it limited Germany’s freedom of action in things like colonial policy. So, with the departure of Bismarck, Germany, now clearly the dominant economy in Europe, set out to make its way outside the nuanced collective security system. It let lapse the Reinsurance Treaty which set in motion a dynamic which eventually resulted in an alliance between France and Russia clearly aimed at Germany. France began a long term effort to establish an entente with Britain, up to now its chief rival. Germany, seeking to project its power overseas, began to build a major navy, finally pushing Britain, on the eve of the Great War, to an understanding with France and Russia.
The irony was that Germany, in trying to assert itself more forcefully, now found itself isolated, surrounded by the other powers, and less secure than ever.
Any resemblance to current events is purely coincidental.”

Bill Clinton is in hospital, with an emergency bypass operation. Check in on Lucianne Goldberg’s site to see how her readers respond:

No doubt his arteries are clogged up with pounds of MacDonalds hamburgers and pizzas.

I at least hope he lives long enough to see JFK AND Hildabeast go down in flames. Then he can go down in flames, metaphorically speaking. I hope his big honkin’ bible is printed on asbestos so he can carry it with him.

Give him a enema and send him home. The widow Hillary will gather the sympathy vote in 08′

sorry, I cant muster any sympathy. I’d feel the same if they said Saddam was gettin bypass surgery. It’s a waste of time and money.

My prayers are for all those he lied to, hurt, and misused.

I wonder if this is heart damage from snorting cocaine.

Where can I send a happy meal?

Classy, no? I particularly like the equation of Clinton with Saddam. An almost perfect reflected image of the loony left.

The Washington Post details Zell’s most recent untruths about John Kerry’s record. Hey, as Zell might have put it, he was merely “trying to mislead the people of the United States.” Money quote:

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with “spitballs.” During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president’s father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber — another weapons system cited by Miller — and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.
Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he “opposed” these programs.
On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not “represent sound budgetary policy” in a time of “extreme budget austerity.”

You know, Dick Cheney has called the liberation an “occupation” and opposed many of the things Miller accused Kerry of opposing. Does that make Dick Cheney wobbly in the war on terror?

There’s more interesting background on it from Blog for Democracy. The quote came up in a debate in an election Begala and Carville were running for Miller. Here’s what happened, once Miller’s opponent brought it up:

[W]e were thrilled when Miller wheeled on his accuser and said that back in 1964 when the Atlanta Constitution had printed that so-called quote he’d marched down to the paper’s offices and demanded and received a correction. He’d never say a thing like that. A great moment.
The next day that great moment became one of our greatest nightmares. Al May, the veteran political reporter for the Atlanta Constitution, interviewed Miller as Paul drove them and Shirley Miller to an event in rural Georgia. May made small talk for a little while. Then he sprang the trap. “Zell,” he said, “I’ve talked to all the editors who were around back then, checked the morgue and the archives, and you never asked for a retraction and the paper never printed one.”
“I know,” Miller said, biting the words off the words like they were bitter herbs.
“So why’d you say all that in the debate last night?”
Miller leaned in close to May and said, “Because, Al, I was trying to mislead the people of Georgia.”

A liar and a bigot. And a hero to conservatives everywhere.

Finally, someone in the inner circle explains what motives Bush’s nanny-state, expensive, big government conservatism:

“It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child,” [Andy] Card said. “I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children.”

The old “leave-us-alone” conservatism really is dead, isn’t it?

I’ll be on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight on HBO. I’m on with Arianna and Jason Alexander on the panel; and Howard Dean and Pat Buchanan will be beamed in. Tune in.

Here’s the quote. Forty years ago, Zell Miller said that Johnson was “a Southerner who sold his birthright for a mess of dark pottage.” It’s a vile, bigoted, evil statement. He has since renounced his remarks. But since Miller also resurrected an ancient and disowned quote from Kerry on the U.N., this record is fair game. The unvarnished truth is that Miller was once a proud bigot toward blacks and, now that that is no longer acceptable, he is a proud bigot toward gays. I’m appalled that the Republican party would use as its keynoter someone who was once a proud segregationist. I’m appalled that decent people like Glenn Reynolds prefer to look the other way. I’m told that doesn’t count by some Republicans because Bill Clinton used the same man – for the same purpose (and before Miller became even more rabid). That’s a defense? You know Republicans are desperate when they use Clinton as a moral exemplar. The objects of Zell Miller’s hatred have shifted; but the spirit is the same. What was once the dark stain of the Democratic party is now being used by Republicans. And it is cheered to the ceiling by people who really should know better.

