Progressive Music Classics: "Something Bad" by The Fatima Mansions

By Marc McDonald

(Ed. note: Here's another installment of Marc's ongoing series. For the full series, check out his site. -- MJWS)


These days, I think pretty much everyone outside of the Rush/Drudge/Fox crowd now accepts that George W. Bush's eight years in the White House were a true disaster for the American nation, as well as for the world.

Bush's two terms were so awful that it's easy to forget just how bad his father's term in office was, as well. So while the memories are still fresh of how GWB was an arrogant, incompetent little prick and a warmonger, it's important to remember that Bush senior wasn't a whole lot better. Clearly, the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Bush senior's time in office back in the early 1990s was truly a miserable period. After eight agonizing years of Reagan, it was almost too much to bear.

It was a dark and sinister era in many ways. It was a time well summed up by the 1992 song, "Something Bad" by the Irish band, The Fatima Mansions.

Led by Cathal Coughlan, The Fatima Mansions were (ironically) named after a crumbling housing estate in Dublin. Coughlan was gifted with a wonderful voice. He had a knack for lyrics that could lure you in with their beauty -- and then, when you least suspected it, come at you like a sudden switchblade with deeply disturbing imagery.

Read more »

Friends of Thatcher

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) tweeted at 11:04 AM on Mon, Apr 08, 2013: 

George H.W. Bush on Thatcher: U.S. has lost one of its staunchest allies. (link)

Yes, right-wing military dictatorships everywhere are mourning this loss.

Unless you were Argentinian, and the whiff of past imperial glory prevailed, the "Iron Lady" was a great friend.

Thatcher and Pinochet: BFFs.

Jeb '16?

By Mustang Bobby

Is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush looking into running for president in 2016? Does a goose go barefoot?

Via Kyle Munzenrieder at the Miami New Times Riptide blog:

Jeb Bush spent most of the past four years denying that he would run for president... in 2012. He literally never missed an opportunity to tell anyone who would listen in no uncertain terms that he would not be running, but when asked about 2016 he seems to have a change of tone. He told National Review this morning that he was meeting with a bunch of former staffers and consultants just steps from the White House and didn't directly deny he's mulling the idea of a 2016 run.

According to NRO, Bush assembled a bunch trusted former staffer at the J.W. Marriot [sic] Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, just a short walk from the former home of his dad and brother.

Not only do I think it's likely that he'll run, I agree with BooMan: he could be a real contender:

It's obviously not helpful to share a name with two former presidents, neither of whom who are remembered fondly. But the truth is that W. was an anomaly in the family. His father was an extraordinarily shady man with deep ties into the worst elements of our intelligence community. But he was also a competent president who ably managed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of the Soviet Union. He was not a movement conservative or a neo-conservative or a paleoconservative. Of all the Republican presidents since Eisenhower, Poppy is the only one I would trust with our national security. That doesn't mean I would like his foreign policy, but I'd trust that he wouldn't get us all killed. The closest facsimile to Poppy is Jeb. He's literally the only person on the right who could plausibly be a commander in chief in four years.

I would expect the base of the party to be very resistant to nominating Jeb, but they were very reluctant to nominate McCain and Romney, too. You can't beat something with nothing. And if Jeb Bush has no stronger competition than Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum, he's a shoo-in to win the nomination.

Even in the eyes of Democrats here in Florida, Jeb Bush was not a disaster as governor. He was able to work with Democrats in the legislature when they still had some clout in Tallahassee. That could be a problem for the Tea Party; they're on the record as not being wild about former governors that are willing to work across the aisle (see Romney, Mitt). And of course there's also the other rising star from Florida who would love nothing better than to make his move in 2016. As Kyle notes, "Somewhere Marco Rubio is fidgeting nervously."

Is it too early to cue up the Hillary machine?

