(The editorial really is worth a read – promoted by JulieWaters)

If you haven't seen it yet, take a look at today's editorial in the Times Argus on Douglas' recent “Set the Agenda” tour.  I give it a “4”.

Nate

Earlier today, in a reply post, I used the phrase, “managed society.”  Something about the phrase continued to resonate in my mind throughout the day.  It's as if I haven't been seeing a transformational change occurring right before my eyes — as if I've been looking at the world through a set of lenses the world has grown out of.  Up is down; everything is out of focus.  But through this lens of a managed society everything suddenly became quite clear.  This evening I googled the phrase, then landed on a better one:  “managed democracy”.  Very interesting….  Since it's a little past bedtime for the girls, I'll simply offer a 2005 article on the subject below the fold.  The article is dated and not completely accurate, but it certainly offers an interesting perspective.  Enjoy.

Bush & the Rise of ‘Managed-Democracy’

By Robert Parry
February 12, 2005
www.consortiumnews.com

When conservatives talk of George W. Bush’s “transformational” role in American politics, they are referring to a fundamental change they seek in the U.S. system of government in which the Republican Party will dominate for years to come and power will not really be up for grabs in general elections.

Under this vision of a “managed-democracy,” elections will still be held but a variety of techniques will ensure that no Democrat has a reasonable chance to win. Most important will be the use of sophisticated propaganda and smear tactics amplified through a vast conservative media infrastructure, aided and abetted by a compliant mainstream press.

This concept also might be called the “Putin-izing” of American politics, where one side’s dominance of media, financial resources and the ability to intimidate opponents is overwhelming – as now exists in Russia under President Vladimir Putin. Crucial to Putin’s political control is how the major Russian news media fawns over the Russian strongman, a former KGB officer.

In the United States, the conservative/Republican consolidation of power is not yet complete. But it appears clear that the traditional checks and balances, including the national press corps, are now so weak and compromised that they won’t present any meaningful resistance. That means new strategies must be devised and new institutions must be created if this one-party-state future is to be averted.

The rapidly expanding conservative news media already is an extraordinary powerhouse, extending from TV to newspapers to talk radio to magazines to the Internet. Nothing of a similar size exists on the left side of the U.S. political spectrum.

So mainstream U.S. journalists intuitively understand that their careers require that they not get in the way of the conservative juggernaut. CNN’s chief news executive Eason Jordan, who resigned Friday night after coming under attack from right-wing bloggers for an off-hand comment blaming U.S. soldiers for killing some journalists in Iraq, is only the latest to learn this hard lesson. [More below.]

Mythical Pendulum

Four years ago, some hopeful political analysts predicted that the rightward swing of the media pendulum, which so bedeviled Bill Clinton in the 1990s, would lurch back leftward once Bush took office in 2001.

These analysts foresaw the news media assuming its traditional adversarial role regardless of which party held the White House, tough on Democrats and tough on Republicans.

But no self-correction ever occurred. Instead, as Bush enters the fifth year of his presidency, major news outlets are continuing to swing more to the right.

For example, NBC News anchor Brian Williams represents an even more compliant figure toward Bush than did former anchor Tom Brokaw, who himself often acted like a cheerleader for Bush’s policies. After Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Brokaw sat among a panel of former U.S. military officers and proclaimed, “in a few days, we’re going to own that country.”

Williams is even more gung-ho and more pro-Republican. Williams, who built his reputation as an MSNBC anchor in the 1990s with harsh coverage of Bill Clinton’s scandals, has made a point to curry favor with conservatives, stressing that he is a big fan of right-wing talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.

“I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due because his audience for so many years felt they were in the wilderness of this country,” Williams told C-SPAN interviewer Brian Lamb in December 2004. “I think Rush gave birth to the Fox news channel. I think Rush helped to give birth to a movement. I think he played his part in the [Republican] Contract with America. So I hope he gets his due as a broadcaster.”

Williams added that when he worked in the White House press room, he would join with his “friend Brit Hume,” now a Fox News anchor, in citing alleged examples of liberal bias by “you members of the perhaps unintentionally liberal media.” [C-SPAN’s Q&A, Dec. 26, 2004]

Having come of age in a Washington media environment where flattering the Right was a guaranteed way to protect your career, Williams understands that he helps himself by siding with conservative media figures. By contrast, it would be unimaginable that a new network anchor would declare that he had joined, say, Air America’s Al Franken in calling out reporters for alleged conservative bias.