“I should probably clarify here, at least in a broad stroke, my own political leanings. I generally consider myself conservative in many respects, but have been leaning more moderate on many issues lately. I cannot call myself a Republican anymore, though I once did, as the GOP has, in my mind, become a party that does not represent my thoughts. I prefer a different form of conservative political thought than that which passes for “conservative” in contemporary political parlance. Perhaps it gives you some indication of my inclinations if I mention that George Will is one of my absolute favorite writers, and that I despise Ann Coulter.
I provide this information not to show off my conservative bona fides, but rather to help explain why I was moved to write you and offer a heartfelt “thank you” for the piece you wrote about Senator Miller’s speech. I found myself in 100% agreement with what you wrote. I was thoroughly disgusted by the speech, and I have been angered too often in recent times by the attempts of the Republicans to monopolize patriotism, and to paint all legitimate opposition as “treason”. This is why I responded so strongly to your piece– it seemed to have come straight from my own thoughts on the speech, and it was welcome relief to find a prominent conservative writer who expressed so clearly and forcefully the very thoughts echoing in my head, both after that speech, and in general.” More response (and most has been virulently hostile) on the Letters Page.

Oh: and a bleg. I’m trying to track down a quote I read somewhere from Zell Miller. It may be true, or not. But it went something like: “Lyndon Johnson has sold his soul for a bowl of dark pottage.” He was referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anybody know the provenance of this remark? Or did I misread something somewhere?

Understanding the mistakes we have made in Iraq is, of course, essential to improving the situation there and also fighting the war on terror in the future. And when you read Juan Cole’s blog, it is, at its best, stimulating and informative. Here’s a passage that is pretty damning about the Bush administration’s stance, but nevertheless cogent enough:

The Bush administration simply mismanaged Iraq. It dissolved the Iraqi army, throwing the country into chaos. That army was not gone and would have gladly showed up at the barracks for a paycheck. It pursued a highly punitive policy of firing and excluding members of the Baath Party, which was not done in so thorough-going a manner even to Nazis in post-war Germany. It canceled planned municipal elections, denying people any stake in their new “government,” which was more or less appointed by the US. It put all its efforts into destroying Arab socialism in Iraq and creating a sudden free market, rather than paying attention to the preconditions for entrepreneurial activity, like security and services. It kept changing its policies – early on it was going to turn the country over to Ahmad Chalabi in 6 months. Then that plan was scotched and Paul Bremer was brought in to play MacArthur in Tokyo for a projected two or three years. Then that didn’t work and there would be council-based elections. Then those wouldn’t work and there would be a “transfer of sovereignty.” All this is not to mention the brutal and punitive sieges of Fallujah and Najaf and the Abu Ghuraib torture scandal, etc., etc.

Too harsh in some respects, but not unconvincing. And then Cole undermines confidence in him with the following assertions:

No American president has more desperately sought out a war with any country than George W. Bush sought out this war with Iraq. Only Polk’s war on Mexico, also based on false pretexts, even comes close to the degree of crafty manipulation employed by Bush and Cheney to get up the Iraq war. Intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was deliberately and vastly exaggerated, producing a “nuclear threat” where there wasn’t even so much as a single gamma ray to be registered. Innuendo and repetition were cleverly used to tie Saddam to Usama Bin Laden operationally, a link that all serious intelligence professionals deny.

I don’t know what inside information Cole has to say that all this was a deliberate misrepresentation, but the glib and easy assignment of ulterior motives and bad faith is cheap and unhelpful. It gets worse:

So it wasn’t a catastrophic success that caused the problem. It was that Iraq was being run at the upper levels by a handful of screw-ups who had all sorts of ulterior motives, and at least sometimes did not have the best interests of the country at heart. And Bush is the one who put them in charge.

That is essentially an accusation of treason or double loyalty. So in the midst of an intelligent and well-informed critique, we have unproven accusations that this administration is deliberately working against the interests of this country. If you ask me, that’s why the far-left Middle East academic elite has had so little influence over this debate. Their shrillness crowds out their expertise.

