The Torture General and the Commander-in-Chief Override

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Crime, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

To me, the most troubling thing about Gonzales is not his understanding (or lack thereof) on the "legal" use of torture, but his apparent lack of understanding on the powers of the Presidency. 

One thing is for sure: what ever "torture" is — and I am willing to concede that we can have open debates about that — the President cannot and should not have the unilateral power to disobey or circumvent any law or treaty on any topic.

It is odd how Gonzales cannot simply say this.  Read how Slate describes yesterday’s cat-and-mouse game:

Then comes the question of the day: "Now, as attorney general, would you believe the president has the authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture?" Leahy asks. That’s "a hypothetical that’s never going to occur," Gonzales says, because we don’t torture people. He continues, "This president has said we’re not going to engage in torture under any circumstances, and therefore that portion of the opinion was unnecessary and was the reason that we asked that that portion be withdrawn." Translation: Yes, I think the president has the legal authority to immunize acts of torture, but he doesn’t want to, so I’m not going to bother with defending the idea.

Pressed for an answer, Gonzales concedes, "I do believe there may come an occasion when the Congress might pass a statute that the president may view as unconstitutional," and therefore the president may ignore it. That’s a general statement of principle, Leahy says, but I’m asking a specific question. Can the president immunize torture? Gonzales retreats to the that’s-hypothetical-and-it’s-not-gonna-happen defense. OK, Leahy says. What about leaders of other countries? Can they immunize torture? I’m not familiar with their laws, Gonzales replies.

The law should be above politics, and this guy has demonstrated that he cannot act as the chief law enforcement officer and be above his loyalties to Bush.  Bad nominee.  He’ll be confirmed, but he shouldn’t be.

Desparate Yet?

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Matt Yglesius is right to point this out:

The recent acts of terrorism, such as the bombing of the U.N. headquarters and the mosque in Najaf, show a couple of things. First, that Iraq is still a dangerous place. They also show, I think, the desperation — the desperation of the adversaries that we face. We’re actively engaged in rooting out this threat with more and more Iraqis coming forward with information and a willingness to help us.

— Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, September 9, 2003.

You’ll see the threat go to, again, more suicide attacks, vehicle- borne IEDs, which I think shows desperation for both so they can get themselves in the news so people around the world can see them, and to show that they are in fact frustrated that they can’t really make an impact any other way.

— Major General Raymond T. Odierno, January 22, 2004 .

We have said for quite a while that one of the signs not only of desperation on the part of the terrorists and the former regime elements but also, quite frankly, the cowardice of these forces is that, in opposition to six months ago, when many of the attacks — most of the attacks were against the coalition forces, we have seen over the past few months that they are starting to go after softer targets.  That is a concern of ours, but it also ought to demonstrate the desperation of these people because they decide, rather than attack coalition forces and Iraqi security forces, they’ll attack women that are working for the coalition, washing clothes to make their lives better.

— Coalition Provisional Authority senior adviser Dan Senor, March 31, 2004. 

[General Thomas Metz] said that the recent run of gruesome suicide bombings, which have killed dozens of civilians, was a measure of desperation among the insurgents, who have put forward no political vision beyond expelling the Americans.

— The New York Times., January 6, 2005

(Source)

Your Tax Dollars Pay for Illegal Propaganda

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

The rightwing douchebag pundit of the day award goes to Armstrong Williams:

Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.

The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.

Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it’s something I believe in."

The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers’ money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation.

By the way, what "liberal media"?

It’s a story similar to this, a few months ago:

Conyers also disclosed yesterday that Ashcroft spent more than $200,000 in taxpayer money on trips to 32 cities in August and September 2003 to drum up support for the Patriot Act.

A new Government Accountability Office study of the trips found that Ashcroft and his staff spent more than $77,000 for air transportation, according to congressional staffers who have been briefed on the findings. Nearly $40,000 was spent on hotels and other travel expenses, and U.S. attorney’s offices spent more than $80,000 for conference room rentals and other costs, the staff members said.

Justice officials told the GAO they did not keep track of some costs, including meetings between federal prosecutors and lawmakers about Patriot Act legislation. The report is scheduled to be released this week.

(Source)

What’s the point?   

