Can Obama Obliterate Limbaugh's Legacy?

It seems almost silly at this stage, 20 month before the next Presidential election, to be getting too excited or too committed to any particular candidate for that office. Already I posted my allegiance to Russ Feingold here the very day after the midterms, only to have him declare his intention NOT to run mere days later. By the time Congressman Dennis Kucinich, my choice in the primaries of 2004 declared his candidacy, I had decided to hold off and wait for a Democrat who not only shared most of my values, but also had a credible chance of being taken seriously.

And so it was in the midst of reading Obama's Audacity of Hope that I (& thousands of others) received this email from the Senator, announcing his intention to form a presidential exploratory committee, writing:

...challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

In reading his book, it is apparent that Barack Obama more often takes a more moderate tack than what I might, but what I share with him is a passion about the pressing need for people, including politicians, to hone their ability to listen to conflicting perspectives and truly weigh what their adversaries are correct about, rather than derisively dismissing that adversary by association with some aspect of their belief or their affiliation with people or causes which the viewer finds either contemptible or ridiculous.

Mockery has always been around, and its use, whether in satire or a stand-up comedy routine, can lend new perspective, shaking sense into those who might otherwise too easily accept authority's explanation for the status quo. Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, though far too subtle in technique for today's standards, caricatured the Irish wealthy class' indifference to the poor in the 18th century. Jesus' General and Scrappleface capably carry the form with wry humor from two very different perspectives into the modern blogosphere.

But the extent to which modern politicking routinely leans on derision as the modus operandi for motivating its allies to action has poisoned political discourse in America. Even if Barack Obama doesn't win his party's nomination, having an eloquent voice directly challenge the "talking points" formulaic approach to winning by dividing might have a contagious effect on the race as a whole, as Americans yearn for a hopeful message, void of the scorn of the cultural wars.

Which brings me to Limbaugh's legacy. Wasn't it Rush that made an artform of holding up the orthodoxies of politically correct liberalism to ridicule? He was good at it too - and there were orthodoxies there that were laughable enough in their own right. Never mind that they did not represent the thinking of the majority of liberals - mockery worked. When a coworker by proximity introduced me to Limbaugh's tirades in the early nineties, I was struck by his then obsessive fixation with Sally Jessy Raphael as the exemplar of liberalism gone amok. Huh? I was a self-identified liberal, but I found Raphael's tawdry obsession with often morally skewed freaks distasteful at least, if not as repugnant as the antics of Springer or later Povich. Limbaugh successfully conflated liberalism with immorality in the minds of his faithful following, and aside from helping to spawn an ugly brand of lock-step conservatism, with orthodoxies at least as absurd as those he was so adept at exposing or fabricating among carefully selected liberals and academics, he also promoted derision as the chief tool for political discussion and argument.

Today, while my car was in the shop, the loaner car I drove was tuned to Limbaugh, whom I've pretty much avoided since getting more than my fill in 1992 & 93. While I occasionally tune into liberal talk radio today, I recognize what it borrows from Limbaugh's legacy. Today though, I took the opportunity to flip back and forth between Rush and Thom Hartmann. I might usually agree with the analysis of Hartmann, and often his conclusions, while rarely agreeing with Limbaugh, but both are skillfully pandering to many listeners' appetites for derision of their foes, and I won't mind a bit if both are marginalized by a central core of Americans hungry for more civility with a focus on possible solutions to our problems, rather than a mentality of winning at any cost.

That does not mean that everyone should be a centrist. No! No! No! America and the world will thrive best when thoughtful people from diverse perspectives are allowed to contribute their ideas and skills to our common destiny. Feingold on the left and Oklahoma's Tom Coburn on the right are more valuable to the Senate in my estimation than the more moderate, and arguably more powerful, Chuck Schumer is or Bill Frist was. The former are genuine representatives of their constituencies, not panderers to talking points and political expediency. Americans are sometimes surprised when seemingly huge political divides are bridged, like Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy coming together to promote legislation, but they shouldn't be. Obama understands this interplay, and has already had remarkable success at playing the political game while retaining a compelling voice for goodwill and the promotion of common values.

