Kristol: faithful to the end

By Mustang Bobby

William Kristol defends George W. Bush's war presidency to the end:

Many of Bush’s defenders have praised him for keeping the country safe since Sept. 11, 2001. He deserves that praise, and I’m perfectly happy to defend most of his surveillance, interrogation and counterterrorism policies against his critics.

But I don’t think keeping us safe has been Bush’s most impressive achievement. That was winning the war in Iraq, and in particular, his refusal to accept defeat when so many counseled him to do so in late 2006. His ordering the surge of troops to Iraq in January 2007 was an act of personal courage and of presidential leadership. The results have benefited both Iraq and the United States. And the outcome in Iraq is a remarkable gift to the incoming president, who now only has to sustain success, rather than trying to deal with the consequences in the region and around the world of a humiliating withdrawal and a devastating defeat.

The cost of the war in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, has been great. Last Wednesday afternoon, in the midst of all the other activities of the final week of an administration, Bush had 40 or so families of fallen soldiers to the White House. The staff had set aside up to two hours. Bush, a man who normally keeps to schedule, spent over four hours meeting in small groups with the family members of those who had fallen in battle.

There's one small point that Mr. Kristol has missed: There was no need whatsoever to fight the war in Iraq in the first place. This nation was deceived and manipulated into this war, and all of the "benefits" that accrue to Iraq are poisoned by that glaring fact. All of the families who mourn the loss of a son or a daughter or a father or mother or anyone must know that as well. They should know that their soldier suffered and died in the service of a lie that was planned out long before planes flew into buildings and they were pawns in political games, enabled and encouraged by the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who have no idea what sacrifice and service truly mean and are absolutely incapable of fathoming the horror they have visited on these families, this nation, and the world.

The worst part of it is that they really don't care. In all of their exit interviews and final press conferences and farewell addresses, nobody -- not Mr. Bush, not Mr. Cheney -- ever said they were sorry or offered anything more than a passive-voiced "mistakes were made" acknowledgment of the detritus they've left in their wake. They will fade into history convinced in their wisdom that they were right, and the hell with what history or reality says. Why should they care? They'll all be dead. Yes, and so are 4,000 plus Americans and untold numbers of Iraqis. Somehow that doesn't fit into their little world.

Mr. Kristol can get all somber and sober in his prayers and hopes for the success of the next president, but his enabling and excusing of the last eight years, not to mention the standards he has now set for what constitutes competent and compassionate leadership, should relegate him and his punditry to the back pages of the Pinecrest Tribune, next to the ads for dog-sitters and the T-ball team scores. If there's one thing I hope that comes with the change in Washington will come higher expectations for commentary and what passes for insight than the prattling and error-riddled nattering of this pompous, smug and arrogant twit.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Ken Blackwell (again)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I really don't think the GOP could do much better than Blackwell, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the RNC. As I put it last week, when he was also our CRotD, there may actually be no worthier leader for the Republicans. He's just about perfect for them, because he is what they are -- to the max.

For one, we know he'll do just about anything to win (see Ohio, circa 2004).

For two, he's proven himself to be an ignorant bigot -- not least when it comes to the right's #1 wedge issue, gay rights (and homosexuality generally).

And for three, it's clear that he puts party before country, and before the American people.

On #3, Steve Benen noted yesterday that Blackwell opposes the economic stimulus package not because he has anything better to offer, unless it's just more of the same old right-wing ideology, but because it would, politically, help the Democrats.

Specifically, according to Blackwell, since the package would create many more "federal bureaucrats" in Virginia, and since federal employees tend to vote Democratic, and since Virginia is a key swing state, Republicans would lose Virginia for good: "Creating 600,000 new jobs might help cement Virginia in the Democrat column, making it harder for Republicans to retake the White House."

Steve is right that, policy-wise, this is "incoherent": "Most of the jobs created through Democratic plans would be in the private sector; they would not be 'federal employees.' For that matter, there's no reason to believe there'd be a concentration of new jobs specifically in Virginia, and Blackwell's 600,000 figure isn't rooted in reality anyway."

What is worse, though, is that:

Blackwell's fears are a helpful example of politics at its worst. It's reminiscent of the memo Bill Kristol wrote for congressional Republicans in 1993, when he insisted that the GOP had to block any efforts to reform healthcare, because if Clinton and Democrats were successful, it would "give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote." What helps Americans is nice, but what helps Republicans is what really matters.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the stimulus package, any stimulus package, is good for the country, good for the American people -- just as it didn't matter to Kristol if universal health care was good for the country and for the people -- what matters is politics, and specifically the electoral welfare of the GOP. He is against any "major electoral advantage" for the Democrats, which he calls "unacceptable," but he is certainly in favour of whatever it takes for the Republicans to win, damn all else.

That so many people are suffering, losing their jobs and their homes, struggling to pay the bills and to put food on the table, unable to provide adequate health care for their children, unable to send their children to college, unable even support themselves through this historically difficult time -- well, so what? Blackwell evidently doesn't give a shit.

For what he is recommending, as the possible future head of the party, is that Republicans put their party first and try to block any Democratic effort to pull the country out of the economic crisis, any effort to help people through this difficult time (or at least any effort that could help the Democrats in states like Virginia, though, again, his view here is simply without merit) -- and all for partisan political purposes. (McCain, Palin, and "Country First"? What a ridiculous joke that was.)

(If I may borrow from ESPN's Bill Simmons...)