The point is that this type of stuff is ILLEGAL.  Here’s the Treasury and Governmental Appropriations Act:

SEC. 623. No part of any funds appropriated in this or any other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself. …

SEC. 626. No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.

Eight Questions (Plus One)

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

In an attempt to foster "brutally honest conversation" among hawks, Kevin Drum has 8 questions for Iraq war supporters (and in reality, it is more than eight. I suspect many hawks will dismiss these questions as "rhetorical", but I don’t think they are. Any takers? I would also appreciate links if you know of blogs who take on Kevin’s questions.

1. Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?

2. Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?

3. Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush’s policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.

4. On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney’s 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.

5. A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?

6. Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?

7. If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.

8. Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie’s crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?

And I have one of my own:

9. If we are fighting a war against terrorism, do you think the United States should have direct involvement against ETA (the Basque terrorists in Spain)? Why or why not?

White House Distances Itself From Realities of War

Ken AshfordBush & Co., IraqLeave a Comment

I can only imagine what it must be like to receive a letter from the government stating that your son/daughter has been killed in combat.

But . . . it’s a necessary aspect of war.

Still . . . is it too much to ask of the President that he NOT sign these letter with a green felt-tip marker? Is it too much to ask that Rumsfeld personally sign these letters instead of using an automated machine?

A retired colonel weighs in.

So WHY Did We Invade Iraq in Response to 9/11?

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

"Because Iraq had WMDs and posed a serious threat."

We now know they didn’t.

"Because Iraq had significant operational ties to Al Qaeda."

We now know they didn’t.

"Because a democratic Iraq will spread democracy in the region in order to combat Islamofascism."

Oh, okay. That makes sense, I guess.

Wait a second. No so fast, sparky:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 – When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior American officials arrive at a summit meeting in Morocco next week that is intended to promote democracy across the Arab world, they have no plans to introduce any political initiatives to encourage democratic change.

President Bush started speaking in 2002 about the need to bring democracy to the Arab nations. Since then, however, the popular view of the United States in the region has grown so dark, even hateful, that American officials are approaching the meeting with caution and with a package of financial and social initiatives that have only a scant relationship to the original goal of political change.

(Read more here [subscription required]).

Our international policies are seriously laughable. Just one step above "If you clap real hard Wendy, you too can fly." Is there anyone in government interested in reality? I mean . . . "Mission accomplished"? What WAS the mission? What was accomplished? Where is the peace dividend? What did these people die for, and what did it have to do with THIS:

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The Scariest Memo in the World

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

From Porter Goss, new head of the CIA:

Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,” a copy of an internal memorandum shows.

"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."

In other words, don’t speak truth to power. Just shuddup and nod ‘yes’.

Seriously, in such an atmosphere, are we MORE or LESS likely to see intelligence agents acting like this?

Contract Ripped Up

Ken AshfordRepublicansLeave a Comment

In 1994, the Republicans created their "Contract With America". One of the purposes of the Contract was "To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves."

Why did they write that?

Because at the time, there were many GOP complaints about Democrat Dan Rostenkowski who was maintaining his post (Chairman of Ways & Means Committee) after an indictment, as well as other scandals and investigations into (mostly Dem) Congressmen.

And one of the things the Republicans did once they became the congressional majority was pass Congressional rules requiring a leader to step aside temporarily if indicted on a felony charge that carries a prison term of two or more years. A separate rule applied to committee chairmen.

From today’s Washington Post:

House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiippp goes the Contract.

The GOP establishment simply has no moral compass. A bunch of ethical hyprocrites.

An Idiot Named Mike Thompson

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Every once in a while, a right-wingnut article comes along so ripe for editorial rape that it would be a crime to let it pass.

Here is one such article, from a guy named Mike Thompson, a former chairman of the Florida Conservative Union. Take note of the disclaimer at the top — he doesn’t mean what he is saying, except that . . . you know . . . he kind of does mean it.

Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal – It’s Time to Reconfigure the United States by Mike Thompson

[From the author: This is an essay I’ve been working on for the past several weeks, updated moments ago with what appears to be Bush’s final number of victory states (31) once the nonsense of provisional votes in Ohio is overcome.

As an admitted "modest proposal" (a la Swift’s satiric story of the same name), it is nevertheless serious in pointing out the cancer that continues to threaten our body politic.]

Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South’s secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war).