Patriotic Fervor

And the continued rightward swing at General Electric’s NBC is being replicated across the “mainstream” news media. During the Iraq invasion in spring 2003, for instance, CNN fell over itself to be almost as super-patriotic as Fox News. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Empire v. Republic.”]

During Campaign 2004, CNN also gave crucial, credulous coverage to the smears against John Kerry’s war record from the pro-Bush Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Though the New York Times and other major newspapers eventually discredited the attacks, the intense coverage on the cable news outlets – competing with Fox to publicize the anti-Kerry allegations – marked an important turning point in the campaign. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Reality on the Ballot,” “Bushes Play the ‘Traitor’ Card,” and “It’s the Media, Stupid!”

While no one at CNN suffered for buying into bogus Swift Boat charges against Kerry, CBS rushed to fire four “60 Minutes” producers when they came under conservative criticism for their handling of disputed memos about how Bush had blown off his National Guard duty in the 1970s. As part of the fallout from that flap, Dan Rather – long a bete noire of the Right – agreed to step down as evening news anchor. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Bush Rule of Journalism.”]

Even clumsy phrasing in off-hand remarks can lead to the sudden end of a mainstream journalism career, once the conservative media infrastructure becomes engaged.

Right-wing bloggers and Fox News claimed the scalp of 44-year-old CNN executive Eason Jordan, who resigned Feb. 11 after coming under attack for an off-the-record comment he made at a conference in Davos, Switzerland, about the high number of journalists killed covering the Iraq War.

Jordan disputed a characterization that journalists killed by U.S. troops were “collateral” victims, which normally would mean that they died when bullets or bombs fired at an enemy target went astray. At least nine of 54 journalists killed in Iraq the past two years were the victims of American fire, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. [NYT, Feb. 12, 2005]

Jordan’s point apparently was that U.S. troops had aimed at some of these journalists, though possibly not knowing they were journalists, and thus the dead journalists shouldn’t be categorized as “collateral” victims. Though Jordan’s point may be correct, the conservative media jumped on any suggestion that a CNN news executive was blaming U.S. troops for intentional misconduct – and CNN’s top brass quickly caved.

The Bush Standard

This conservative influence also has been apparent in mainstream print publications, which held Bill Clinton and Al Gore to strict standards of honesty during the previous administration but look the other way or volunteer excuses when Bush is caught in a lie.

For instance, after Bush’s State of the Union address, a Washington Post editorial recognized the obvious – that Bush was “flat wrong” when he asserted that Social Security “will be flat bust, bankrupt” in 2042. But in line with what might be called the “Bush Standard,” the newspaper felt compelled to make excuses for him.

“A bit of hyperbole in the cause of generating responsible action on Social Security isn’t the worst sin that is apt to be committed in the course of the coming debate,” the Post said about Bush’s declaration, which ignored the fact that even after the Social Security trust fund is exhausted, the system could still pay more than 70 percent of benefits. [Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2005]

By contrast, during Campaign 2000, the Washington Post and other major news outlets accused Gore of a serious character flaw – some even questioning his sanity – when he made alleged misstatements. No apologies were in order, even when it turned out that the news media was exaggerating Gore’s supposed exaggerations. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Al Gore v. the Media.”]

Even then, in 2000, the “Bush Standard” was in place. While pouncing on every questionable comment by Gore, the national press corps gave Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney, pretty much a free pass for false or misleading statements, such as when Cheney falsely claimed about his success as chairman of Halliburton that “the government had absolutely nothing to do with it.” [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Protecting Bush-Cheney.”]

War on Terror

Since the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, key elements of the major news media have increasingly demanded consent around Bush and his policies, a pattern that continues as Bush enters his second term.

After the Iraqi elections and Bush’s State of the Union address, the Washington Post’s editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, penned a column berating Democrats, including John Kerry, calling them “Bad News Donkeys” for not showing enough enthusiasm for Bush and his policies. Hiatt likened the Democrats to the sad-sack character Eeyore in the Winnie-the-Pooh stories. [For details see Consortiumnews.com’s “Washington’s Ricky Proehl Syndrome.”]

Yet, while commentators expect Democrats to praise Bush, the major news media acts as if Republican disdain for Democrats is the natural order of things. There was barely a peep of media objection on Jan. 20 when triumphant Republicans jeered John Kerry when he joined other senators at the Inaugural platform on Capitol Hill.

But it’s not only Democratic politicians who can expect rough treatment these days.