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Foreshadows

By Mustang Bobby

(Ed. note: As Jon Chait wrote yesterday, Obama's bounce may be over, the race narrowing again for the stretch run, a "slog" already upon us. This because a new WaPo polls shows a virtual tie between Obama and Romney among likely voters. Fair enough, but there have nonetheless been unmistakable signs of discontent (if not panic) on the Republican side since last week's Democratic convention, and I suspect that's largely because while the race is very close, there isn't much room for movement with so few undecideds left and Romney needing to overtake Obama in key swing states like Ohio to have a shot at victory. Regardless, there's no reason for optimism, and so no reason to let up and assume it's in the bag. This one's going to be terrifyingly close, one way or the other. -- MJWS)

A couple of bloggers that I respect deeply are seeing signs of panic and desperation from the Republicans and the Romney campaign.

Booman:

Anyone else getting the first whiffs of panic on the Republican side? Odd thing, though. I'm seeing plenty of resignation, too. I mean, I don't think Ohio Governor John Kasich really gives two craps whether Romney wins or loses, and he really should be a little more concerned. But then I remember that George Will wrote off Romney's chances at the beginning of March. 

Steve Benen:

I'm reluctant to use the word "flailing" because the race remains very close, but for over a year, Mitt Romney has invested time and energy in telling Americans he's a competent, corporate turn-around artist who'll create jobs. Over the weekend, he was reduced to, "I will not take 'God' off our coins."

It seems as if the guy no longer knows what he wants to say to the nation, so if he keeps coming with new lines, maybe one of them will eventually resonate. I'm not a campaign strategist, but it seems to me the time for this kind of message experimentation was mid-September 2011, not mid-September 2012.

This sort of grasping-at-nutsery usually sets in much later in a campaign when all of the insiders start making plans to look for work after the election and toss the apartment guides to the Washington area that they've been scanning. George H.W. Bush railed against Bill Clinton and Al Gore's foreign policy experience -- "My dog Millie knows more about foreign policy than those two bozos!" -- when it was clear that he was not catching up in 1992, but that was in October. Here we have Mitt Romney already in the weeds of whackery, and Paul Ryan is telling us that because he once voted to send troops to war, he has more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama did when he ran. (For some reason, Mr. Romney is reluctant to bring up his dog while on the stump. Go figure.)

I'm not superstitious, but why take the chance. It is still way too early to call the race; how many times have the Tigers been five runs ahead in the third inning only to lose? But when you are seeing this kind of scatter-shot campaigning at this point, you have to wonder who is controlling the message. Certainly the Romney people did not plan this, because if they did, it's not exactly the kind of leadership you want to have running the campaign, much less the country.

P.S.: Steve M and TBogg note that the blame game is already starting.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Shades of 20 years ago?

By Comrade Misfit

The Daily Show is titling its coverage of the Republican National Convention as "RNC 2012: The Road to Jeb Bush 2016."

Which may have a bit of truth to it.

But then again, there were stories of how a lot of senior Democrats figured that they couldn't win against George H.W. Bush, who had a 91% approval rating after the Gulf War. As the stories go, they decided to sit that one out and let some of the younger kids in the party get some experience at running a national campaign.

We know how that worked out for them.

(Not that I want to see the Romneybot win, not with his unspoken motto of "Of the Plutocrats, For the Plutocrats.") 

(Cross-posted at Just an Earth-Bound Misfit, I.)

"Read my lips..."

By Richard K. Barry 

Why did I say that?

You may recall GOP presidential candidates, during the debates, rejecting the idea of a 10-to-1 budget cut to revenue deal should any of them become president. Well, Romney has repeated his commitment to the idea in an interview on Face the Nation today:

I do feel that way. Government is big and getting larger and there are those who think, well the answer is just to take a little more from the American people. 

He added that this would spur economic growth that brings in revenue without raising taxes. Yes, we're back to trickling down.

I suppose in an era in which Grover Norquist can pull strings behind the scene with so much effectiveness, we shouldn't be surprised. But I have to wonder if this could become Romney's "George H.W. Bush moment," his "read my lips" pledge.

Should Romney find himself president, what will the remembered line be when he finds he will have to increase revenues in a way that can't be accomplished simply by tax reform? What will be the equivalent of the "no new taxes" line?

Then again, this stuff would probably roll off Romney's back as so few people actually expect the truth from him. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Jeb Bush takes a shot at today's GOP

By Richard K. Barry

They said they'd let us know
about our application.