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2009 Republican Party!

Charm offensive: Obama at dinner with the conservative punditocracy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've been meaning all day to comment on Obama's dinner with Will, Kristol, Brooks, and Krauthammer -- the four horsemen of the right-wing apocalypse? -- but I just don't have much to say about it. On Obama's part, it was an exceptionally smart move. Why not, as the soon-to-be president, make nice and break bread with four leading conservative political commentators? If nothing else, as Michael Crowley stressed, "Obama will surely choose his words carefully and avoid saying anything that causes him trouble. He's certainly not going to make any new promises to appease the right. And a little personal charm" -- or a charm offensive? -- "is sure to buy him a few pulled punches among the columns and punditry of these men." No, they won't go soft, but maybe at least they'll show him some respect and take him, and his efforts at outreach to the right, seriously. (Remember that the Clintons did themselves no favours by attacking the media, including liberals, early on, setting a negative tone that only hindered the Clinton presidency. Obama may be stuffing his administration with Clintonites, but he has certainly learned from some of Clinton's mistakes.)

And liberals, by the way, aren't all that troubled by the dinner. Take Steve Benen and Kevin Drum, for example. And, again, I feel much the same way.

As Jon Chait argues, though, and I think he's right about this, conservatives wouldn't be nearly as understanding if the situation were reversed:

I actually don't find it terribly surprising that liberals haven't shown any outrage over Barack Obama's dinner party with George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks. I'll get to my hypothesis why liberals aren't upset in a moment. But first imagine this counterfactual: George W. Bush (or maybe a victorious John McCain) sat down before his first inauguration with Paul Krugman, E.J. Dionne, and Frank Foer. Would conservatives have reacted with the same equanimity? No, I think they'd have gone nuts. And the reason is that they wouldn't have confidence in Bush or McCain to be surrounded by liberal ideas without being deeply influenced by them. I don't think they'd have reacted this way if, say, a President Mitt Romney did the same thing.

And that's why liberals aren't having a cow. They know that Obama understands far more about policy than any of his right-wing dinner companions, is used to being exposed to opposing ideas, and won't come out of that dinner telling his staff, "Hey, did you know we cut half the capital gains tax and raise more revenue?"

A separate issue is why Obama didn't pick some conservatives with a bit more intellectual integrity than, say, Kristol and Krauthammer. The problem, of course, is conservatives like that tend not to rise to positions of high influence.

Right, I don't think there's any concern, despite existing (and, in my view, wrong-headed) concerns among some progressives that he's a centrist of sorts, that Obama will surrender to conservative pressure or otherwise reveal himself to be a Republican. If nothing else, we have confidence in Obama's firmness. And we understand, I think, that it makes good political sense, at this time, with the economic stimulus package soon to be up for a vote and with health care, energy, and education reform looming on the horizon, to reach out not just to potentially friendly Republicans in Congress but to key figures, key opinion-shapers, on the right. Which is why he picked these four. Two of them, I agree, may not have much intellectual integrity -- I'd say Will is the only one with much of it, and Brooks has more than Krauthammer and far, far more than Kristol -- but there's no denying their lofty places in the conservative food chain. (But at least more despicable figures like Limbaugh and O'Reilly weren't there. That would have been too much even for generous and understanding liberals to take.)

This is one case where it is best to trust that Obama knows what he's doing. I have no doubt that he does.

Krazy Kristol tops 2008 worst list

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Foreign Policy has published its list of "The 10 Worst Predictions for 2008." Topping the list: Krazy Bill Kristol, with this doozy:

If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she's going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then... Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I'll predict that right now.

He predicted that "right now" on Fox New Sunday on December 17, 2006 -- and, of course, it turned out, like so much of what he predicts, to be entirely wrong.

But was it really a worse prediction that this truly appalling one -- this dangerously misleading one -- from Crazy Jim Cramer?

Peter writes: "Should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there?" No! No! No! Bear Stearns is fine! Do not take your money out... Bear Stearns is not in trouble. I mean, if anything they're more likely to be taken over. Don't move your money from Bear! That's just being silly! Don't be silly!"

Yeah, how'd that work out? Bear collapsed six days later.

Kristol was just doing what so many political pundits do, namely, making ill-informed, partisanized predictions, whereas Cramer was actually giving investment advice.

So what if you accepted Kristol's prediction? Unless you had money on the outcome of the Democratic primaries, which you shouldn't have had, what did you lose by agreeing with him that Hillary was going to win? Back then, before Iowa, many people, including me, thought that she was going to win. She was well ahead in the polls, after all, and Obama had not yet become, well, Obama.

But if you accepted Cramer's prediction? Well, you could have lost a lot of money.

In other words, what Kristol predicted was wrong, but what Cramer predicted was both wrong and deeply irresponsible.

Now, what was clear long before the Bear collapse was that you shouldn't trust Cramer with your money -- or any single investment advisor, for that matter -- and you deserve some of the blame if you accepted Cramer's word on Bear without doing your own due diligence, but that doesn't excuse Cramer from being so downright ignorant just days ahead of one of the biggest corporate meltdowns in American history.

The Reaction in review (Nov. 30, 2008)

A weekend's Reactions that deserve a second look:

Sunday

By J. Thomas Duffy: "Our Ignorant Dolt of the Week ... Little Billy Kristol!" -- Duffy's really on a roll with his fabulous rant against Krystol's call for "pardoning . . . everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror . . . but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points." Indeed!