The Bush administration continues purging civil servants who question the president’s policies. For instance, Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer in the Justice Department’s ethics office, found her career derailed after she urged some limits on the harsh questioning of John Walker Lindh, an American who was caught with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Radack said her job evaluation went from positive to negative after she sent e-mails that challenged the hard-line interrogation techniques favored by then Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, now the incoming head the Department of Homeland Security. Even after leaving the government, Radack was pursued by administration officials who caused her to lose a private-sector job when they told her employer that she was under investigation.

“I was retaliated against for doing my job,” Radack said. [Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2005]

Money Matters

But the Republican strategy goes beyond simply making examples out of anyone who crosses this new power structure. The plan calls for irrigating the conservative propaganda vineyards with rivers of cash while draining resources that otherwise might be available to liberals and Democrats.

That’s why Bush’s second-term proposals often have a double purpose, both advancing conservative ideology and diverting financial resources to Republicans and away from Democrats. In conducting this modern political warfare, the conservatives see themselves as an army guaranteeing its own supply lines while destroying its enemy’s logistical base.

So, in the Reagan-Bush era of the 1980s, an early conservative battle cry was “de-fund the Left,” which meant denying government money to programs administered by liberal organizations. Labor unions, which generally support Democrats, also came under sustained attack.

Today, the Bush administration is seeking enactment of “tort reform,” which would limit the size of damage awards and thus punish lawyers, another financial pillar of the Democrats. The Republican assault on traditional Social Security also fits into this strategy by cutting an important financial bond between Democrats and senior citizens.

On the other side, Bush is pressing for policies that will give as much money as possible to his private-sector allies who can be expected to reinvest some of it in the Republican Party and the ever-expanding conservative infrastructure.

For instance, Social Security “privatization” would funnel trillions of dollars into the U.S. stock market and thus put more money in the hands of Wall Street investment firms, which already are big underwriters of the Republican Party.

Under Bush’s “faith-based initiatives,” taxpayer dollars already are flowing into coffers of right-wing religious groups, which, in turn, turn out their followers as Republican foot soldiers. Iraq War contracts worth billions of dollars have gone to friendly military contractors, such as Halliburton.

Democratic ‘Enfeeblement’

Though rarely discussed on the pundit shows, this Republican financial/political strategy is widely recognized by operatives on both sides of the political aisle.

According to a Washington Post article by Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris, both Republican and Democratic strategists agree that one of George W. Bush’s unstated goals is “the long-term enfeeblement of the Democratic Party.”

The Post article adds, “a recurring theme of many items on Bush’s second-term domestic agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists from both parties say.”

The article quotes conservative activist Grover Norquist as saying that if Bush’s proposals win passage, “there will be a continued growth in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republicans, both in terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic] interests.” [Washington Post, Jan. 30, 2005]

Norquist, who often compares notes with Bush’s White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, has long understood this crucial intersection of money and the building of an enduring conservative infrastructure.

In the 1980s, Norquist was a leader of the College Republicans when they were getting subsidies from the secretive fortune of Sun Myung Moon, a South Korean theocrat whose organization has a long track record of illicit money-laundering. Moon was pumping tens of millions of dollars into American conservative organizations and into the right-wing Washington Times.

Some Republicans raised red flags, citing Moon’s history of brainwashing his disciples and his contempt for American democracy and individuality. In 1983, the GOP’s moderate Ripon Society charged that the New Right had entered “an alliance of expediency” with Moon’s church.

Ripon’s chairman, Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, released a study which alleged that the College Republican National Committee “solicited and received” money from Moon’s Unification Church in 1981. The study also accused Reed Irvine’s Accuracy in Media of benefiting from low-cost or volunteer workers supplied by Moon.

Leach said the Unification Church has “infiltrated the New Right and the party it wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well.” Leach’s news conference was disrupted when then-college GOP leader Grover Norquist accused Leach of lying.

For its part, the Washington Times dismissed Leach’s charges as “flummeries” and mocked the Ripon Society as a “discredited and insignificant left-wing offshoot of the Republican Party.” [For details on Moon’s ties to the GOP and the Bush family, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

Over the next two decades, with billions of dollars from the likes of Rev. Moon and media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media infrastructure grew exponentially, becoming possibly the most potent force in U.S. politics.