I'm also hungry for great oratory, and was too young to appreciate that of JFK. We've really not had a great orator for a President since JFK. Good speeches here and there from almost every President, including the current one, but a great orator - that would be a welcome change. Obama does not reflect my views perfectly, but in large measure where we differ, his electability is enhanced by that difference. I've read enough and seen enough to be convinced that America would benefit from his candidacy if not his presidency, and have accordingly already sent him that message in the form of a few dollars. Now is the time to do so if you agree, as his expected announcement is expected to come on February 10 (auspiciously my own 50th birthday).

So while the pundits legitimately may question Obama's foreign policy experience, let me leave by quoting this prescient passage from a speech that he gave to an anti-war crowd in 2002, before most of his expected Democratic opponents who happen to have been in the Senate voted to authorize Bush's blank check for taking war to Iraq:

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

We sure could have used some of THAT inexperience in the oval office in the Spring of 2003!

Just a Silly Daydream

Family obligations kept me from listening to the State of the Union address last week. So I've made up my own.

Bush supporters complain of Bush detractors that there is nothing he could say that would make them happy. And you know what, they're close to right. The actions of this administration have been so consistent in many ways, that mere words alone could hardly assuage the anguish we feel at this administration's constant assault on so many of the values we hold dear.

I began contemplating what sort of speech Bush could have given that would have earned him my respect. If he made an utter about-face and gave a speech that one might expect from Ted Kennedy, proclaiming a new liberal day in America, I just wouldn't believe him. No, he would have to show me something different, but somehow square it with his abysmal record. Here, perhaps, is the speech which would have finally earned him my respect:

My fellow Americans,

The state of our Union remains strong on many fronts, with high employment, manageable inflation, the strongest defense in the world, and most importantly a diverse citizenry, comprised of millions of exceptional individuals whose abilities, inventiveness, compassion, and industriousness embody the hope for generations to come for American prosperity and idealism. Beneath these strengths, however, I must report that there lie some mighty troubles, which must be faced squarely and addressed aggressively before they eat away at the fabric of all that is great in our republic. I come to you tonight humbly acknowledging that I must share in the blame for these underlying afflictions which threaten the future that we all want for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

When I came before you as a candidate for this office six years ago, declaring myself as a compassionate conservative who sought to be a uniter, not a divider, I meant it. I have personally known liberals, conservatives, and moderates, all of whom share the desire to do what is best for themselves, for their loved ones, and for their fellow citizens. Working together I believed we could find a way to move this country forward.

However, I seriously misjudged the extent to which my particular tactics for stimulating the economy would draw the ire of those who, also earnestly, believe those tactics to be severely misguided and injurious to less advantaged Americans. When my dear friends, who are the captains of industry, explain to me how cutting taxes, especially on inherited wealth and investment, is key to rejuvenating the economy, I believed them and I still do. But when billionairres such as Bill Gates, Sr join the chorus of liberal and Democratic voices who point out that such tax cuts have the immediate result of increasing the gap between the wealthiest Americans and those of less means, I can understand the angry resentment which has divided rather than united America.

These same captains of industry, fine people who love their children and relish clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, assured me that their industries could do a much smarter job of regulating themselves. They explained how so many of the environmental laws were burdensome, damaged the economy, and put us at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. Of course, I believed them, and I still do. Industry is smarter about regulating itself than a bureaucratically laden government ever can be. But I misjudged the grave distrust that many Americans have for allowing industry to police themselves. Very reasonable clear-headed thinkers really believe there is a danger that the lure of profits might coerce industry-appointed regulators to endanger our environment. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