By Capt. Fogg: "Bond lives" -- With warmth and skill, the good Captain writes a lovely post about one of undoubtedly many small stories of heroism during the terrorist attacks on Mumbai, India's Taj Mahal hotel.

By Creature: "Truth in Comics" -- Creature's choice is dead on to the current administration's last ditch attack on the environment.

By Grace: "Rattling the cage: Instability on Canada's political and economic scenes" -- Grace illuminates the ins and outs of the current governance situation, concluding, "It's a little bit frightening to have instability both in the economy and political arena at the same time – especially now."


Saturday
(two-for-the-price-of-one)

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Sign of the Apocalypse #59: Trampling death at Wal-Mart" and "Gun violence at Toys "R" Us" -- Michael, like all of us," is aghast at these two instances of senseless death and destruction wrought by out-of-control shopping nuts.

The failures of Krazy Kristol; or, why he should be fired from the NYT

By Michael J.W. Stickings

At The New Yorker, George Packer makes a strong case for firing Krazy Bill Kristol from the Op-Ed page of The New York Times:

It's time for the newspaper to move on. For Pinch Sulzberger and Andy Rosenthal to renew Kristol's one-year contract, in 2009, would be for the Times to reward failure -- and look where that got Wall Street and General Motors. It's not just that Kristol isn't another Safire (although an absence of verbal playfulness and wit is a consistent hallmark of the Kristol prose style). It's not just that his views are utterly predictable (if that were firing grounds, close to half the Times columnists would lose their jobs). It's not just that he was fundamentally wrong at least every other week throughout the year (misattributing a quote in his first column, counting Clinton out after Iowa, placing Obama at a Jeremiah Wright sermon that Obama didn't attend, predicting the imminent return of a McCain adviser named Mike Murphy who ended up staying off the campaign, all but predicting a McCain victory, sort of predicting that McCain would oppose the bailout, praising McCain's "suspension" of his campaign as a smart move, preferring fake populism to professional excellence and Joe the Plumber to Horace the Poet, urging Ayers-Wright attack tactics as the way for McCain to win, basically telling McCain to ignore all the advice Kristol had given him throughout the year, but above all, vouching again and again and again, privately and publicly, for Palin as an excellent Vice-Presidential choice). What the hell -- it was an unpredictable year.

The real grounds for firing Kristol are that he didn't take his column seriously. In his year on the Op-Ed page, not one memorable sentence, not one provocative thought, not one valuable piece of information appeared under his name. The prose was so limp ("Who, inquiring minds want to know, is going to spare us a first Obama term?") that you had the sense Kristol wrote his column during the commercial breaks of his gig on Fox News Sunday and gave it about the same amount of thought.

For what it's worth, I could not agree more. Most of my opposition to Kristol is political and philosophical, but, those differences aside, I have found his Times columns -- to the extent that I even bother to read them -- to be consistently poor. Simply put, he has been an embarrassment. If the Times really wants another conservative to pontificate alongside David Brooks, I'm sure there are far worthier choices out there. At least they can pick one who isn't a partisan hack.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war..."

By Carl

Abraham Lincoln meant that about the United States, but if he lived today, he could just as easily be speaking about the Republican Party, the party he helped create:

It could be a tough four or eight years for conservatives.

It will be tougher yet if they underestimate Obama. His selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff suggests that Obama’s not going to be mindlessly leftist, and that he’s going to shape a legislative strategy that is attentive to Congressional realities while not deferring to a Congressional leadership whose interests may not be his own. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both tripped up in their first two years by their Democratic Congresses. Obama intends for Emanuel to ensure that that doesn’t happen.

Curiously, while Kristol makes a good case (a rarity) for keeping some of the conservative planks of the Republican platform, he loses out to this kind of rhetoric:

But many on the losing end of last week's election want to hold on to their anger. And there are those in the media -- led by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity -- only too ready to feed that animus, along with their own ratings.

"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."

Apparently the tanking of the real estate market, record losses in the auto industry, and massive failures in the banking and investment industry have very little to do with our problems. The economic system is collapsing, Rush wants us to know, because it anticipates the tax increases Obama has pledged on capital gains and for the highest income earners.

There's a seething anger on the right wing, paralleling the seething anger on the left (and to be fair, the center) of four years ago when Bush somehow managed to struggle off the canvas of 40% approval ratings... can you imagine how nice those must seem to him now?... to eke out re-election.

This isn't, thank goodness, being reflected in "assassinate Obama" rhetoric, at least in the more polite circles, the ones who at least use forks to eat. There is a nascent movement to file immediate impeachment charges based upon...what, I'm not sure, since impeachment has to be for high crimes and misdemeanors and considering the guy isn't even president yet, it'd be a bit hard to accuse him of official misconduct.

There is a stiffenining of resolve amongst the crackpot wing of the Republican party to clear out anything that smells like a RINO, Bill Kristol included:

We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you'll see us go to war against those candidates.

It is our expressed intention to make these few people political lepers.

You read that right, folks: the radical right has declared a pogrom.

There's an element of "cry-babyness" here. First off, the clear reason for this overreaction is the loss of the 2008 election. Something, power, was taken away from these folks.

Or rather, in keeping with the mindless American trope of so many of these numbbrained knuckleheads, the illusion of power, as if some mommy in Maryland with a computer, bile, and too much time on her hands is somehow responsible for the political transformation of an entire nation.