You know that when a winger opens with the Civil War revisions, you are going to be in for a treat. And technically, the War Between the States had nothing — not a thing — to do with slavery per se. The War Between the States was about whether states possessed the sovereign right to permit some its citizens to own other non-citizens as chattel. But not about slavery. Nosiree.

No state may leave the Union without the other states’ approval, according to Lincoln’s doctrine–an assertion that ignores the Declaration of Independence, which was the vital basis for all 13 American colonies’ unilateral secession from the British Union eight decades earlier.

And since we’re rewriting the Civil War, we might as well pretend that a declaration addressed to the King is the same thing as a constitution which sets a framework of government.

Lincoln’s grotesque legal argument also disregards a state’s inherent right of secession which many scholars believe is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

But is it not true, Grasshopper, that if a state secedes from the United States, it is no longer protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution? (D’oh!)

Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high tariffs . . .

Oh, that’s all that Johnny Reb was talking about back then — federal subsidies for regional businesses, federal subsidies for regional businesses . . . like a damn broken record . . .

. . . society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage) . . .

I prefer to call it the War Between Those Who Like Gallagher And Those Who Don’t . . .

. . . and debate about our role abroad (shall we remain the world’s leader, or become an unprincipled chump for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?).

There’s nothing that gets be madder than globalist sybarites playing Boggle all night long!!!

For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won’t even admit that they are liberals–because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization’s core decency and traditions.

That’s us all right — moral stink and political silliness to your core decency. Kinda like when Bugs Bunny leaps out of the whole and kisses Elmer Fudd smack on the lips. Only more so. By the way, how come they call liberals elitist?

Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore’s fat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name.

Ah, I long for the days when propaganda had a good name, because it never ever contained things like slander or libel until those icky fat-handed Oscar-winning directors like Hitler came along.

When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It’s as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth.

That’s right, Mike. It’s genetic. Just like the "mud people", liberals are an entirely different breed. (Again, please take note of Mike’s down-to-earth lack-of-elitist attitudes here).

As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day.

Unless, of course, the herbicide of conservatism is applied before the harvest, in which case they will just rotate their crops to make the fungicide of liberalism . . . oh, fuck it.

The truth is, America is not just broken–it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face. That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart–not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.

Let’s see. The "Red States" just won an election. So why are you saying now that you are MORE LIKELY to have the government’s boot in your face, Mike? And why is the solution is to have the government’s boot in the ass of the Blue States? I’m confused and intrigued . . .

Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic’s inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree.

In other words, what I have proposed is so preposterously stupid that most states won’t agree with it.

Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

Okay, okay. Many questions here.

Will the consitutional amendment actually require those 12 states to go straight to Hell? I just want to make sure that the Hell part is optional, right?

Second of all, how come the Red States get to keep Hawaii? And Pennsylvania? And Washington? And Oregon? Aren’t they "systematically troublesome", too? Just as much as Maine and New Hampshire and Delaware, I suggest. And certainly the District of Columbia needs to be booted out, too, right? And considering that most of the original colonies are getting expelled, then the name "United States of America" goes with them. I mean, you can be moronic, but be fair about it.

A difficult-to-pass constitutional amendment, however, is not necessary. There is an equally lawful route that mercifully would be both easier and faster. Inasmuch as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union," it is reasonable that the same congressional majority may expel a state from the Union.

Yyyyyyyeah. Because the words "admit" and "expel" are exact opposites, so . . . then obviously it is reasonable to think that the Founders intended Congress to EXPEL states as well as ADMIT them. And anyone who disagrees is probably a liberal activist judge legislating from the bench who can’t read plain English.

[Fast forward]

The demographics revealed by the two most recent presidential elections are radically different and have resulted in "Two Americas" (but not the simplistic "Two Americas" [one rich, one poor] envisioned by Kerry’s Marxist-tongued running mate, John Edwards):

BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma’am" and "yes, sir."

GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.

I’m guessing that the "predominately white" one is supposed to be the good one, right? After all, it’s mostly Protestant (you know, the good kind of Christianity). Not sure how conservatives would feel about this "open" and "vigorous" heterosexuality though.

But I think I can get a better cup of coffee in Gore/Kerry USA, so I pick that one. Besides, it doesn’t sound like the Bush USA has been wired for cable . . . or much else.