When the Right’s Mighty Wurlitzer powers up, it can drown out almost any competing message and convince large portions of the U.S. population that fantasies are facts, explaining why so many Americans believe that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaeda in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Norquist and other savvy conservatives also understood that the political corollary of feeding billions of dollars to right-wing organizations was starving liberal groups of money. In the mid-1990s, after the Republicans gained control of Congress, Norquist vowed that “we will hunt [these liberal groups] down one by one and extinguish their funding sources.” [National Journal, April 15, 1995]

Democratic Response

Though this conservative writing was almost literally on the wall, many American liberals and Democratic leaders in Washington failed to recognize or react to this danger. To this day, many remain in denial, hoping that the mythical pendulum will finally swing back in their direction.

Indeed, the varying degrees of alarm among Democrats over this historic Republican consolidation of power have defined the deepening rift between the Democratic base around the country and the Democratic leadership in Washington.

While the Democratic base sees a life-or-death battle over the future of democracy, the Democratic leadership generally favors a business-as-usual approach that requires little more than tweaking the party’s rhetoric and upgrading campaign tactics to better target Democratic voters.

Many in the Democratic base, however, believe a more drastic redirection is needed, including both a more aggressive explanation of Democratic values and a crash program to build a media infrastructure that can compete with the many giant conservative megaphones in TV, print, radio and the Internet.

This desperation explains the passionate grassroots support for the selection of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as the new Democratic national chairman. Dean is seen as willing to challenge Bush and build a more populist political apparatus.

The enthusiastic response from many Democrats to the emergence of liberal talk radio is another sign of how the rank-and-file favors an in-your-face style when confronting Bush and the Republicans. The uncompromising content of Al Franken’s Air America show or Ed Schultz’s program on Democracy Radio reflects a determination of the Democratic base to get back on the political offensive.

But the big political question remains: Have the liberals waited too long to begin competing seriously with the conservatives in the crucial arena of mass media?

Or put differently, are Bush and the conservative movement already in position to lock in their now-overwhelming advantage in media/political infrastructure before the Democrats and liberals get their act together? Has the age of “managed-democracy” – and one-party rule – already arrived?

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It’s also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth.’

 Loading ...

For those who haven't gotten the scoop yet, there's a new blog by Sam Osborne called “Cutting Ribbons.”  (h/t to Baruth.)

Just two days old, the purpose of the blog is to figure out exactly what Governor Douglas has acheived.  

In his introductory post, Osborne writes:

  Where in the heck in Governor Douglas 

This is my first attempt at a blog, but if you are like most Vermonters you wonder what Governor Douglas does all day. We know he has an official schedule more on that later, we know he cuts ribbons and does that once a week press conference with the mainstream press, but what does he do the rest of the day.

Ah, the mystery begins to unfold.  What, exactly, has Governor Douglas done in his three terms?  As with unsolveable riddles, circular arguments, and valiant attempts to locate the end of a rainbow, I expect Osborne will be chasing this elusive goal for some time to come.

In the meantime, I'm adding it to my list of bookmarked blogs.

Nate

From PetroleumWorld.com

Scott Sullivan :
Bush and Pelosi boost Richardson plan

With their massive escalation in the US confrontation with Turkey, President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are boosting Bill Richardson’s plan for bringing home the US troops, now.

No one doubts that the US has escalated a confrontation with Turkey. The US has actually been in conflict with Turkey ever since Bush took office. While occupying Iraq, the US has steadily and ever more insistently promoted Kurdish independence from Iraq. Bush tolerance of the recent Kurdish-Hunt Oil agreement is a prime example of US support for Kurdish independence.

Moreover, the US has refused to check grandiose Kurdish territorial ambitions against Turkey. Kurdish militants including Kurdish president Barzani (a.k.a., Che Guevara) claim to one-third of Turkey’s territory as part of a Greater Kurdistan. In the wake of the US occupation of Iraq, the PKK moved its camps to northern Iraq and launched military operations against Turkey.

US forces are now protecting PKK camps in northern Iraq from Turkish reprisals. In effect, the US has declared war on Turkey, which has yet to respond to a more hostile US policy.

Against this backdrop, Speaker Pelosi is moving through Congress the Armenia Genocide resolution. In a tremendous provocation to Turkey, the House of Representatives is soon expected to pass the Armenia Genocide resolution.

In short, Bush and Pelosi constitute a self-appointed wrecking crew to demolish US-Turkey relations. However, as noted at the outset, Bush and Pelosi are actually helping Richardson’s troop withdrawal plan by attacking Turkey.

First, Turkey could retaliate by withdrawing support from US operations in Iraq. As a result, Bush would be compelled to withdraw US troops from Iraq. Turkey provides up to 70% of the logistics support for US forces in Iraq.