Sorry... I had to take a moment to stop laughing.

A few "inside scoops," a couple of cocktail party invitations, and the occasional television appearance or mention by some high "White Horse souse" (to use the turn of phrase), and someone like Mickey Mousekin thinks she's got stroke?

Um. No?

It doesn't work like that, and the one area in which I have to tip my hat to Karl Rove is his ability to con these folks, like Malkin and Morrisey and Nordlinger and Hannity and Limbaugh into some form of power broker, when all they performed was what Stalin would have called "useful idiocies".

Tools. Gotta love. Wish I had some.

The con works because the conner takes what the connees want, and neatly pastes it over what he, the conner, has.

Unwittingly, tho, Karl Rove may have destroyed the Republican party. Certainly, by enlisting these crackheads, he's likely disposed of the relevancy of the conservative argument for many many decades. After all, how many time could a Michelle Malkin go and inspect the countertops of a Graeme Frost, while throwing a hissyfit over the media treatment of Joe the Plumber, all while identifying herself as some media figure?

Damn, Karl Rove even had her believing her own press... that's impressive!

The tragedy for Malkin, et al's sake is that they dragged some pretty smart people down with them, people who could have had useful voices in the coming economic crisis. Like it or not, Obama is going to have a hard time selling his entire reform package of healthcare, peace AND a tax cut when people's jobs are being lost. He will need a formidable and loyal opposition, one that deals in facts and truths and not National Enquirer headlines, in order to fix the problems of this nation.

The trouble is, those folks, the ones who could help with the solutions, will be lumped in with these assholes and thus deemed irrelevant.

I for one do not want to see a "permanent Democratic majority." I want them to have to fight and occasionally fail for their ideas and ideals. One party rule, no matter how benign, is a form of fascism long term, if there is no accountability to the people, and no other legitimate option.

I would welcome a Republican party that moved back to this planet, and dealt with the reality-based reality, and not wandered off to the clouds of some pseudo-sociological experiment in strapping down the less fortunate and less privileged and hooking up electrodes to their genitalia.

I would welcome a Republican party that learned to respect its opposition, to invite their opinions, to include their concerns in forming a platform and legislative agenda.

I would not welcome a Republican party that is divisive and divided, torn asunder by four or five minority factions who lost the lessons of the Democratic diaspora of the past thirty years: we are all in this together.

I sincerely hope, as a progressive and a life-long Democrat, that one day I'll be offered a real choice of two candidates for President who both are neither tied to their extremist moneyed factions, but who actually fight for my vote.

I doubt I'll see it, but this defeat bears truth that hopes springs eternal.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Krazy Bill Kristol

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Just for being himself. Oh, and for saying this about Sarah Palin:

She reminds me a lot of FDR.

He may have been joking, sort of, just to annoy "the left-wing blogs," but he's still a Palin-happy nutjob.

More Kristol meth -- let's put on a show!

By Mustang Bobby

William Kristol is still sure that John McCain can pull a do-over:

When you’re in a hole, stop digging. McCain could order his campaign to pull all negative ads, mailers and robocalls.

For that matter, he might as well muzzle the campaign. McCain campaign senior staff members now seem to be spending more time criticizing one another than Obama, and more time defending their own reputations than pursuing a McCain-Palin victory. McCain should simply say that for the last week of the campaign, no staff member is authorized to speak to the media about anything beyond logistical and scheduling matters.

Then McCain and Palin can spend the final week speaking for themselves. They should throw themselves open full time to the media. Could the press coverage get worse? Next Sunday, McCain and Palin could divide up the talk shows. Sarah Palin live! Lots of people would tune in.

There could be one other big moment this week. Obama has bought a half-hour of television in prime time Wednesday. McCain and Palin could buy time Thursday night — giving voters some incentive to keep an open mind at least until McCain and Palin get to make their case.

Palin could speak first, reprising her fine recent speeches on women’s issues and special needs kids — speeches that got almost no press coverage. She could then introduce her running mate, reminding people of his heroism, and pointing out, as she does on the stump, that he is the only candidate “who has truly fought for America.”

As for McCain, he needs to speak about America’s greatness and its future; about how the ingenuity and toughness of the American people will turn around this financial crisis just as the ingenuity of General Petraeus and the toughness of his fighting men and women turned around Iraq; about how America’s spirit was not undone by a terrorist attack, and will not be undone by a financial mess; about how the naysayers will once again be proved wrong; about how America will emerge from its troubles stronger than ever and will win its battles at home and abroad.

McCain has a chance to close this election in a big and positive way. He has a chance to get voters to rise above the distractions and to set aside the petty aspects of the campaign. He has a chance to remind them why they have admired him, and perhaps to persuade them to vote for him on Nov. 4.

Would this turn things around? Unlikely. But why not take a shot?

In other words, forget everything that the McCain-Palin campaign has done for the last eight weeks. Wipe that from your memory. Forget all the talking points about "socialism." Forget the dithering and the panic-stricken (and inducing) campaign "suspension" and parachute-drop into the economic crisis. Forget about Joe the Not-the-Plumber. That never happened; it was all a really, really bad dream. Here is the real John McCain, presented by his charming and well-dressed sidekick, Sarah Palin, and they're going to introduce themselves and their ideas for America in a big prime-time special on the scale of Donny and Marie Go to Washington.

