POWERLINE - Democrats Ponder Alternatives: Vote Suppression, Secession and Assassination
We have chronicled the decline of Lawrence O'Donnell, as he shrieked incoherently at John O'Neill and denounced President Bush as unfit to be depicted on his television show, The West Wing. Now, reader Craig Knutson says that O'Donnell--who is not just an artiste but a paid commentator on MSNBC--is pondering secession:
Lawrence O'Donnell (I believe this is the Larry that talked on McLaughlin), said the "blue states" should over the next 20 years seriously consider seceding from the union, because the red states are welfare recipients without supporting the federal government.
I don't think a transcript is available yet.
Meanwhile, Minnesota's own Garrison Keillor, who has become more embittered and less funny with every passing year, no longer tries to hide his membership in the nut-bar left. Several readers wrote us about his Prairie Home Companion monologue on Saturday; Nathan Clark sent a transcript:
"We're over it. We've moved on. We're just fine. The election was days ago. Days ago. Much has happened since then. We've practically forgotten about it here [laughter] in our rush to enter into new activities, new frontiers, new projects. I am now the chairman of a national campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians. [enthusiastic audience applause] Just a little project of mine. My feeling is that born-again people are citizens of heaven, that is where there citizenship is, [laughter] is in heaven, it's not here among us in America. If you feel that war in the Middle East is simply prophecy fulfilled, if you believe that tribulation and suffering are just the natural conditions of life, if you believe that higher education is vanity, unnecessary, there is only one book that one need to read, if you feel that unemployment is -[glitch]- dependent on him and drawn you closer to him. [laughter] If you feel -[glitch]- lousy healthcare is a portal to paradise, [applause] then you don't really share our same interests, do you? No, you do not."
Sick. I don't think Keillor is the first "humorist" to use political extremism to keep his career going long after he stopped being funny. But whatever happened to Father Emil and that Lutheran guy Keillor used to talk about?
And finally, several readers have pointed out this column by Dean Murphy in today's New York Times, and have wondered: are Murphy and the Times suggesting that the assassination of President Bush is a possible solution to the Democrats' problems? Normally I would assume not. But Murphy's piece begins with the assassination of Lincoln, discusses the political impact of the assassisnation of McKinley, and concludes:
Professor Wilentz of Princeton said that even if the 2004 victory was an incremental one, that should not comfort the Democrats. He said Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush now have a chance to do what Hanna and McKinley never did: Lay the foundation for lasting Republican dominance.
"The Republicans are basically unchecked," Professor Wilentz said. "There is no check in the federal government and no check in the world. They have an unfettered playing field."
Until the next act of God, that is.
I don't know, maybe he was talking about a really big hurricane.
Posted by Hindrocket at 11:49 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Iraqis Look Forward to Elections
Since no good news from Iraq is reported in the mainstream American (or European) press, we have to go to the source: Haider Ajina sends us this translation of an article that appeared yesterday in the Iraqi newspaper Annabaa:
The average Iraqi on the street insists on having the elections on time and is excited about participating.
For the first time in Iraq’s modern history, Iraqis are taking interest in their country's election. Iraqis have heard and read about free and fair elections in other countries and now they stand at the doors of their own election.
We visited the streets of Najaf and asked some people about the elections.
Mr. Thual ( age 18) said: "I and my whole family will participate in the elections. It is our country and it is our duty to build it and keep it. If we slack then who will build or protect Iraq? I believe the elections will be successful and turnout will be big."
Mr. Abed Azuhra said: "I will participate in the elections because they are free and fair. Then we asked, "How do you know they are fee and fair?" His answer:
"I have seen the previous elections, they were mandatory, with only existing government officials on the ballot and only one president 'Saddam.' The baathists cut our rations if we did not vote. There has been a fundamental change in Iraqi government, this government is for the people. This government invites and asks us to vote they do not threaten us. I wish the security situation were better. But it will not stop me from voting."
Mr. Jaafar said: "This election will decide Iraq’s destiny. The elections are an important step toward safety, stability and Iraq’s complete sovereignty. Voting is a civic requirement, elections insure the rights of citizens, guards their unity and ends occupation (by its own or outside governments). We will all participate, women and men."
Abed Al-Sabbag said: "The most important thing now are the elections. They are the only avenue to the solution of the problems of appointees. The terrorists and naysayers, first said that the Iraqi interim government under Bremer was illegitimate because the coalition forces picked it out. Then they rejected the interim government selected by U.N. as being illegitimate, (even though the naysayers asked the U.N. to pick the government). So let us see what they will say after the elections. I am sure they will find something. The terrorists and naysayers do not want to give up power. The days of taking power by force are gone."
Posted by Hindrocket at 09:58 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
The 51 Percent Nation
That's the title of Michael Barone's U.S. News column today. No one knows the nuts and bolts of American politics better than Barone, and he's usually a pretty buttoned-down guy. But today he looks at the bigger picture, and unburdens himself of thoughts that closely mirror ours:
[President Bush] has been the target all year of vicious and biased coverage from old media, many if not most of whose personnel saw their job as removing this scourge from the presidency. The 60 Minutes story about Bush's Air National Guard service, which was based on obviously forged documents, is only the most egregious example. Old media have headlined violence in Iraq and reported almost nothing about positive developments there; they highlighted the charges of self-promoter Joseph Wilson and spoke nary a word when they were proved bogus; they have given good economic news far less positive coverage, studies show, than they did when Bill Clinton was in office.
Yet the results of this election closely resemble the 2002 House results. Bush beat Kerry 51 to 48 percent; the popular vote for the House appears to be about 51 to 47 percent Republican. Voters knew the stakes--polls showed majorities thought this was an important and consequential election--and both candidates had plenty of opportunity to make their cases. Thanks to the 527s, more money was apparently spent against Bush than for him. So the results cannot be dismissed as an accident. We are now a 51 percent nation, a Republican majority, as, once again in America, love has proved stronger than hate.
Posted by Hindrocket at 08:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Weekend at Yasser's
It is difficult to capture the absurdity of the events related to the impending death (or official announcent of the death) of Yasser Arafat. Matthew Kalman of the San Francisco Chronicle has the best account of the financial considerations: "Who will get Arafat's millions?" The BBC has gone into mourning: "BBC reporter wept over Arafat." And Arafat's French fans have erected a makeshift shrine outside the French military hospital where the machines are working overtime to keep him breathing: "Shrine to Arafat grows outside French hospital."
While Arafat is wildly popular in France, President Bush is loathed. In "Boy, do they hate Bush here," Richard Chesnoff reports from Paris:
[N]o American President in recent history has been so vilified - especially by the Europeans. Even the 60th anniversary of the American-led D-Day invasion was cause for despicable attacks on Bush. One French magazine had the gall to question whether the American President should even come to Normandy for the anniversary celebrations.
Ironically, says pro-American French Parliamentarian Pierre Lellouche, Europeans "convinced themselves that President Bush was some sort of 'temporary disease,'" something that would last one term.
Posted by The Big Trunk |