Bush USA also is far safer, its murder rate being about 16% of the homicidal binge that plagues Gore/Kerry USA–2.1 per 100,000 residents, compared with 13.2 per 100,000 (from a study by Professor Joseph Olson, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota).

And more polite with all the "Yes, Ma’am" and "Yes, Sir" stuff you’ll be imposing.

[Fast forward]

As for the dozen ex-American states, they could always petition the UN and EU for foreign aid. Moreover, with any good luck (or bon chance), socialist Canada would annex our jettisoned territory, eh?

Let’s see. We get New York, Illinois AND California? And we’ll be applying for foreign aid? Isn’t that the same faulty economic assessment made by the South in the Civil War War Between The States?

Well, thank you, Mike for your proposal. I’ll take it under advisement. Um, excuse me. Advissement.

Something You Didn’t Think Of . . .

Ken AshfordElection 2004Leave a Comment

. . . but you should consider:

Over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate."

In other words, more Americans voted for the "Massachusetts liberal" than they did for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore.

Conclusion: apparently "liberal" isn’t the dirty word is used to be.

Harper’s, Don’t Tempt Me . . .

Ken AshfordElection 2004Leave a Comment

The joke among myself and other recent election loss sufferers is "Let’s move to another country." Of course, we’re not and we wouldn’t. We’re staying and fighting for the soul of the country we love.

But I thought this article was interesting:

So the wrong candidate has won, and you want to leave the country. Let us consider your options.

Read it all.

My only question: if I renounce my citizenship and move to St. Kitts, do I become a St. Kitten?

Where Do We Go From Here?

Ken AshfordElection 2004Leave a Comment

First Draft of the Next Four Years for Lefties

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance – Phew! Now what?

Let’s look at why we lost. Can’t put blame on the Supreme Court (this year). Can’t put any blame on Nader (this year) either. Can’t really blame the media either. Can’t really blame our candidate either (does anyone out there think one of the others could have done better?) Can’t blame the 527’s — I think the Swiftees hurt, but we gave as good as we got. Can’t blame an October surprise, or even Rove’s supposed genius. VP choice? Not likely. And take off yer tinfoil hats — we can’t blame Diebold either.

So what happened? Bush’s approval rating wasn’t that strong. Fiscally, he’s the most UN-conservative president ever, and nobody seriously bothers to dispute this. Most can see that the war in Iraq is not going well — certainly not as well as hoped or hyped. Most can see that most of Bush’s tax cuts don’t go to them. So what gives? What have we learned? Why did we lose?

The answer is quite simply this: We lost because the Republican base showed up. They may call themselves independents, libertarians, or whatever — but they showed up and voted.

Well, who ARE these people? The vast majority of them are the people described in "What’s the Matter With Kansas?". To get a flavor, check out this Amazon review:

The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans’ actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically. To much of America, Kansas is an abstract, "where Dorothy wants to return. Where Superman grew up."

The world to them is that simple. We on the left may be correct in our world vision of a world that is nuanced, where words have specific meaning, where ideas and events have more than two sides and shades are gray. No — forget "may be correct". We ARE correct. But you don’t win votes by being correct, by being nuanced, or by being . . . well . . . smart.

You win votes by projecting a positive image. By portraying yourself as being, for example, a "strong leader" (whether or not you actually are). People like the solid image better than the (nuanced) reality. Don’t bother worrying about what "strong leader" actually means. If you have to try to translate that phrase into a program or a policy, then you’ve lost. Red State Republicans don’t care about your policies and programs either. They just need to be convinced that you are a "strong leader" or a "this" or a "that".

So that’s one reason why Kerry lost. He too readily accepted the image of being smart, thus unwittingly embracing the idea of being weak.

But if I had to choose the one single "X factor" which made a difference in this election, it would be "values". I think we will learn more and more as the days continue, that DESPITE economic news, and even the WOT, Bush won because conservatives came out to vote because of conservative values. I am surprised, for example, at how much the gay marriage issue played not only in the campaign, but in the actual election. Conservatives ACTAULLY BELIEVE that the institution of marriage, which lives in THEIR HOME, is actually being attacked by what some lesbian women are doing in an ANOTHER HOME. (UPDATE: Kevin Drum apparently agrees, saying with 20/20 hindsight that the most important event of the campaign season was the Masschusetts Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage.)