Second, the US public does not want war with Turkey. If Bush continues to confront Turkey, popular US support will grow for the Richardson Plan of immediate and total withdrawal of US forces.

Third, Kurdish president Barzani is a Che Guevara type, i.e. an excessively ambitious ultra-leftist who is determined to destabilize the region. The more powerful Barzani becomes, due to Bush support, the more the US public will want to withdraw US forces from Iraq. Richardson wins, again.

From the Concord Monitor: 

Several weeks ago, while visiting family and friends in upstate New York, I was asked about the New Hampshire primary and if I had chosen a candidate. My answers were that the campaigning was as grassroots as ever and, yes, I had chosen to support Bill Richardson. Immediately, they gave me the response I expected: Why Richardson?  The answer is easy. America's prestige around the world has been damaged from five-plus years of cowboy diplomacy, spin and shoot first and learn the truth later. America needs a leader with the experience, insight and skill to restore our standing in the international community, and Gov. Richardson is the only candidate with the credentials to do that.  Bill Richardson has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times. Here are some of the reasons why:  He negotiated the release of American servicemen held prisoner in Iraq and Sudan.  He negotiated the release of a journalist in Sudan.  He negotiated the ceasefire in Darfur.  He arranged with North Korea for the release of the remains of six American soldiers.  And he twice brought North Korea to the negotiating table for six-party discussions that included their efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  Beyond these accomplishments, he has a friendly, smiling and spontaneous personality that will serve him well at the negotiating table.  Wouldn't it be nice to see our president on the news with a smile, rather than a smirk?  JIM LEON  Concord

(Terrific diary. I came upstairs to post about the Rich article myself, but this is much better than what I had in mind. – promoted by odum)

This is the Great Age of American Irony.  In the span of 24 hours, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and New York Times cultural commentator Frank Rice agree on problems and failures of democracy.  But, as usual, the ownership of culpability lies somewhere else.  

Following an unsuccessful meeting with Putin in Moscow, Condoleeza Rice addresses civic and human rights advocates in Moscow: 

Ms. Rice … indirectly chided Mr. Putin for overseeing a steady erosion of the independent media, the courts and the legislative branch.

“In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development,” she said.

Opining along the same theme, Frank Rich references democratic failure in the wake of 9/11 leading to the Iraq War: 

Both Congress and the press — the powerful institutions that should have provided the checks, balances and due diligence of the administration’s case — failed to do their job. Had they done so, more Americans might have raised more objections. This perfect storm of democratic failure began at the top.

Both Rice and Rich agree that democratic institutions are crumbling and that it's time to go directly to “the people” in order to develop or restore the balance of powers.  In either case, it's difficult to imagine the people will be revolting.  That's not how democracy works.  It works through the process of representation, and that's the institution suffering the most, even here at home.

As for Condoleeza Rice, there really are no surprises in her pot-calling-the-kettle-black moment regarding the expansion of presidential powers in Russia.  But what of Rich's assessment of the American public?  Using the lens of a not-so-great 2006 Hollywood movie, he suggests that ordinary Americans are yawning over the scope and scandals of war contractors as if we have become apathetic “Good Germans”.    According to Mr. Rich, American's have let themselves become duped, numbed, or indifferent in respect to foreign policy.  If such a suggestion were to come from actor George Clooney, it would be reasonable to accept the comparison in context to Hollywood advocacy.  But coming from a New York Times commentator, the Good German theory falls flat under the weight of reality.

With 70% of the populace against the war, it's not like the American people are simply flipping from the front page to the Arts & Leisure section when we should be protesting in the streets.  Yet Rich waxes prosaic in an echo to the 2006 film starring Clooney, telling the American public that we are like the German people of the Nazi era, “lying to ourselves” in regard to our culpability as a whole.  From the perspective of the reader, Rich's inclusive use of the plural “we” comes off the page more like an accusatory “you”.  As in, “You are lying to yourselves.  You are culpable.  You are letting injustice occur.” 

It's not like Americans have rolled over and fallen asleep on the issue of foreign policy.  It affects families, the price of gasoline and building supplies, as well as our ability to travel freely and arrive as welcome guests in foreign lands.  We are paying attention every day.  We are actively engaged.  And it's not like there haven't been war protests, marches, or demonstrations even though such events are frowned upon by the American Elite as gestures unbecoming of decorum.  Such events are not covered by the yawning media.  Nonetheless, the American public uses it's power to the best of its ability.  Democratic Party success in 2006 constituted a mandate from the American public for a change of policy direction.  Anti-war advocates then asked for measures to be taken.  They proposed an impeachment process be initiated; they proposed a down vote on the war funding bill; they called for a strategic filibuster.  The media rolled over and fell asleep.  Our Legislative branch of government on both the state and federal level did not listen.  They responded by telling us to “wait for 2008.”  Yet Rich calls the American public to action on the 14th of October, 2007, as if so many Good Germans in the American public have done nothing at all.