It was the second best speech I have ever heard George W. Bush give – intelligently packaged, deftly structured, strong and yet also revealing of the president’s obviously big heart. The speech writers deserve very high grades for pulling it off, to find a way to get the president to deal substantively with the domestic issues he is weak on and to soar once again on the imperatives of freedom in the Middle East. I will be very surprised if the president doesn’t get a major boost from the effort, and if his minuscule lead in the race begins to widen. In this way, the whole convention was a very mixed message – but also a very effective one. They presented a moderate face, while proposing the most hard-right platform ever put forward by a GOP convention. They smeared and slimed Kerry – last night with disgusting attacks on his sincerity, patriotism and integrity. And yet they managed to seem positive after tonight. That’s no easy feat. But they pulled it off. Some of this, I have to say, was Orwellian. When your convention pushes so many different messages, and is united with screaming chants of “U.S.A.”, and built around what was becoming almost a cult of the Great Leader, skeptical conservatives have reason to raise an eyebrow or two.

THE END OF CONSERVATISM: But conservatism as we have known it is now over. People like me who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people’s lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Just remember all that Bush promised last night: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it’s easily in the trillions. And Bush’s astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the “tax-and-spend” candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn’t just chutzpah. It’s deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry – especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending – easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president. On this issue – on which I couldn’t agree more – I have to say I don’t believe him. Tax reform goes against the grain of everything this president has done so far. Why would he change now?

FULL SPEED AHEAD: I agreed with almost everything in the foreign policy section of the speech, although the president’s inability to face up to the obvious sobering lessons from Iraq is worrying. I get the feeling that empirical evidence does not count for him; that like all religious visionaries, he simply asserts that his own faith will vanquish reality. It won’t. We heard nothing about Iran, North Korea or even anything concrete about Iraq. We heard no new bid to capitalize on the new mood in France or to win over new allies in the war on terror. We heard nothing about intelligence reform. And the contrasts with Kerry were all retrospective. There was no attempt to tell us where Kerry and Bush would differ in the future over the Middle East, just easy (and justified) barbs about the past. But Bush’s big vision is, I believe, the right one. I’m just unsure whether his profound unpopularity in every foreign country has made real movement more or less likely. I do know that the rank xenophobia at the convention did not help American foreign policy or American interests.

BISMARCK + WILSON: The whole package was, I think, best summed up as a mixture of Bismarck and Wilson. Germany’s Bismarck fused a profound social conservatism with a nascent welfare state. It was a political philosophy based on a strong alliance with military and corporate interests, and bound itself in a paternalist Protestant ethic. Bush Republicanism is not as authoritarian, but its impulses are similar – and the dynastic father-figure is a critical element in the picture. Bismarck’s conservatism also relied, as Bush’s does, on scapegoating a minority to shore up his Protestant support. Protecting the family from its alleged internal enemies is an almost perfect rallying call for a religiously inspired base. But unlike Bismarck, Bush’s foreign policy is deeply liberal and internationalist: promoting a revolutionary doctrine of democratization abroad in the least hospitable of places. His faith in this respect, if not his ease with using military force, is reminiscent of Woodrow Wilson. Yes, this doesn’t exactly add up to a coherent philosophy – but it’s based on the president’s feelings, not on any argument. This administration is not philosophically coherent. But as a political operation, that doesn’t seem to matter.

I CANNOT SUPPORT HIM IN NOVEMBER: I will add one thing more. And that is the personal sadness I feel that this president who praises freedom wishes to take it away from a whole group of Americans who might otherwise support many parts of his agenda. To see the second family tableau with one family member missing because of her sexual orientation pains me to the core. And the president made it clear that discriminating against gay people, keeping them from full civic dignity and equality, is now a core value for him and his party. The opposite is a core value for me. Some things you can trade away. Some things you can compromise on. Some things you can give any politician a pass on. But there are other values – of basic human dignity and equality – that cannot be sacrificed without losing your integrity itself. That’s why, despite my deep admiration for some of what this president has done to defeat terror, and my affection for him as a human being, I cannot support his candidacy. Not only would I be abandoning the small government conservatism I hold dear, and the hope of freedom at home as well as abroad, I would be betraying the people I love. And that I won’t do.