When terrorists struck their fateful blow on September 11 of 2001, we were united in our grief for those who were lost or whose lives were awfully changed forever. We were united in horror that anyone could so delight in such wanton destruction. However, I seriously underestimated the passion with which a large minority of Americans revere certain freedoms and their privacy. Our secret wiretapping program, for instance, was a common sense precaution against the terrorists gaining the upper hand. But after it was revealed, we discovered that it, as with other elements of the PATRIOT Act, was seen as a terrible invasion upon the liberties of ordinary Americans who had no connection with terrorists. My administration lost the trust of millions of Americans doing what we thought was necessary in our defense, and some really reasonable people are telling me that those measures are illegal. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

When a brutal dictator in an oil-rich nation in the Middle East is believed to be accruing weapons of mass destruction, and my good friends who conceived of the Project for the New American Century assured me that his overthrow can only be accomplished by American initiative and is critical to our planet's future, I believed them. I anticipated that the American people would be united in their resolve to crush his dictatorship and attempt to bring Democracy to this fragile but important corner of our planet. After it was discovered that the weapons did not exist, and that the cost of the war in lives of our own men and women, in the lives of innocent civilians in the area, in the trust of the global community, and in dollars were all exponentially larger than we anticipated, the anger which would be felt toward our government for making that decision was beyond what any of us thought possible. Cindy Sheehan personified for many the heartfelt revulsion that many Americans had toward the deployment of our troops for what we believed to be a noble cause, but what for many was a foolish boondoggle. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

When nature ripped savagely into the heart of our Gulf coast, Americans responded heroically to assist their neighbors rendered homeless. I responded with great faith in my good friends who I trusted to get the job done. I discovered that competence must trump loyalty though, when lives are at stake, and our government lost the trust of more of our citizens, as our treasury took another hit at a time when it could ill afford that.

When the combined effects of all these policies, nobly undertaken: Cutting taxes; Funding a protracted war; Passing health care reform; responding to disaster, but too late and without proper planning, combined to convert a huge surplus into a huge deficit, I find that even conservatives who have long supported my policies are questioning the wisdom of pushing forward without directly confronting this deficit. Their solutions of ending programs dear to liberals is in direct conflict with liberal solutions of ending the tax cuts for the wealthy and reducing non-essential military expenditures. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

My good friend, and partner in this enterprise, Dick Cheney, has failed to agree with me that a dramatic change in leadership is required at this time, and so effective immediately, sadly, I am dismissing him from his post as Vice-President. Told of my plans, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld has already tendered his resignation. And effective tomorrow, because my desire to unite rather than divide America is truly sincere, I will resign my office of President of the United States, and as provided by the Constitution, Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, will take the oath of office. Please give to him your support and prayers as we all work together to preserve the dream that is America.

God bless America!

All right, all right, it doesn't really square with Bush's past - his refusal to admit error, what we know that he really DID have to know about, and gosh in places he sure sounds a lot more like Walker Willingham than George Bush - but hey, it's just a silly daydream.

Debunking Linearity - Again

Periodically, I post something here which pretty much makes the same point about the fallacy of trying to evaluate issues and policy based on a linear notion of political ideology from left to right or right to left. I keep coming back to it, because I see that fallacy at the heart of so much misunderstanding and rancor. In spite of common ground in the motives of decent people on both sides of the political gulf, we face paralysis in bridging the gap even in cases where there are solutions which should appeal to both sides. It is easy to see how both sides get trapped in this linear wrong thinking, because in spite of being one to harp about it, I get trapped there myself more often than I'd like to admit. The whole language of left and right is a powerful reinforcer of this faulty notion.

Here's an example of how self-identified liberals, like myself, often err in today's America:

I look at my President and his policies, and what he says and does are just outrageous! It offends me that he is acceptable to so many people! I also know that I am moderate in my views [and here they think of the ways that they are obviously moderate - whatever that might happen to be], so if I'm moderate, this administration and Congress are clearly way out of the mainstream and must be far right wingers, and anyone who supports them or is farther to the right must also have an unworthy, outrageous, and extreme ideology.