The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day.

One wonders what tipping point occurred for Frank Rich four years into an expensive, unnecessary war.  Did he finally get a chance to see George Clooney as an American war correspondent on DVD?   Was there something in the fresh autumn air that inspired Rich to see a new possibility for American policy makers to actually listen to their constituents?  Absent an obvious tipping point, it seems as if he writes from the dying embers of the fourth estate left to the business of stories and sentiment.  It seems as though he wants the American public to confess a silent partnership and clean up the mess of foreign policy even the New York Times helped funnel to the public in 2003.  Interestingly, a member of the American public challenged the Times way back then, on March 30th, 2003:

To the Editor: I find it hugely ironic that the most trenchant commentary on the president's manipulation of the media is found in Frank Rich's article ''They Both Reached for the Gun'' [March 23]. Instead of the National or Op-Ed pages, it is in Arts & Leisure. This seems consistent with the media's supine coverage of the war in Iraq and the events leading up to it.

GORDON AUBRECHT
Delaware, Ohio

Democracy is at risk when we forget it's basic premise of Representation, Checks and Balances, and public engagement.  Condoleeza Rice may chide Vladimir Putin all she wants, and Frank Rich can goad the American public.  But as long as our administration, our legislative branch, the White House, and even the New York Times refuse to take a good hard look at their own culpability and begin reporting, representing, and responding to the American public's dissatisfaction and lack of support for foreign policy and this war, then modern democracy will indeed be subject to failure here in the land where it was born.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nate Freeman

Northfield, Vermont 

Latest Delegate Count from http://www.usaelecti…

Interesting to see Edwards’ position in the winner-take-all calculation.

Last Updated: 10/10/07

Calculated based on winner-takes-all for all states.
Democrats
Clinton  3289.0
Obama  208.0
Edwards  0.0
Richardson  38.0

Republicans
Giuliani  2414.0
McCain  193.0
Romney  240.0
Huckabee  47.0
F. Thompson  618.0
T. Thompson  0.0

Calculated based on proportional distribution of delegates per state.
Democrats
Clinton  1419.2
Obama  711.6
Edwards  442.2
Richardson  125.3

Republicans
Giuliani  960.7
McCain  480.4
Romney  449.2
Huckabee  134.8
F.Thompson  537.3
T.Thompson  5.5

Calculated based on percentage of total delegates.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton  36.6%
Barack Obama  18.4%
John Edwards  11.4%
Joe Biden  2.2%
Bill Richardson  3.2%
Dennis Kucinich  1.3%
Al Gore  1.9%

Republicans
Rudy Giuliani  24.2%
John McCain  12.1%
Mitt Romney  11.3%
Fred Thompson  13.5%
Mike Huckabee  3.4%
Ron Paul  1.6%
Newt Gingrich  2.0%

While the GMD primary poll has John Edwards as the leading candidate, the “inevitability” of Hillary Clinton keeps gaining momentum in the MSM, primary polls, and fundraising tallies.

The problem is, Clinton's ability to clinch the nomination is more likely than her chances of holding the White House for a two-term presidency.  The baggage HRC will bring into the White House can easily translate into a challenging first term.  We can already expect to see skeletons gleefully dragged out of HRC's closet early in her administration by Swift Boaters and their ilk.  Assuming 1. that HRC doesn't clamp down the White House as intensely as GW Bush; and 2. that our bitterly divided nation suffers through another four years of needless vitriol cast at a President Clinton, it's easy to anticipate conservatives getting behind Newt Gingrich as a comeback kid for the Republican Party.

Crazy theory?  See quotes and links below the fold. 

Calling in to the Mark Johnson show on Thursday, I mentioned the possibility of a Gingrich run in 2012, basing my theory on nothing more than the “swinging pendulum” theory or gut instinct.  What was really making me scratch my head was Newt's September 29th announcement of his non-candidacy only days following Bush's prediction that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.  It wasn't so long ago that Karl Rove seemed to be praying for the opportunity he might seize at a Clinton nomination.  With all of this inevitabilty swelling up in the primary storyline — well, let's face it, the MSM has already intimated the general election outcome, too — there seems to be a loose end hanging with Newt Gingrich.  Is he really passing on a presidential bid in his curious “won't run” press release, or is he writing a  prelude in an attempt to clear the field for a 2012 opportunity?