In other words, let's go out there and say, "America, we think you're amazingly stupid and you have the short-term memory of a goldfish. We think we can win all of you independents and undecideds and, yes, even you moderate and conservative Republicans who have been grossed out and scared off by our train-wreck of a campaign by just playing nice for a few minutes here for the last big finish." That's the equivalent of the Marx Brothers trying to make their last movie a heartwarming and insightful look into the soul of America by doing I Remember Mama.

For Mr. McCain, however, it's more like Long Day's Journey into Night.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Kristol's cry for help

By Mustang Bobby

I am not one who believes in interventions for people who are obviously delusional. If they're not a danger to themselves or others, I let them go on their merry way, leaving them to be happy in their own little world of pink skies and talking rainbows or whatever it is that populates their reality. But in the case of William Kristol, I truly believe it is time that he got some help.

Today he devotes his column to the analysis of the "common man" and how, in spite of all sorts of evidence to the contrary, the vast population of America isn't really angry or concerned about the future of the country or their own personal well-being:

Last week, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released its latest national survey, taken from Oct. 9 to 12. Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country and of course concerned about the economy. But, as Pew summarized, “there is little indication that the nation’s financial crisis has triggered public panic or despair.”

In fact, “There is a broad public consensus regarding the causes of the current problems with financial institutions and markets: 79 percent say people taking on too much debt has contributed a lot to the crisis, while 72 percent say the same about banks making risky loans.”

This seems sensible. Indeed, as Sept. 11 did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia, so the market crash has resulted in remarkably little popular hysteria or scapegoating.

I added the emphasis, and it's that line that should set off the alarms: "Sept. 11 did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia..."

WTF??

That right there should tell you that Mr. Kristol has obviously taken leave of his senses. The anti-Islamic rhetoric, demagoguery, and hysteria that took over this country after September 11, 2001 is not only well-documented in case after case of vandalism, threats, physical assaults, terror alerts, and other acts of mindless hysteria, it has never stopped. It is still going on today and is playing a major role in the presidential campaign -- Obama is a Muslim! His middle name is Hussein! For Mr. Kristol to say that there was no "Islamophoba or xenophobia" is pretty much the same as saying that there was no popular hysteria or scapegoating of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

As for the reaction by the public to the collapse of Wall Street, all he has to do is look at the poll numbers for the McCain-Palin ticket and see exactly who the public blames for their dwindling fortunes. People don't riot in the streets when they open their mail and read their 401(k) quarterly statements, but they know who's been in charge of the economy for the last eight years and they know who let the banks get away with it. There isn't hysteria in the streets, but there may well be panic in Phoenix on November 4 when the scapegoating shows up in the election booths.

Mr. Kristol concludes his paean to the common man by praising Joe the Plumber: "He seems like a sensible man to me." If his idea of "sensible" is a guy whose entire "Joe the Plumber" persona is a fiction dreamed up by the McCain campaign and Fox News but who is in reality nothing more than a shill who is not really a plumber, owes back taxes, and thinks that Barack Obama tap dances better than Sammy Davis, Jr., then I think intervention is his only hope.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

McCain campaign slams Krazy Kristol. Seriously.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You know what's hilarious? The McCain campaign slamming Krazy Bill Kristol, long of McCain's most ardent cheerleaders (think back to 2000) for daring to criticize it.

"A pathetic campaign" is what Kristol called it on Sunday, and, in response, McCain campaign spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer said this yesterday:

Well, you know Bill is entitled to his perspective. And I used to work for Bill. And I can tell you personally sometimes he's brilliant and sometimes he's not. And this is one where it's the latter category. You know, I think unfortunately he has bought into the Obama campaign's party line.

I guess brilliance is all in the eyes of the partisan beholder. What Kristol said wasn't anything close to brilliant, of course, but, for once, he was right. It doesn't take a Nobel-Prize-winning economist from Princeton to figure out that the McCain campaign has been embarrassingly pathetic And what makes it even more so is that it clearly has no interest in accepting constructive criticism even from its most supportive friends.

Indeed, it not only dismissed the constructive criticism of a long-time friend and ally, it went straight on the attack, suggesting that Kristol is now some sort of mouthpiece for Obama.

Which pretty much just reinforces Kristol's point, does it not?

Krazy Kristol and the Dominatrix: The neocon extraordinaire swoons before Sarah Palin

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm still feeling unwell today, and my fragile states of mind and body weren't helped when I made the mistake of reading Krazy Kristol's "column" in the Times this morning. I put quotation marks around column because it isn't really a column at all but rather, like so much of his blather, a self-serving, self-aggrandizing tripe. Kristol may or may not be an intelligent man -- I've met him a couple of times and spoken to him briefly on one occasion, and I would say he is, but he has let partisanship and self-advancement get the better of him -- but what he churns out for America's paper of record is embarrassingly bad (which is to say, the Times should be embarrassed to have him on their pages).

Today's "column" -- "The Wright Stuff" -- is about Palin, or rather his own infatuation with Palin, and the "advice" he gives her. What it reveals about him, with respect to her, is that he is both her teacher and her obedient slave. As is the case with other right-wing males, like Sean Hannity and Rich Lowry, the attraction is deeply sexual. He longs for her, or at least places her on a pedestal, acting the lustful sycophant eager to please. As Tom Perrotta wrote in Slate recently, Palin is "the sexy puritan," "a powerful new christian right archetype." She's an ideal, and Kristol, a Jew who supports a party that espouses Christian theocracy, is at her feet.