And here is a comparable example of how self-identified conservatives get it wrong:

I see the people on the left getting all riled up and angry about my President. But I listen to him speak, and though he sometimes stumbles over his words, he often takes positions that seem very moderate to me. In fact many times I don't think Bush is conservative enough. Those lefties talk about us like we are all awful, greedy, filthy rich pigs. But I know that I'm a decent caring person who volunteers to help out others, so those people who hate me must either be extreme left wingers or else fooled by their leaders.

Now I can hear some of my liberal friends objecting, saying but they really ARE way far to the right, and they can bring up plenty of examples I wouldn't particularly defend as moderate. Folks who think of themselves as conservative would no doubt bring up their particulars to argue the opposite.

But my point stands.

In each of the forgoing passages there is a leap with faulty logic, which is due specifically to the framing of all politics in a linear fashion. I agree with the stipulation that Bush's policies are outrageous, and in my view immoral, and in many instances I find them unacceptably extreme, but what makes them outrageous is not their mythic position along some linear continuum, but the extent to which they cause hurt or worse to real human beings, damage our democracy, lower our credibility, ignore established science, and extend the divide between rich and poor. My argument has always been that it is not how far right Bush is, but how far wrong he is.

The dialogue about national policy needs many voices at the table. The human community thrives on diversity of skills and abilities, and to succeed in building our relational systems, no less do we need a diversity of perspectives.

The conservative errs in equating outrage to extremism as the liberal errs in equating acceptance to extremism. Perhaps we all err in seeing extremism as the enemy. Meanness is the enemy. Sometimes extreme perspectives, even those we adamantly disagree with, can help sharpen our focus and bring clearer relief to the picture. It is when extremism is accompanied by disregard for our fellow humans on this planet that it becomes unacceptable and condemnable. In fact, such disregard can occur without extremism. As imperfect humans we all are guilty of it at some time.

Maybe I'm wrong to so condemn this administration. But I am quite capable of listening to contrary perspectives without condemning all those who espouse them. I've recently discovered RedState.Org, and am quite impressed with their community - one which has a very different take on the current administration than I do. I read in their comments genuine concern about the state of our nation and a desire to be part of making it better. Quite unlike the tenor at Free Republic, which I will not grace with a link, they value discourse over sound bites, civility over rancor, and welcome interaction with liberal perspectives which are offered respectfully. Frankly, based on what I've seen so far, I'd say they do a better job than DailyKos of keeping the level of discourse high, even though I'd still agree more frequently with opinions expressed at Kos.

There are liberals I know, who by most linear measures are less liberal than I am, who would dismiss RedState.Org with smug contempt. They've fallen for the linear trap. There are conservatives, who upon finding out that I am "more liberal than someone else who dismisses them with smug contempt", would dismiss me as not worth even talking to. They've fallen for the linear trap.

I guess I beat this concept into the ground, but I do so because I find that it is so difficult NOT to fall for the linear trap. Much hope resides in those who do not fall for this trap, and there are many who do not, and quite a few of them are United States Senators. Now maybe it's just practical politics, but look at Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. One is reviled by the right the other reviled by the left. And yet on multiple occasions they have cosponsored legislation, once quite recently to reach a compromise on embryonic stem cell research. Maybe it's practical politics, but maybe they have forged a relationship and recognize the humanity in the other in spite of the invective most of their own supporters would have for the other. I don't know, but it is entirely possible, because it is not necessary to be smug and dismissive of someone who has a radically different world view than oneself.

I'm not so naive to be blind to the pressures of partisanship in reinforcing linear divisiveness, but if Hatch and Kennedy can forge agreements, certainly there is hope that citizens can recognize humanity across ideological differences and forge bonds which help to heal our wounds. But it takes some vision beyond the talking points your party gives you.