If you think Mitt Romney's campaign will put Obama surrogate Cory Booker's critical comments about Obama's attacks on Bain Capital into numerous campaign ads, you're right. If you think they will do the same with Bill Clinton's statements praising Romney's stellar business career, you're right about that too. But, ultimately, the best self-inflicted wound from a campaign may come from recent comments by Jeb Bush that neither his father nor Ronald Reagan could get elected in todays radical right-wing Republican party:

Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don't — as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground," Bush said, adding that he views the hyper-partisan moment as "temporary."

Back to my dad's time and Ronald Reagan's time – they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support. Reagan would be criticized for doing the things that he did.

Jeb also took his shots at Obama for his own partisanship, which is what you would expect. But saying the Republican party as currently constituted is blindly partisan, and having the words come from one of the most respected members of the GOP could be very useful to the Democrats.

It's not particularly new. Even Mike Huckabee once said the same thing about Ronald Reagan having a hard time getting nominated for the presidency in this iteration of the party, but it's still a very intriguing perspective.

You'll recall Indiana GOP Senate nominee Richard Mourdock saying that bi-partisanship means Democrats agreeing to do what Republicans want done. Yeah, well, that's Jeb's point.

The ad almost writes itself: one part Mourdock, two parts Jeb, with the message, "Today's Republican Party doesn't care about governing America. They just want to impose their radical agenda. Even Jeb Bush says Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP."

Compared to this, Booker and Clinton would be small potatoes.

Forget your enemies. It's your friends who will bury you.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Some jokes never get old

By Richard K. Barry

The rush to disown George W. Bush

By Richard K. Barry

Remember me?

One of the more amazing bits of nonsense that comes out of the mouths of Republican presidential candidates is their claim that President Obama is responsible for the poor state of the economy. We've all heard them say it time and again. It's as if they really think we all forgot the kind of shape the country was in when Obama took over from George W. Bush.

You remember George W. Bush? Or maybe you don't. If you've been watching the GOP debates you can be forgiven if the name of the man who ran the country before Obama is becoming a distant memory.

Yes, for those who count such things, George W. Bush's name has been uttered a mere 56 times by all candidates in the 16 major debates that have happened thus far.

President Obama's name has been mentioned a whopping 560 times.
But, what's even more interesting, as The Washington Post reports:

That's not to say that the candidates didn't have a Republican president at the tip of their tongues. Ronald Reagan, dead these last seven years and whose White House tenure ended nearly a quarter-century ago, by contrast, is a favorite topic -- surprise, surprise -- of the GOP debaters.

They invoked his name 221 times.

Even George H.W. Bush got only two mentions in the debates meaning that Republicans have to go back over 24 years to find a GOP president they are willing to talk about publicly.

I recognize that there is no upside for Republicans to hitch their wagon to the pathetic legacy of "W," but do they really think the rest of us will just forget simply because they are all hoping we will choose to pay no attention to the man responsible for the current fiasco?

As H.W. would say, "not gonna happen."

The electorate may have a short attention span, but I'm assuming that Obama and his campaign team will have no difficulty reminding voters how we got where we are, who was driving the bus at the time and how hard it's been to get back on the road to recovery because of previous GOP incompetence.

You can count on it.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Euphemism of the Day: George H.W. Bush says he's not Newt's "biggest advocate"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For what it's worth, which may not be all that much, George H.W. Bush has endorsed Romney.

(While being "careful" with Perry, because "he's our governor," even though it's widely known that the Bushes don't much care for Perry. Just ask Karl Rove. Bush also said that Perry "doesn't seem to be going anywhere; he's not surging forward," which is certainly true.)

Of Gingrich, though, Romney's chief (and really only) rival, Bush said this: "I'm not his biggest advocate."

In other words, I loathe him, I think he's nuts, he'd be a disaster of a candidate, and we'd be crazy to nominate him.

**********

More from Bush on Newt:

"I had a conflict with him at one point," Bush recalled, alluding to the crucial moment in 1990 when a recession drove him to renege on his "no new taxes" pledge. He needed a bipartisan group of party leaders, including then-House Whip Gingrich, to stand with him.