But of course he also has advice to impart, and his advice fits with where the McCain campaign is right now: Go negative, go nasty, smear Obama, now! Over the weekend, Palin herself accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists," specifically William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn of the Weather Underground. Needless to day, it's a false charge, but it's one she's continuing to make. This isn't enough for Kristol, though, who, in his "hard-hitting" phone conversation with Palin -- yes, this is what passes for the "new" Sarah Palin's engagement with the media -- suggests that she go after Obama over Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (Hence the title of the column. This is what it's all about.) And Palin bites: "To tell you the truth, Bill, I don't know why that association isn't discussed more."

Why? Because it's done, over. Because Hillary exhausted the issue during the primaries. Because Obama gave a brilliant speech back in March distancing himself from and denouncing his former pastor -- and pointing the way forward on race. Because in April McCain himself criticized the North Carolina GOP over an ad linking Obama to Wright.

But times have changed. Obama is well ahead in the polls, the focus is on the economy, McCain's desperate, and Palin's playing the attack dog. What does she know about Wright or Ayers? Nothing. She's being fed smears and eagerly lapping them up and regurgitating them at every possible opportunity.

This is what the McCain campaign wants, to shift the race away from the economy, to turn it into a culture war in microcosm, a character clash, with McCain the war hero and POW (as we are constantly reminded, because he really does exploit his past for personal gain), along with Palin the all-American hockey mom, up against Obama the dangerous, uppity black guy with the imposing black wife and the Muslim middle name who hangs out with terrorists and hates America, along with Biden the consummate Washington insider. And, of course, the likes of Krazy Kristol are all-too-eager to help out.

No matter that Palin has her own problems, not least with the Alaska Independence Party and Thomas Muthee, not to mention with her long record of corruption and cronyism in Wasilla and Juneau. The facts don't count here, just the smears, and, with McCain clearly unable to win the election on the issues (because the people are against him on the issues), there will a concerted effort over the next four weeks to tear down Obama.

Expect much more of the same from Sarah Palin. And from Krazy Kristol.

Sullivan on Kristol on Palin

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This (from Sullivan), a response to this (from Krazy Kristol), is brilliant:

Memo to Kristol: you may think Palin is sophisticated enough to grasp the high-level fantasies and abstractions that you have devised in your own head to defend the indefensible. But she isn't, buddy. She has a degree in sports journalism from the University of Idaho, and went to several colleges in several years. She thinks Leo Strauss is a brand of jeans. She doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. Remember: she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and heard about the surge "on the news."

This is your lipsticked pitbull, buddy. Own it. And all the immense incuriosity, minimal education, and fact-resistant ambition that comes with it.

I especially like the line about Strauss -- you know, being myself an ex-Straussian, or liberal Straussian, or Straussian apostate, or heterodox Straussian, or whatever the hell I am now.

Make sure to read Andrew's post for context. Basically, Palin, like the neocons and warmongers within and without the Bush Administration, is connecting the Iraq War straight back to al Qaeda and 9/11. Even Bush doesn't do that anymore.

This puts Palin right in with the Doug Feith crowd. She is the "stupid or malicious" one, to borrow Kristol's phrase, not her critics, who are simply pointing out the truth (and how far removed she is from it).

Upchucked Republican talking points, media mouths gaping wide, regurgitated smears

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Obama made a sound veep pick over the weekend, the Democratic Convention starts today, and, well, you'd think it would be, if I may get a bit nautical with you, pretty much clear sailing for Obama and the Democrats.

But you'd be mistaken.

Of course, it's hardly a surprise that McCain and the Republicans are all over Obama and the Democrats. There was the initial statement from the McCain camp on the Biden pick -- "There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama's lack of experience than Joe Biden" -- and the ad that followed, featuring footage from one of last year's Democratic primary debates when Biden said that Obama wasn't yet ready to be president. And there have been two pro-Hillary -- yes, pro-Hillary -- ads put out by the McCain camp, trying to stir up conflict and division, not to mention the various rantings and ravings of the crazytariat (neologism!) of the right.

All part of a concerted effort not just to continue to bash/smear Obama and the Democrats but to try to distract the media and influence both their coverage of this weeks Democratic Convention and the larger narrative of the presidential race. As TNR's Eve Fairbanks (who gets a second nod here today) notes: "Nobody knows how much truly dangerous anti-Obama sentiment exists among former Hillary supporters or how many Hillary delegates will vote for John McCain in November... But I guarantee some of us in the press will spend today haplessly running around looking for more of them out here, to fill out our stories about this ad and the angry-Hillary-brigades-hit-Denver storyline."

One of them in the press is Krazy Bill Kristol, who is all-too-eager to play right along: "The anguished cries of Hillary supporters pierced the midday calm here [in Denver] on Saturday, as Barack Obama confirmed that his vice presidential choice was not Clinton, who got about 18 million votes this year running against him, but rather Joe Biden," begins his latest upchuck in the Times. Right -- because he only has the best interests of Hillary and her party in mind.