Thanks to Teddy, Chris, Russ, and others

In what is expected to be the final day of debate on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the office of Attorney General, while Republicans try to paint Democrats' objections to the nominee as politically motivated, Ted Kennedy summed up what seems obvious to this observer:

We shy away from having a true debate about our values. Stating noble words is a cover for committing to ignoble acts. We need to show that our committment to human dignity is a reality not a slogan. We respect international law. If we do not, who will? The prohibitions against torture serve us well. They protect our soldiers when they go to war. They claim it's politics if we vote against him, but in this case, the only reason to vote for him is politics. Do we stand for the rule of law or do we stand for torture. That is why we should reject this nomination.

I cannot help but believe that many a Republican Senator who is speaking on Gonzales' behalf is privately wishing that Bush had chosen someone far less controversial, as they must be cringing inside to justify his qualifications. The lone Republican on the judiciary committee truly expressing trepidation, was not the moderate Specter, but rather Lindsey Graham from the very red state of South Carolina who had this exchange with Gonzales in committee:

"I think we've dramatically undermined the war effort by getting on a slippery slope in terms of playing cute with the law," Graham, a reserve Air Force JAG officer, says. He adds later, "And I think you weaken yourself as a nation when you try to play cute and become more like your enemy instead of like who you want to be."

Gonzales senses that Graham has made a mistake and seizes on it. "We are nothing like our enemy, Senator," he protests. They behead people, like Danny Pearl and Nick Berg. Graham notes that this is a pretty low moral standard for America to aspire to. I agree that we're nothing like the enemy, he says. "But we're not like who we want to be and who we have been." During Graham's second round of questioning, Gonzales tells him that government lawyers did the very best they could when they wrote the memo. "Well that's where you and I disagree," Graham retorts. "I think they did a lousy job."

Political pressure was the order of the day, and Graham did vote to advance his nomination, but his words put the lie to the notion that Democratic objections to Alberto are petty partisan politics. Indeed those objections are felt by Republicans - even conservative Republicans - as well.

Christopher Dodd today (forgive possible inaccuracies in the quotation) said:

The right to be free from torture has been a fundamental value of our nation. This has never been in doubt. It has never been seriously debated. Always considered to be intrinsic, founded on our belief that all persons are endowed with certain inalienable rights. Judge Gonzales has stood in conflict with laws and treaties, and helped shaped those policies to the great detriment of our standing in the world.

while Feingold weighed in with

[In] Judge Gonzales' appearance before the Judiciary Committee, he failed to indicate that he would be bound by the rule of law. He reiterated erroneous interpretations on the effect of the Geneva Convention, and refused time after time to repudiate the conclusion that the president has power to immunize those under his direction.

Many other fine words were spoken today, sadly almost strictly on a partisan split. We should thank our Senators who have the conviction to oppose this nominee.

Move over Ted, Barbara's Arrived

While others equivocate(Biden), orate(Obama), and antiquate(Kennedy), Barbara Boxer has stepped into the ring and made many a liberal proud, as she shows no fear in challenging a suspect election or a prevaricating Secretary of State nominee in her opening statement for Dr. Rice's hearing.

A Time to Say No

[UPDATE 3:
Now that Gonzales is out of the judiciary, it is time to contact every senator about their upcoming votes. If you want to leaflet go to this page and print out the appropriate flyer for your state - preferably on brightly colored paper - and go down to the transit center, mall, or local hangout.]

[UPDATE 2 (UPDATE 1 is at end):
Daily Kos's hotspur believes that phone calls are more effective than emails in getting through to your senators, and provides all the phone numbers in his post.

Armando continues to track this issue closely, and opposition is mounting. We've got to keep the pressure on. If it gets through committee but with significant opposition, then it's on to pressuring EVERY senator to take a stand against this brazen attempt to install someone who disdains international law as America's top law enforcement official.]