"He was there, right outside the Oval Office. I met with all the Republican leaders, all the Democratic leaders," Bush recalled. "The plan was, we were all going to walk out into the Rose Garden and announce this deal. Newt was right there. Got ready to go out in the Rose Garden, and I said, 'Where's Gingrich?' Went up to Capitol Hill. He was here a minute ago. Went up there and started lobbying against the thing.

"He told me one time later on, he said, 'This is the most difficult thing I ever had to do.' I said, 'I didn't like it much myself, Newt.'"

Is it any wonder the GOP "establishment," or the remnants of the old one at least, oppose Newt with such vehemence? It's not just that he's unelectable, it's that he has a long history of being an egomaniacally disloyal thorn in their side.

(It surely wasn't difficult for Newt to work against Bush on this or on anything else. As has always been the case, Newt is about one thing: Newt. Damn all else.)

Barack Obama is no Michael Dukakis or Jimmy Carter

By Richard K. Barry 

I have been thinking about the "bump" that President Obama received in his popularity numbers after it was reported that Osama bin Laden had been killed. I know some people don't think that we should even talk about the impact of such things on political popularity. They are wrong. Politics is, in great part, about how the public judges the actions of its leaders. We determine our support for them based on the things they do or even choose not to do and we consider every nuance of their behaviour in these decision making processes as we make our judgements. I'm not sure I see how it can be any other way.

I did think, in perhaps what is a somewhat roundabout way, that one of the reasons Obama benefited from the decision to order the mission is that it helped to address the concern that some people have that Obama is a bit too cool, a bit too emotionally detached from events around him. We have heard the "no drama Obama" thing and may have thought it was mostly a good thing that our president was in such control of his emotions. Some, however, might have been thinking that a bit more drama would be okay too, that it would be alright if our president showed that he was emotionally engaged and, let's call it what it is, pretty cold-blooded if the need arose, tough enough to get the job done.

Then I thought of Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debate with George H.W. Bush when Dukakis was asked if he would support the death penalty for someone who, hypothetically speaking, had raped and murdered his wife. His answer, which even he later regretted, helped to ensure that he would not win the presidency (his polling numbers actually dipped significantly after the debate). Rather than say that he would be out of his mind with anger and at least at first wish revenge, he immediately struck a professorial pose. Rather than react in any real way at all he launched immediately into his set speech about opposing capital punishment. No show of emotion. No proof that a human being resided therein. The question was obviously completely unfair. It was a set up, but it may have ended his campaign.

As for Obama, having the courage to send those Navy SEALS into that compound knowing that a failed mission would have been disastrous not just for the country but perhaps also for his own political career took some balls. In a political sense, a failed mission would have paired him with Jimmy Carter forever as a "failed president," not that we are supposed to think of things in such terms.

Anyway, something about the whole constellation of events that ended in the death of bin Laden showed Obama in an emotionally accessible way that had not previously been evident to a lot of people and it has perhaps made some of those people trust him a bit more. People can be funny that way. Ask Michael Dukakis.

For the sake of history, here is the clip of Dukakis dropping the ball:

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

The United States of Goldman Sachs

By Edward Copeland 

In 2007, Charles Ferguson directed the great documentary No End in Sight. Last year, he helmed another that told the story of an entirely different type of destruction, Inside Job, only this time the war wasn't against another country, it was against the world's financial system and instead of only those actually in Iraq and their families paying a price, we all suffered for Wall Street's greed and Washington's malfeasance.

As Ferguson did in No End in Sight, he makes a very complicated subject easier to understand through his masterful presentation of the facts and history of the situation (narrated by Matt Damon here) and interviews with key subjects. It's not an easy task in Inside Job because trying to explain the mechanics of financial derivatives and its role in the economic collapse is nowhere near as easy to do as it was to show all the mistakes and blunders involved in the Iraq war.

Not surprisingly, most of the key figures such as Alan Greenspan, Timothy Geithner, etc., refused to be interviewed for the film, but what's shocking is that Wall Street and financial service figures who do give interviews feel completely at ease showing their arrogance and defending the industry's actions.