Much is the same in the somewhat less partisan, but still partisan, parts of the press. Consider this headline from Le Politico: "Tensions boil between Obama-Clinton camps." And this one from Marc Ambinder: "A Flare-Up Between Hillaryland and Denver." And this one from the Journal: "Tensions Linger as Some Clinton Supporters Are Left Frustrated." True, Bill may not be "happy with [his] convention role," as CNN is reporting, but is it really that bad? Are tensions really boiling? Is the party, coming into the convention with a solid ticket, really about to come apart at the seams at any moment? That's what the McCain camp and its Kristolian followers wants us to believe, and the press, including its allegedly neutral members, captivated by the right but also eager to drum up sensationalized drama at every turn, seems to be regurgitating their upchucked talking points verbatim.

But what else is new?

Krazy Kristol and the Powell distraction

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On Fox News yesterday -- where else? -- Krazy Bill Kristol announced that Bush I loyalist and former Bush II secretary of state Colin Powell is going to endorse Obama at no less a venue than the Democratic convention in Denver later this month.

In response -- or, rather, in refutation -- Powell himself announced that he was not even going to the convention and that Krazy Kristol's announcement was simply wrong: "I do not have time to waste on Bill Kristol's musings. I am not going to the convention. I have made this clear."

In general, I think we should all avoid wasting time on Krazy Kristol's musings. He's a cynical partisan hack -- a propaganda-spewing bullshitter -- a walking, talking, living, breathing ulterior motive. Unfortunately, though, he's rather influential, a prominent neocon voice that speaks from prominent media platforms, including the NY Times, and cannot so easily be ignored.

So what's he up to here, given that it's wise not to take anything he says at face value?

Of course, Powell could be the one misleading us here. It's possible. It's not like he's ever been the most straight up guy in Washington. Maybe he intends on making a surprise appearance at the convention, an appearance that would genuinely wow the media. Maybe he intends on endorsing Obama after all, a very damaging endorsement for McCain. Hey, maybe he'll be Obama's running mate. It's possible.

But not likely. Powell is an egotistical opportunist, but he's also exceedingly cautious (except, presumably, when he's at the U.N. making fabricated cases for war) and exceedingly loyal (it's not like he's been harshly critical of Bush II and the conduct of the Iraq War and Occupation). And it just wouldn't be like him to break ranks, both with his party and with his former superiors, and endorse Obama at such a prominent event. Afterwards, maybe, once the campaign is underway in earnest, but not at the convention.

On this, I tend to think that Andrew Sullivan may be right:

It's too ballsy a move for Powell. I'm also inherently suspicious of Kristol's motives. If Powell were considering such an endorsement, Kristol would do all he can to derail it. Prematurely leaking it, creating a fire-storm and forcing Powell to deny is one way to pre-empt such a move. It's vital for the neocons to prevent Obama gaining traction with serious foreign policy machers.

I also agree with Andrew that a Powell endorsement of Obama would make sense: "Powell understands how deep a hole the US is in internationally, and how only Obama truly has a chance to get the country back on its feet. It's the impulse of a patriot. And maybe the smears have made him mad."

Maybe, but Powell has already had ample opportunity to express whatever anger and frustration he is feeling. And we haven't heard much from him. I doubt that "the smears" have finally pushed him over the edge. Also, I just don't think he's such a determined patriot. His primary impulse is military-style loyalty, not patriotism. Why else would he have done the Bushies' bidding for so long? He may have reasoned that he was doing right by his country all along, but he must have known, at least at some level, that what was right for the Bushies was hardly right for the country. Either that or he was delusional all along.

Regardless, I would welcome a Powell endorsement of Obama -- mainly because he was with the Bushies for so long and because he remains, undeservedly, an immensely credible figure in American politics -- I just don't see it happening. Or, at least, certainly not at the convention.

Which leaves us with Krazy Kristol and his ulterior motives. He has set his propagandistic sights on Powell, and there is fear behind his kraziness.

Krazy Kristol and Batty Bolton talk up Iran attack

By Michael J.W. Stickings

These two headlines from Think Progress sum it all up:

-- Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He 'Thinks Senator Obama's Going To Win'

-- Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be 'Delighted'

So they both said on Fox News yesterday morning. (Of course.)

They and the warmongering neocons of their ilk have said much the same thing before, of course: There will be military action undertaken against Iran. What is new is the immediacy, in terms of the specific timing of an attack on Iran, of their warmongering rhetoric.

I don't know if either one is right, that is, that either the U.S. or Israel will bomb Iran -- the U.S. if Obama wins (and, presumably, if McCain wins, too), Israel after the election (supposedly with the approval of the monolith known as "the Arab states") -- but what is clear is that they are both pushing for war and talking about it as if it were a foregone conclusion.

What is also clear, according to Krazy Kristol's own admission, is that a McCain presidency would be Bush III (and worse). Here's Steve Benen's response: "As Bill Kristol sees it, if John McCain wins in November (or the White House believes McCain will win in November), Still-President Bush is content leaving a confrontation with Iran to the future. If Barack Obama wins, or appears poised to win, Bush may go ahead and force the issue... All of this is, of course, a friendly reminder that when it comes to sticking to the status quo, and offering more of the same on international relations, Bush is counting on John McCain delivering four more years just like the last eight."

And here's Andrew Sullivan's response to the possibility of a pre-election attack: "[C]ould it happen? Could Bush bomb Iran before the next election and create a sense of international crisis that could cause voters to swing back to McCain? From everything we know and Bush and Cheney, the answer, surely, is yes. His failed policies have left only one option to prevent Iran's going nuclear: war. And Bush must be chafing to see how his legacy could be dramatically changed if Obama wins. We could be facing the mother of all October surprises."

True enough.