If his plan is to wait out '08, then it's a classic retreat and regroup maneuver.  All you need to do is look a few years down the road to see it all fall in place.  Hillary muddles through the war, immigration, and universal health insurance, and a frenzied 30% of the population goes into advocacy overdrive with zealous attacks on both her character and her “ultra-liberal” policy decisions.  All the while Newt Gingrich methodically makes the rounds on book tours (“A Contract with the Earth”), speaking engagements, etc., warming up his plate of leftover political capital and greasing over squeaky wheels from the 1990s.  

Pure speculation?  Absolutely.  But I'm not alone:  the theory is gaining traction. 

Here's this at the non-partisan National Journal:

Meanwhile, with his prediction that Hillary Rodham Clinton will win the presidency in 2008 by a hair and his comparisons of the '08 race to 1976, the former House Speaker's decision to sit things out this time around has led some to wonder if Gingrich isn't hoping for the chance to play Ronald Reagan to Clinton's Jimmy Carter in 2012.

Minnesota conservative blogger Edward Morrissey rallies the troops:

Look for Newt in 2012. He will have his national constituency, a bipartisan reputation, and a record of providing practical solutions over vitriol. He will be positioned as this century's Teddy Roosevelt.

 Over at MyDD:

I am not so sure that Gingrich will be running this year or is now trying to set himself up to run in 2012.  Had Thompson not declared I think that he would have but now there may not be enough room for him.  He may be talking up the $30 million as an excuse to not run.  In addition, I read somewhere that he said something about it taking 5 years to get a grassroots effort together to change the kind of vicious partisanship we are currently experiencing (of course he never said that he started it).  That would fit right in to a 2012 candidacy.  In addition, he may believe that after 4 years of a Clinton Presidency Republicans will be willing to back him despite his high negatives.  I hope he does jump in now but wouldn't mind him popping up in 2012.

Finally, Here's Newt himself:

“We had a surprising number of people contacting us,” Gingrich said. “The first response was pretty encouraging. Whether we would have gotten to $30 million, I can't say. Whether we could win, I can't say.” 

But he kept the door open when asked if he would consider a race in 2012.

“Make a note now,” he said. “Call me the day after the 2008 election.”

So the two-part question for me is:

“Is a one-term presidency worth the potential cost of an 'inevitable' Clinton administration?

Or should we dream a little bigger and try to change the MSM storyline about the Democratic primary?”

Respectfully submitted,

Nate Freeman

 Loading ...

In the spirit of the popular NPR quiz show, “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!” here is a timely question for reader consideration:

For 10 points, which Democratic candidate said the following at the Dartmouth primary debate last week?

I think that what you are beginning to see is a fairly wide recognition that whatever you think about how the United States got into Iraq, that an American commitment to Iraq–not at the levels that we are now, but an American commitment to Iraq for some significant period of time is going to be critical not just to stabilizing Iraq, but to stabilizing the Middle East.

The answer is below the fold!

John Edwards?  He wouldn’t commit, but that’s worth at least three points.

Barack Obama?  He offered the same message, so that gives you five points.

Hillary Clinton?  Ohhh, so close!  8 points for that!  But before you hear the answer, let’s talk about what this mystery speaker is really saying!

At the Dartmouth primary debate last Wednesday, the underlying assumption to the answers regarding  ongoing American involvement in Iraq is known as the Pottery Barn Rule.  Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward attributes this “rule” to Colin Powell’s advice to the president in 2002, leading up to the war in Iraq.

‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.

No matter how strongly anyone might feel about America’s responsibility for either “breaking” or “owning” Iraq, it only takes one Blackwater scandal to guess how Sunni’s, Shias, and even members of the Iraqi Police are currently responding to their loss of sovereignty to the American industrial complex.  To them, it probably doesn’t matter whether America will ruled by another war-hungry Neo-Con or a long-winded, moralizing presidential candidate; in either case, the message from the people on the streets in Iraq is that they want their country back and life to return to normalcy.