Now, I have yet to flesh this out, but I think I may hear a clarian cry. I remember the first time I heard a homophobe say that there shoudn’t be gay teachers because they will just "promote the gay agenda". I thought that was awfully funny at the time, because the only gay agenda I was aware of was the American agenda — freedom, equality, etc. But now, I have come to see the emergence of a "conservative agenda" which, under the guise of American values, is at its core very anti-American as any social agenda can get.

And I now understand why conservatives have bemoaned things like judges legislating morality from the bench. It has little to do with separation of powers. It is because conservatives want to legislate THEIR morality from whereever they can. And it’s not just gays. It’s privacy. It’s the Patriot Act. It’s immigration and profiling.

All morning, I have been thinking about Pat Buchanan and his references four years ago to the "coming culture war." It scared the shit out of me then. But don’t look now — I think we are in one. And I think the left not only has to fight it, but win it.

That’s where the left needs to hit next — the cultural conservatives. We can’t make them understand the hypocrisy of fighting for freedom abroad, while curbing it here. Kerry’s solution was to treat social conservatives with kit gloves. I say no. I say we fight the culture war at home. BRING. IT. ON.

Update: I don’t mean to suggest by anything in this post that the Left, having lost this election, is in disarray. There are tens of millions of us, and we are all united and more organized than ever before. We just need to focus again, and make this country a better place — from the outside if need be.

Thoughts . . .

Ken AshfordElection 2004Leave a Comment

Jeez. I go to bed with explicit ideas and instructions about how the election is supposed to play out . . . and you guys screw it up. (I don’t know specifically who I am refering to here, but that’s my rant).

Seriously, let me get out some random thoughts.

First of all, the country is not going to be torn apart if Kerry waits and holds out hope for the Ohio provincial/absentee/military ballots. This is not a ballot controversy like it was in 2000.  These are not recounts. There are no major court cases over these ballots. It is more important, for the sake of democracy, to be RIGHT than to be politically expedient. Especially in wartime.

Note to wingers: Are you seriously asking Kerry to concede because we are at war? Is our democracy that fragile? And what kind of a message does that send to Iraq, who we are expecting to have elections in the midst of a REAL war? Your lack of faith in the democratic process is so staggering, that I begin to wonder if you should be lending your voice in support if it.

Furthermore, I expect that Bush will ultimately prevail in Ohio. If it was meant to be, then let us let him. You want to be rid of the moniker "Commander-in-Thief"? You tired of hearing about the illegitimacy of the Presidency? Me, too. This election, for all its closeness, went well. Let the votes be counted the way they are supposed to be counted. For the sake of democracy, if it has to be Bush, then let’s for once and for all give Bush an UNDISPUTABLE legitimate win by counting all the votes that should be counted. It is in everybody’s interest. Calls for Kerry to concede before he’s even assessed the Ohio situation are anti-democratic. Only totalitarian states and dictatorships are afraid of controversy — not democracies.

Thirdly, kudos to the news organizations for a change. When it became clear that the exit polls were screwy, they stood up and said, "Hey, the exit polls are screwy" and with one or two exceptions, they all stopped the stupid game of trying to be the "first", and they all started playing the game of trying to be "accurate". Which is what we want from them, right?

Which beings me to a meta-point of the past two years. Pick your favorite story — WMDs in Iraq, CBS memos, the election results — and you will see that the same theme emerging over and over again: ACCURACY OF INFORMATION. Specifically . . . "how quickly should we act on information, and how good should that information be before we act?"

It seems to me that those who act hastily, and whose partisan beliefs cause them to accept bad data too readily (or reject alternative information too quickly) do a disservice to the American people. Dan Rather was one such guy. So was George Bush. I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that there are only two kinds of people in this world — those who go to the utmost extremes to convince you of their rightousness . . . and those who actually want to BE rightous. Be wary of the former.

But it looks like the dawn of the Bush second term. And if Bush is sworn in, let him be sworn in clean. Let’s be able to at least say that Bush won and (assuming Ohio doesn’t get short-circuited), he won legitimately. I and many others will happily remain the loyal opposition, as is befitting any democracy, and — from the outside — move this country to a better, more secure, more equitable, more respected, more honest place. There are tens of millions of us — you don’t think we can’t???