Inside Job, briskly edited by Chad Beck and Adam Bolt, shows how decades of deregulation under presidents of both parties led to one crisis after another, each bigger than the last, with seemingly no one in Washington learning any lessons.

The film also provides fascinating tidbits such as the fact that as recently as the early 1970s bond traders' salaries were low enough, that some had to take second jobs to make ends meet. It also tells how employees of various financial firms engaged in cocaine-fueled parties with prostitutes which were billed to the companies as things such as computer supplies.

The handful of firms who would tell their clients a purchase was good while betting on its failure behind their back is staggering, though not as staggering as the refusal of regulators to do any regulating or the number of former top Goldman Sachs executives who end up serving in presidential administrations of both parties. (When Hank Paulson stepped down as Goldman CEO to be Dubya's treasury secretary, he had to sell $450 million in Goldman Sachs stock but thanks to a law signed by the first Bush, he paid exactly zero taxes on it and some say the rich are taxed too much?)

Ferguson's No End in Sight proved to be not only informative, but to provoke outrage at all of the things that were and weren't done prior to the Iraq war. Inside Job does just the same for the history of the financial collapse, especially when you see all of the names who profited from Wall Street's greed that have populated the Obama Administration, not that he invented the problem.

It began with Reagan, got worse with the first Bush, declined further under Clinton and took the big nosedive under the second Bush. Now, Obama's advisers come from the same group and Congress passes reforms without teeth because Wall Street controls what happens. Inside Job tells this infuriating story in great detail and it tells it well.

(Cross-posted at Edward Copeland on Film.)

Angle in the gutter

Guest post by R.K. Barry

Ed. note: R.K. Barry is the real name of T.W. Wilson, recent guest blogger here at The Reaction. He has decided that he no longer wishes to be pseudonymous. I support his decision, though I realize that decisions involving one's identity are deeply personal and that many bloggers, for reasons both personal and professional, prefer not to reveal who they really are. Clearly, many of my editors, co-bloggers, and contributors do not go by their real names, and I understand why, and I support their decisions as well.

**********

George H.W. Bush got to be President of the United States based in part on one of the worst race-baiting ads in American political history -- the infamous Willie Horton spot. Whether or not he has ever had the integrity to be ashamed of himself, we'll likely never know.

Would anyone be surprised to hear that Roger Ailes, current president of Fox News, was one of the masterminds behind the senior Bush's run for the White House?

Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle just released her own disgusting race-baiting ad. Gee, I wonder if she agonized at all over stooping so low?

Do these people have any idea how hateful they appear to others? And more to the point, if they did know, would they care?

The answer to all the questions above is "no," in case you thought this was some kind of test.

Check out Angle's ad.

(Ed. note: And, for more, see Think Progress, which finds that Angle and Louisiana Republican and fellow race-baiter David Vitter use the same photo of "illegal aliens" / "illegals" in their respective attack ads.

"Sick puppies"

By Mustang Bobby

Following up on Michael's post below, former President George H.W. Bush calls for civility in the public discourse... and then goes on a personal attack against Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I assume that Mr. Bush Sr. has either never heard of Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity -- or if he has, he thinks they're the beacons of stability and civility -- or he's soaking in his own irony as the beneficiary of a presidential campaign that gave us Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, and Willie Horton.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Ex-President Bush bemoans incivility, dishonesty among Obama's critics

By Michael J.W. Stickings

When ex-President George H.W. Bush declares, as he did recently, that President Obama "is entitled to civil treatment and intellectual honesty when it comes to critics," I appreciate the sentiment. After all, civility and intellectual honestly are virtually non-existent on the Limbaugh-Beck-Hannity-Coulter-Malkin-O'Reilly right, and, while there are a few notable exceptions, in short supply among conservatives generally. What's more, things do seem to have gotten worse since his presidency, what with the rise of 24/7 cable news and the increase of vitriol in the public sphere. (And, yes, I acknowledge that there is incivility and dishonesty across the political spectrum, not just on the right, where it seems to be most intense, and at its worst.)