The real irony of the Pottery Barn Rule is that the store by the same name has no such policy.  Like anywhere else, damaged goods are written off as a loss.  After spending nearly a trillion dollars in Iraq, maybe we should think about stopping our losses, too.  On the other hand, by sticking to the resolute charge of “owning” Iraq because we “broke” it, we can continue to follow our current “Pottery Barn Rule” logic to it’s obvious end, as expressed by comedian Stephen Colbert: 

At Pottery Barn, if you knock over a lamp, you have to glue it back together, even if when you’re done it looks terrible and it doesn’t work. Oh, and you have to stay in the store forever. Oh, and it’s an exploding lamp.

What’s most interesting about the Pottery Barn Rule is that Democratic followers seem to have bought this message, lock, stock, and barrel – war pun intended.  And since they have bought into this message, they better not break it either.  Moderate lefties, bloggers, and even leading presidential candidates now assume the same “rule” of foreign policy offered by Colin Powell and Richard Armitrage is, in fact, their own.  Why this is seems to be the case, no one is certain, however theories among pundits suggest that Democrats just aren’t as good at coming up with their own metaphors, so they stick to the ones they’re given.  That being said, maybe there really is a better way to look at our role in Iraq in a more compelling and accurate way than by comparing a country of 25 million people to a cheap porcelain lighting fixture.

It has been said, even among Republicans, that the Bush Administration’s foreign policy has demonstrated all the subtly and tact of an angry bull in a china shop.  In the case of Iraq, it’s pretty hard to imagine the 2002 conversation between Powell and Bush as if they were innocently  stopping by the nearest Pottery Barn for a particular brand of an attackable, oil-rich nation with a conveniently slapped-on terrorist  label.  If they were, maybe Powell should have just said, “Let’s not go in that store.  It’s too expensive and you might break something.”  Instead, he warned a bull-headed Bush to please be careful and not break anything; because he would then own it.  Given Bush’s strong interest in Iraq’s oil fields, some of us are still wondering, “Was that a warning or an invitation?”

The metaphor of a “Bull In a China Shop” is an apt conceptual platform for accepting our foreign policy responsibilities because we can begin corrective action more appropriately.  After all, it’s not like we broke just one little piece of pottery that is the land and people of ancient Mesopatamia.  The culture is mixed, the artifacts many and rare, and now the mess is absolutely incredible.  Our responsibility isn’t to glue together one lamp, but repair to normalcy the lives and livelihoods of families, business people, and political leaders in a mix of cultures we barely understand. 

Given this, what should we expect to hear from Democratic presidential candidates?  Like the “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me” mystery quote suggests, there is a wide recognition for an “American commitment to Iraq.”  But the question isn’t about commitment; it’s about finding the best way to clean up the mess. 

Since we’ve got a Bull In a China Shop, here’s what we should do:

1.Get the Bull out of the China Shop.  This should be obvious, but apparently it’s not.  As long as our foreign policy continues to wave it’s tail around in Iraq, we’re contributing to the same mess we’re trying to clean up.  By removing privatized security forces, regular military troops, and even diplomats from Iraq and even Baghdad, we can get the Bull out of the China Shop and begin to formulate a workable clean-up strategy with the real stakeholders.  Diplomats and Iraqi political leaders can meet in Paris, Versailles, or New York in order to get the hard work of negotiations done.

2.Put the Bull In the Barn Already.  We don’t need special forces roaming the borders of Iran or Syria while we’re busy cleaning up one store already.  If we send forces anywhere, it probably should be to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

3.Get Bearish, not Bullish, on Oil.  It’s terrible to mix metaphors, but in this case it’s apt:  We all know that our foreign policy is nothing more than a strategic grab for Iraq’s oil fields.  If Wall Street starts putting its investment dollars in alternative energy, electric car development, and other non-oil initiatives, then it can start lowering valuations — and dependence — on oil futures trading.  Then we won’t need to get into this Pottery Barn mess again.

But now it’s time to get back to our special edition of “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!” 

Once again,  For 10 points, which Democratic candidate said the following at the Dartmouth primary debate last week?

“I think that what you are beginning to see is a fairly wide recognition that whatever you think about how the United States got into Iraq, that an American commitment to Iraq–not at the levels that we are now, but an American commitment to Iraq for some significant period of time is going to be critical not just to stabilizing Iraq, but to stabilizing the Middle East.”

Condoleeza Rice.  Sorry, trick question.  But here’s the follow up, for another 10 points:

Which presidential candidate is most likely to get the Bull In the China Shop out of Iraq?

Wait, wait…  Zero troops in Iraq, right?  Don’t tell me! 

Bill Richardson!!!