Armando, over at DailyKos, was right on target in what he wrote about the Democrats' role and responsibilities vis-a-vis the Gonzales confirmation, and cabinet confirmations in general:

Democratic Senators ... regarding the level of deference a President is accorded in the formation of his Cabinet ... have argued that the standard of review for a Cabinet position nominee is lower than that applied to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

... But higher deference is not the equivalent of a free pass. Some standards remain. Otherwise there would be no role at all for the Senate. ...

Alberto Gonzales can not, by any measure, meet the minimum standard required to approve his confirmation as Attorney General of the United States of America. Many would quibble about his qualifications ...

But one issue unconditionally DISQUALIFIES Gonzales as an acceptable choice for Attorney General - his indefensible role in providing a legal apologia for torture as official policy of the United States.

It may be a credit to our system that partisans don't routinely vote against all cabinet nominees with whom they have policy differences, but that doesn't mean they should give carte blanche to the President to install any ideologue regardless of qualifications. I just hope these Democrats have learned something from the bitter experience of having played nice by granting Bush a free pass for military action in Iraq in the fall of 2002, and then getting labelled as "flip-floppers" when he abused the privilege.

It now looks like we have at least another week to contact our Senators with strong messages. Sure it's a long shot, but if the Democrats would stand united, and the six most moderate Republicans were flooded with millions of objections from around the country, maybe we could get his nomination withdrawn without need for a filibuster. I'm planning to write both of my Senators (again), and send emails to McCain, Hagel, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Lugar, and Chafee.

I have no illusions that these moderate Republican Senators are going to get any progressive legislation through in the coming session, but they are our best defense against the extreme excesses we're likely to encounter. It's not a secret, they might as well hear from us.

A sizable anti-Gonzales demonstration on the Capitol steps would be welcome as well.

[UPDATE: This still isn't out of the judiciary committee - so ...
Do you live in Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, or Wisconsin?

Time is running short to make your voice heard regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. I believe the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking it up again this Wednesday. Please call or write your senator, especially if you have a senator on the committee. Even if your senator on the committee is Republican write them and get your Republican friends and relatives who have sufficient common sense to understand why AG is a bad choice for AG to write them. Let them know the position of Attorney General is far too important to be left in the hands of someone whose credibility has been irreparably damaged by his known legal counsel. That counsel has in some measure contributed to prisoner abuse cases at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere, which have tarnished our nation's reputation as an example for Justice. Even though Gonzales himself may be an upstanding citizen, (and remember your Senators may know Gonzales, and be unmoved by letters and calls which attack him personally) this public record of counsel damages his effectiveness and credibility from the outset. Be respectful but firm. President Bush needs to find another choice for this important position from the large pool of qualified candidates.

Act today or tomorrow!]

Comparative Outrage

This won't be tidy. I just have some open questions, both to myself and to others old enough to compare.

Anyone in a position of power, no matter how benign or well-intended, will make decisions which are bound to result in justifiable outrage from some quarters. In a country as powerful as ours there will be some whoppers. Reagan and this Bush are the two Presidents who have most stoked my indignation, as I was still acquiring my political sensibilities during Vietnam and Watergate.

Finding myself nodding as I saw the "Worst President Ever" posters being held along the inaugural route as the event was piped into my kitchen today, got me to thinking about comparing outrages. I understand why many, even with a long political pedigree might justly so judge Bush 43. But the charge is not without some irony. To be sure, the sheer audacity of fabricating stories, or at the least shading the truth , to justify a military conquest of a sovereign state was unprecedented. But when one compares Saddam's regime or the Taliban to the Sandinistas, or Ho Chi Minh, or certainly Allende's democratically elected government, there's a pretty simple case to be made that at least Bush is ousting among the most illiberal tyrants imaginable. The factor going against Bush aside from audaciousness, is the likely foolishness of the enterprise from a purely nationalistic standpoint. This, rather than moral outrage, is the source of the trepidation coming from pundits on the right such as Buchanan or the center (I'd say leaning right) Friedman.