But does the ex-president not remember his ugly, Lee Atwater-driven '88 campaign against "Massachusetts liberal" Michael Dukakis? (You know, Willie Horton; the superficial culture war wedge-issues (flag burning, the pledge of allegiance); the nasty (and false) rumours spread not just about Dukakis but about his wife; the hypocritical anti-Ivy League, anti-elitist comments from Bush (himself an Ivy League-educated north-eastern elitist); the various attacks on Massachusetts, on the Northeast, on liberalism, on the ACLU, and so on?) No, perhaps Bush has white-washed his own political past and willfully forgotten his own incivility and dishonesty, both of which were on grotesque display back in 1988.

So while it's a fine and perhaps even noble sentiment, not least because it comes in defence of a Democratic president from a Republican ex-president whose own presidential son did so much to make matters worse, a little historical context reveals it to be rather less admirable, if still sincere, than it might otherwise have been.

"You know, so many people in the hospital here, you know, are sick, anyway ..."

By J. Thomas Duffy

News broke today that former first mother, err, First Lady Barbara Bush underwent heart surgery yesterday.

It was said to repair one part of her aorta, after hardening was found, and she was experiencing shortness of breath.

Hmmmm ...

One could have diagnosed her hard heart back during Hurricane Katrina.

Barbara Bush: Un-compassionate Conservative

And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (she chuckled) – this is working very well for them.

Yeah, I'm sure it was the dream of every resident of New Orleans, to see the city flooded, so they could go live in a giant arena, and get, you know, free stuff, like food, water, blankets, maybe a donated toy, or something.

I wonder if any of the new parts put into her were earmarked, say, from a company owned by the doctors' son?

Barbara Bush's Hurricane Donation Earmarked for Son's Business

Former first lady Barbara Bush gave relief money to a hurricane relief fund on the condition that it be spent to buy educational software from her son Neil's company. The chief of staff of former President George H.W. Bush would not disclose the amount earmarked for purchases from Ignite Learning.

Hey, why waste a good natural disaster, and the opportunity to throw a little business the Dynasty's way, right?

As Joe Pesci said in Casino, "It's the dollars ... It's always the fuckin' dollars ..."




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Quote of the Day

By Creature

Kevin Drum says goodbye:

Still, I sure hope that the public doesn't forgive Bush for a very, very long time. To this day I don't understand how such a manifestly unqualified candidate got either nominated or elected in the first place, and the damage this man-child has done to the country during his eight years in office is hard to even put into words. If Barack Obama is lucky, he might — might — by 2016 be able to get us back to where we were in 2000. The last eight years have taken us backward by almost every metric that matters, and as he heads off to Texas, hopefully never to be heard from again, Bush will go down in history as one of the very few presidents to have left the country in demonstrably worse shape than when he got it. It's an elite group indeed.

The man-child part is key. George Bush is stunted in every way.

George W. Bush, going out on a high

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In unemployment, that is, which, now at 7.2%, has reached a 16-year high, taking us right back to the end of H.W.'s presidency.

Good times, from one Bush to another.

None of them knew what to do

By Carol Gee


Former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, President-elect Barack Obama, and President George W. Bush posed for a group picture in the Oval Office of the White House Wednesday. (White House photo by Eric Draper.) It was a momentous occasion, requested by President-elect Obama and hosted by our current president (OCP). First there was a private meeting at which reportedly, the old heads advised our new president-to-be on how he could avoid being caught in a White House bubble of group-think, and how a President Obama could make it more possible for his people to bring him bad news. At the end there was a dynamite photo-op for everyone, during which these distinguished gentlemen were discussing the current Oval Office rug.

In an escalating Israeli/Palestinian conflict, at the same time half way around the world, there were people working very hard to kill each other . The headlines had been very troubling for several days: The Raw Story: A Norwegian doctor reports that "Israel intentionally targeted civilians"* (1/5/09). McClatchy: "Airstrike kills 3 at Gaza school-UN"* (1/6/08). Informed Comment: "Israel/Gaza Cyberwar and parallels to Abu Ghraib*" (1/6/09). And, recently, Informed Comment: "Something Horrible has been Discovered"* (1/7/09) Cole's post linked to The Telegraph/UK headline: "Gaza medics describe horror of strike which killed 70" (1/8/09).

