The 500th US soldier has died in Iraq. For what? A
neo-con wet dream of "Empire," political cover for an
inferior product (but the cover has blown up in their
faces), profit for the Bush cabal's cronies...Nothing
more...Certainly not to make the US safer (it has done
the opposite) or to thwart terrorism (it has only
swollen the ranks of Al-Qaeda et al) or to bring
"democracy" to the Arab world ( they have little use
for it here at home)...Meanwhile, the day after
forcing himself on Coretta King and the good people of
Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the _resident
installs Pickering on the Federsal bench with a recess
appointment. Sen. Edward Kennedy, quoted in the
Chicago Sun-Times, puts this move in context: "The
president's recess appointment of this anti-civil
rights judge the day after laying a wreath on the
grave of Martin Luther King is an insult to Dr. King,
an insult to every African American, and an insult to
all Americans who share Dr. King's great goals. It
serves only to emphasize again this administration's
shameful opposition to civil rights.''
Meanwhile, on the eve of Iowa, where Howard Dean
(D-Jeffords) may well be AMBUSHED, Paul Krugman, the
Moral Conscience of the NYTwits and the Voice of
Greater Greenspania, reveals the complicity and
banality of the propapunditgandists....
Paul Krugman: "In other words, the general gets it: he
understands that America is facing what Kevin
Phillips, in his remarkable new book, "American
Dynasty," calls a "Machiavellian moment." Among other
things, this tells us that General Clark and Howard
Dean, whatever they may say in the heat of the
nomination fight, are on the same side of the great
Democratic divide...The real division in the race for
the Democratic nomination is between those who are
willing to question not just the policies but also the
honesty and the motives of the people running our
country, and those who aren't."
Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/opinion/16KRUG.html?hp
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Who Gets It?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 16, 2004
Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words
about the state of the nation. "I think we're at risk
with our democracy," he said. "I think we're dealing
with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest
administration in living memory. They even put Richard
Nixon to shame."
In other words, the general gets it: he understands
that America is facing what Kevin Phillips, in his
remarkable new book, "American Dynasty," calls a
"Machiavellian moment." Among other things, this tells
us that General Clark and Howard Dean, whatever they
may say in the heat of the nomination fight, are on
the same side of the great Democratic divide.
Most political reporting on the Democratic race, it
seems to me, has gotten it wrong. Some journalists do,
of course, insist on trivializing the whole thing:
what I dread most, in the event of an upset in Iowa,
is the return of reporting about the political
significance of John Kerry's hair.
But even those who refrain from turning political
reporting into gossip have used the wrong categories.
Again and again, one reads that it's about the left
wing of the Democratic party versus the centrists; but
Mr. Dean was a very centrist governor, and his policy
proposals are not obviously more liberal than those of
his rivals.
The real division in the race for the Democratic
nomination is between those who are willing to
question not just the policies but also the honesty
and the motives of the people running our country, and
those who aren't.
What makes Mr. Dean seem radical aren't his policy
positions but his willingness — shared, we now know,
by General Clark — to take a hard line against the
Bush administration. This horrifies some veterans of
the Clinton years, who have nostalgic memories of
elections that were won by emphasizing the positive.
Indeed, George Bush's handlers have already made it
clear that they intend to make his "optimism" — as
opposed to the negativism of his angry opponents — a
campaign theme. (Money-saving suggestion: let's cut
directly to the scene where Mr. Bush dresses up as an
astronaut, and skip the rest of his expensive,
pointless — but optimistic! — Moon-base program.)
But even Bill Clinton couldn't run a successful
Clinton-style campaign this year, for several reasons.
One is that the Democratic candidate, no matter how
business-friendly, will not be able to get lots of
corporate contributions, as Clinton did. In the
Clinton era, a Democrat could still raise a lot of
money from business, partly because there really are
liberal businessmen, partly because donors wanted to
hedge their bets. But these days the Republicans
control all three branches of government and exercise
that control ruthlessly. Even corporate types who have
grave misgivings about the Bush administration — a
much larger group than you might think — are afraid to
give money to Democrats.
Another is that the Bush people really are Nixonian.
The bogus security investigation over Ron Suskind's
"The Price of Loyalty," like the outing of Valerie
Plame, shows the lengths they're willing to go to in
intimidating their critics. (In the case of Paul
O'Neill, alas, the intimidation seems to be working.)
A mild-mannered, upbeat candidate would get eaten
alive.
Finally, any Democrat has to expect not just severely
slanted coverage from the fair and balanced Republican
media, but asymmetric treatment even from the
mainstream media. For example, some have said that the
intense scrutiny of Mr. Dean's Vermont record is what
every governor who runs for president faces. No, it
isn't. I've looked at press coverage of questions
surrounding Mr. Bush's tenure in Austin, like the
investment of state university funds with Republican
donors; he got a free pass during the 2000 campaign.
So what's the answer? A Democratic candidate will have
a chance of winning only if he has an energized base,
willing to contribute money in many small donations,
willing to contribute their own time, willing to stand
up for the candidate in the face of smear tactics and
unfair coverage.
That doesn't mean that the Democratic candidate has to
be a radical — which is a good thing for the party,
since all of the candidates are actually quite
moderate. In fact, what the party needs is a candidate
who inspires the base enough to get out the message
that he isn't a radical — and that Mr. Bush is.