On the domestic front, the unabashed favoritism of big business over environment or the poor, is very comparable to what we had under Reagan. Indeed I'd say that perhaps the only reason Reagan wasn't much worse than Bush was that he had to work with the Democratic Congress. Bush has actually increased funding to every area of government, albeit much of that money has been piped through the hands of corporate interests to whom he is indebted. At least if one is to believe Jim Hightower, and his research, while likely cherry-picked, seems pretty solid to me.

On the secrecy front, Helen Thomas will tell us that Bush outdoes Nixon. Those whose indignation is stoked on entirely different fronts, will see Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, or Roosevelt as more outrageous. Comparing such outrages may be like comparing apples and oranges, but still comparisons can be made, and I'd love to hear some of yours. (I know Blogger has this annoying trait of wanting you to create a blog to respond with a name, but you can circumvent that by clicking the Anonymous button, and then signing your name if you want to.)

Ugh!

Can you say disproportionate? Thanks to NPR for this story.

Hemnauth Mohabir ... in the spring of 2002, returned to Guyana to visit his mother, who was ill. On his way back to New York that April, an immigration agent at Kennedy International Airport noticed Mohabir had a criminal record: Six years earlier, he'd been convicted of possessing about $5 worth of drugs. The judge fined him $250 for a misdemeanor and let him go.

Because of that past conviction, Mohabir was deported to Guyana and banned from ever coming back to the United States. But before returning to his native country, Mohabir was detained for almost two years at New Jersey's Passaic County Jail, where he alleges that guards taunted and beat detainees and terrorized them with dogs.

So how does Gonzales replacing Ashcroft help us?
Read Mohabir's own story in the Detainee Newsletter.

It's Wisconsin!

As the election nears, both campaigns are narrowing their focus on their most realistic chances of winning the Presidency.

Bush's people realize that Ohio, though it appears tied, is a state that they just can't count on. Kerry's campaign realizes the same thing about Florida.

What that means for Bush is that Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin have become the must win states, that could carry the election for him if there isn't a global shift, and he loses Ohio.

Similarly for Kerry, Ohio and Wisconsin have become the must win states, that could carry the election for him if there isn't a global shift, and he loses Florida.

Wisconsin is on both lists. I've looked at the Congressional races in Wisconsin, and there's not one with a serious challenge to the incumbent party. Nonetheless, I added Bryan Kennedy, longshot Democratic challenger in Milwaukee's northern suburbs, to my ActBlue list of Democratic candidates for whom I'm fundraising. Iowa is important too, because Kerry could still win by taking Ohio and Iowa without Wisconsin, but my bet is that Iowa and Wisconsin will go to the same candidate, and that candidate will be our next President. Slate has a great site for tracking all this.

The Fight for Congress

Most pundits say there is little chance of the Democrats wresting control of the House of Representatives from the GOP this election year. The latest congressional redistricting in most states further solidified the creation of safe districts for incumbents such that very few districts are expected to be in play in any given election year. With the Republicans currently enjoying a 228-206 advantage, few have dared to suggest that the Democrats have more than a long shot chance to become the majority party. The unprecedented mid-decade redistricting in Texas alone is seen as likely to result in a pickup of 4 or 5 seats for the GOP, further widening the gap that the Demos would have to narrow. Here is one Republican's assessment of which races should be competitive in the House. More attention has been given to the Senate where the margin is much narrower, and more Demos are daring to hope for majority status.

The conventional wisdom may well turn out to be true, but here is my contrarian speculation that the House is actually likelier to change hands than the Senate. I will grant that this is partly wishful thinking on my part, as a majority switch in the House stands to create more political thunder than a switch in the Senate where greater moderation on both sides of the aisle tends to dampen the influence of the majority, especially when it's a slim one. Some may argue that the Senate is more important due to its role in confirming appointments, but it's the House where continuous control by Republicans since 1995 has resulted in partisan entrenchment and the establishment of rules creating institutional barriers to change rivaling those which the Democrats had built up after forty years of control of that body prior to the Republican Revolution of 1994. Frankly our nation would be well served by at least one switch in party control per decade to avoid that type of petty partisanship.