Any talk of the Middle East? One could wonder whether the Oval Office occupants had anything to say in their meeting about how the United States has been forever unable to help generations of these determined combatants achieve a lasting peace. In turn each of these powerful "leaders of the free world" have been singularly unsuccessful as Middle East peacemakers. Warmakers, yes; temporary agreements, yes; but peacemakers with permanence, no.

Madeleine Albright's book, "Madam Secretary" recounts a great deal about how hard former presidents have tried for peace. About Carter, elected in 1976, she said:

President Carter was one of our most intelligent chief executives and one who showed a fierce dedication to conflict prevention and individual human dignity both during and after his term in office. He was a proactive President who achieved much in foreign policy, including the historic Middle East Peace Accords at Camp David. . . . Politically, however he was unlucky.

About Bush 41, Albright observed, regarding her work in the Clinton administration in 1997:

People were worried about Saddam's weapons and asking what we were going to do. . . No serious consideration was given to actually invading Iraq. The senior President Bush had not invaded when given the chance with hundreds of thousands of troops already in the region during the Gulf War.

In Albright's Chronology of her diplomatic work are included these pertinent entries: 11/4/92 - Bill Clinton elected President. 6/26/93 - U.S. bombs Iraqi intelligence headquarters in retaliation for assassination attempt against former President George Bush. 9/13/93 - Israeli and Palestinian leaders sign Oslo Declaration of Principles. 1/23/97 - MKA sworn in as 64th secretary of state. 10/15/98 - Middle East talks result in Wye River Memorandum. 7/11-25/2000 - Middle East summit. 9/28/2000 - Israeli politician Ariel Sharon visits the Temple Mount/Haram alSharif, violence breaks out. January 2001 - Last efforts to negotiate Middle East settlement failed.

"More than meets the eye." Following shortly after that we saw the Republicans take over. For a time the Middle East appeared to be quiescent. It was not of great concern to George W. Bush, until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. That tragic loss of American life set the U.S. on a path in the Middle East that largely ignored the unsolved conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Walls went up, Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas won an election, Ariel Sharon left the picture and tensions grew. The war in Lebanon happened. In all of these things the U.S. efforts were absent or made relatively little difference. All eyes have been on Afghanistan and mostly, Iraq.

President-elect Obama has promised to turn attention form Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And he is not talking much about Israel and Palestine, reminding that "we have one president at a time." At the end of last year an important article appeared on Steve Clemons' blog, The Washington Note: "Daniel Levy: What Next on Israel/Gaza? Why Should Americans Care?" (12/28/08). This brilliant thinker asked a number of important questions that should have prompted some actions or answers from the Republican administration or former Republican leaders or opinion makers.

But these are the stories that appeared. From at-Largely came this story: "John Bolton continues to have no clue but plenty of propaganda..."* (1/5/09). See also Think Progress: "Gaza Crisis Means We Should Attack Iran Now"# (1/1/09). And this appeared at ThinkProgress: "Perino: Ground Invasion Will Help ‘Create A More Stable And Secure Area’ For People Of Gaza"* (1/5/09). AlterNet asks my question: "Why Do So Few Speak Up for Gaza?"* (1/7/08). And now this happy news -- AlterNet: "Israeli Militants Poised to Resettle Gaza After Assault"* (1/7/09).

I have not listened to the news today. Absolutely everything might have changed. It will not make any difference what the Bush administration does because, as Politico says: "Gaza reshuffles [the] Israeli political deck" (1/8/09) for Barack Obama. And none of his predecessors in the Oval Office can tell him what to do, because they do not know. None of them figured out the magic formula. Perhaps there is none. But one thing upon which you can count is that our new President will give it his best. He sees the world with very different eyes than the people in the picture, and that is a good thing.


Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to the leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Palin as Quayle (or, why Palin is nothing like Obama)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In an article posted at TNR yesterday, Jon Chait draws stark and disturbing parallels between Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle. With Palin's record, her alleged "experience," revealed as the facade of lies and deceptions it really is -- as governor of Alaska, "[s]he appointed unqualified cronies, abused her power to punish personal enemies, and has displayed a Cheney-esque passion for government secrecy -- what remains is, in essense, a right-wing tabula rasa open to further right-wing indoctrination.