My inclination to believe a Democratic surprise may be in the works stems from the tide of unabashedly liberal activism, and the rising concerns of libertarians and fiscal conservatives, both of which have sprung up in reaction to the Bush administration's four-headed approach to governing by warmongering, rights abatement, deficit spending, and cultural divisiveness. This isn't to suggest that I don't believe the polls that show a closely split and increasingly polarized electorate, nor that I believe the Republican base isn't also going to vote in record numbers. But among the many constituencies which are NOT in either party's base, I suggest that those who are inclined to oppose Bush will be voting at a substantially higher rate than those inclined to support him. This is why the polls may be "lying".

While events could yet conspire for things not to turn out that way, this potential differential in who shows up in November could translate into both an unexpected landslide for Kerry, and longer coattails than have been seen in years. The reason I think the coattails might be more noticeable in the House than the Senate is largely regional. Only one-third of all Senate seats are up for a vote, and many of the closer races are for southern seats currently occupied by Democrats. The stronger cultural conservatism in the South is likely to mitigate my suggested turnout differential there, and the loss of just two or three of those Senate seats is likely to be insurmountable. In contrast, as always, every seat in the House is up for re-election, and a motivated large anti-Bush turnout could produce more surprises in House races previously not believed to be in play.

As a partisan myself, I am especially anxious to see the Democratic Leadership put more resources than they might otherwise be inclined to into House races which have historically gone Republican with percentages in the high 50s and even low 60s, especially outside of the South. One strategic arm of the Democratic establishment, the National Committee for an Effective Congress (NCEC) seemed to share my take on the unique opportunity of 2004 back in their September 2003 Board Memo:

As President Bush’s ratings continue to slip, and the Republicans continue to be wrong on the issues that matter most to people, Democratic races for the US House and Senate have become even more competitive. Principally because of 2002 redistricting there are a smaller number of competitive US House races. While it will be a truly difficult challenge to overcome a 22-seat GOP advantage in the House, a weakened Bush and discredited GOP has the potential of putting many more House seats “in play” in 2004. It is possible that by this time next year there will be significantly more competitive House races and the Democrat’s prospects of recapturing control of Congress will be much brighter.

But in their more recent winter newsletter, they backed substantially away from such optimism, only barely mentioning that:

In addition there is a strong chance Democrats will be able to pick up a couple of seats in the House of Representatives.

In contrast, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, more of a fund-raising organization dedicated to winning seats in Congress, at least officially, seems to remain more hopeful. Personally I wish that Tom DeLay could become the sort of political lightning rod for the left, that Ted Kennedy and Hillary have become for the right. "Demote DeLay" could become the generic "vote for your local Democrat for Congress" yard sign. Alas it would be lost on the average voter outside of DeLay's own district, who's not inclined to think of their vote as having anything to do with majority control of Congress.

Control of the House by the Democrats, should my November surprise actually occur, is likely to be short-lived however. If accompanied by a Kerry Presidency, the motivated electorate I'm hypothesizing to show up to turn out Bush will fall back to their usual habits in two years, and the redistricting to favor the party currently in power will not have changed, meaning the GOP would retake most of the seats they lose this time around. Even so, an interruption to a Republican majority, should be celebrated by moderates everywhere, as it should substantially quell the activist right-wing freight train being led by Hastert and DeLay.

As far as my personal druthers are concerned, I actually am hoping for my prediction not only in the House but in the Senate as well, since I see the advantage of some of the moderate Republican leadership in that body tempering possible excesses of what would otherwise be one-party control across the board. This in spite of the fact that I test to the left of Kucinich in this on-line measurement of one's political compass, though I remain very skeptical of that result.