Quayle, lest we forget, had significantly more experience than Palin, however, notably on the national stage, both in the House and Senate, at the time he was tapped by Bush I as his 1988 running mate. Still, as Chait points out, what Palin's defenders are saying about her now sounds a lot like what Quayle's defenders were saying about him back then. What's more, Quayle, like Palin now, played the all-American populist card against so-called elites on the other side:

Questions about Quayle's readiness remained, but he did his best to turn them into elite condescension toward small town America. Quayle, in his acceptance speech, spoke movingly about the small towns in Indiana where he had grown up, and later disparaged Dukakis for "sneer[ing] at common sense advice, Midwestern advice."

And, also like Palin now, the Quayle pick was celebrated by the right:

Conservatives received Quayle's selection rapturously. L. Brent Bozell pronounced himself "ecstatic," and Jerry Falwell called the surprise pick "a stroke of genius." After a media frenzy, Quayle's speech was well-received. The convention hall burst into cheers of "We want Dan!" NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said that Quayle executed "flawlessly," and CBS's Bruce Morton called it "a good speech."

Sound familiar? It's like 1988 all over again. To a point.

While Biden is very much like Lloyd Bentsen -- both elder statesmen of the Democratic Party -- Biden is by far the better and more accomplished pick. Furthermore, while McCain, like Bush I before him, has a good deal of experience, particularly in terms of foreign policy and national security, the Republican brand is not what it was in 1988, when two Reagan terms and Reagan's own personal popularity created a fertile climate for Bush I's run for the presidency. He was Reagan's vice president, after all. For his part, McCain, also a decorated veteran, enjoys a long history of delusionally positive coverage by the national media, along with the unearned reputation for being some sort of moderate maverick, but, with two wars going on, and with the economy already melting down, and with McCain-Palin running on an extremist social conservative (domestic policy) and neoconservative (foreign policy) platform, and with two Bush II terms creating not a fertile climate but a huge obstacle for McCain's run, the differences between 1988 and 2008 are stark.

And there is another enormous difference: Obama is no Dukakis. Enough said.

**********

But back to Chait's article:

Palin is like Quayle but unlike Obama. Actually, she is worse than Quayle, who had been in the Senate for almost eight years by the time he was elected vice president in 1988. Obama has been in the Senate, too, of course, for less time, but Chait makes the excellent point that it is engagement, not experience, that matters:

The main complaint against Palin has been her lack of experience. That's fortunate for her, since "experience" -- especially measured in a linear way -- fails to capture exactly what Palin lacks. Yes, two years as governor is less than you'd like, as is four years as senator. The real problem, though, is that Palin has no record of thinking about national or international policy. Bobby Jindal, another Republican veep contender, has barely more experience than Palin, but he is a respected policy intellectual. Pat Buchanan ran for president without ever having served in elective office, but he had engaged more deeply than most presidential candidates in policy questions.

Engagement, not experience, is the difference between Palin's qualifications and Obama's. Obama has a longstanding interest in national and (to a lesser extent) international issues, and has answered questions on all those issues in extensive detail. Palin has dealt almost exclusively with parochial issues in a wildly atypical state. (Her fiscal experience, which consists of divvying up oil lucre, offers better preparation to serve as president of Saudi Arabia than the United States.) It's possible Palin has harbored a long-standing, secret passion for policy wonkery, but the few signs available thus far -- her convention speech that spelled out "new-clear weapons," her evident lack of familiarity with the term "Bush Doctrine" -- suggest otherwise. The Republican intelligentsia is frantically tutoring her while they run out the clock until November 4.

What Obama has shown throughout this long campaign is that he has not just multifaceted experience -- lawyer, community activist, state legislator, senator -- but a long history of engagement with the major issues of the day, with the challenges facing America and the world. He has proven that he has the temperament and judgement to be president, and, on the issues, he is the right candidate at the right time, the man both America and the world need in the White House.

Palin is a lot like Quayle, and 2008 is a lot like 1988, but it is Obama who makes all the difference.