**********

As if to prove just how krazy he is, Kristol also "raise[d] the prospect of Saudi Arabia and Egypt going nuclear in response to an Obama presidency," to quote Andrew again.

Remember, the Republicans campaign on fear (and the neocons live on it).

Nothing should surprise us.

"She's running a right-wing campaign"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Everything published in and by The Weekly Standard about the Democratic presidential race seems to contain an ulterior motive or two -- and that goes for Krazy Kristol and his NYT columns, too -- but sometimes, those times being rare, it manages to hit on the truth whether it intended to or not.

Case in point: Noemie Emery's "An Exceedingly Strange New Respect -- Hillary Clinton makes friends in some surprising precincts," published in the May 12 issue and available online (h/t: Chris Orr).

I have not been alone in pointing out that over the course of the race -- but especially since she decided to throw "the kitchen sink" at Obama, which is to say, since the seeming inevitability of her nomination was destroyed) -- Hillary has morphed into a Republican. As I put it last month, she has been "presenting herself as the red-blooded Heartland American running against a supposedly out-of-touch coastal elitist. She's been talking up guns and god, swilling beer and knocking back shots, and pandering to the very people she advised her husband to screw." An endorsement from the propagandistic rag of one of the key figures of the vast right-wing conspiracy, Dick Scaife, only proves the point.

And this is what Emery, writing in a propagandistic rag of the neocon variety, gets right:

She's running a right-wing campaign. She's running the classic Republican race against her opponent, running on toughness and use-of-force issues, the campaign that the elder George Bush ran against Michael Dukakis, that the younger George Bush waged in 2000 and then again against John Kerry, and that Ronald Reagan -- "The Bear in the Forest" -- ran against Jimmy Carter and Walter F. Mondale. And she's doing it with much the same symbols.

*****

Her ads are like the ones McCain would be running in her place, and they'll doubtless show up in McCain's ads should Obama defeat her. She has said that while she and McCain are both prepared to be president, Obama is not. They act, he makes speeches. They take heat, while he tends to wilt or to faint in the kitchen. He may even throw like a girl.

And better -- or worse -- she is becoming a social conservative, a feminist form of George Bush. Against an opponent who shops for arugula, hangs out with ex-Weathermen, and says rural residents cling to guns and to God in unenlightened despair at their circumstances, she has rushed to the defense of religion and firearms, while knocking back shots of Crown Royal and beer. Her harsh, football-playing Republican father (the villain of the piece, against whom she rebelled in earlier takes on her story) has become a role model, a working class hero, whose name she evokes with great reverence. Any day now, she'll start talking Texan, and cutting the brush out in Chappaqua or at her posh mansion on Embassy Row.

For all the talk of Obama attracting independents and Republicans, it is actually Hillary who is attracting the latter. Conservatives seem drawn to her and, against Obama, she is winning the more conservative parts of the country overwhelmingly. Forget her victories in liberal bastions like New York, Massachusetts, and California, all of which Obama would win in November. She is doing well in large part because she is running so well in Red America -- in rural and small-town Pennsylvania, for example.

Her appeal is wider, I admit. White women, Hispanics, and the elderly are solidly on her side, as is much of the Democratic establishment. But it is striking how dramatically she has shifted to the right over the course of the race -- not so much in terms of policy, where she and Obama remain close, but in terms of the image of herself she is presenting to voters. And it is striking how dramatically many of those voters have bought it.

Krazy Kristol, dishonest bullshitter

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Bill "Krazy" Kristol had this to say in his column in the Times today:

I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton. Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.

The fact is Hillary Clinton has turned out to be an impressive candidate.

*****

She is, of course, still behind in the race, and Obama will most likely be the nominee. His team has run the better campaign. In particular, it realized how important the caucus states could be: Obama’s delegate lead depends on his caucus victories.

But Hillary may well be the better candidate...

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

I'm sure he cares deeply about Hillary. (Because, of course, he had nothing to do with destroying Hillarycare way back when.) I'm sure he lavishes such praise on her sincerely and without any ulterior motives whatsoever. I'm sure his view that she's "the better candidate" reflects thoughtful political analysis rather than extreme partisanship. I'm sure he really wants McCain, upon whom he has long had a serious crush (the krazy neocon hegemonist supporting the crazy warmonger and neo-Cold Warrior), to go up against "the better candidate" in November. And I'm sure his regurgitation of Hillaryland spin (Hillary could be ahead in the popular vote, if you don't count Michigan and Florida and you twist the caucus results) is just a coincidence.

(Quite the convenient, partisan flip-flopper he is: Back in 2000, he argued against popular-vote-based democracy -- you know, when Gore won the popular vote.)

But at least he gets to attack "the liberal media" -- you know, like his employers at the Times, the publisher of which is ardently pro-Hillary. Does Krazy Kristol even know that? Maybe, but what "liberal media" exactly is he attacking? The "liberal media" that turned on Obama a long time ago, well before Ohio and Texas, the "liberal media" that keep hammering Obama on Wright and Bittergate, the "liberal media" that also regurgitate the Hillaryland spin about how so much more important the big states are, about how she's got the momentum now?

It doesn't really matter. There is no "liberal media" of the kind Krazy Kristol and his krazy right-wing pals claim there is. It's all just propaganda. And, for now, the anti-"liberal media" propaganda has been fused with some pro-Hillary propaganda. Hillary cozied up to one of the leaders of the vast right-wing conspiracy, Dick Scaife, ending up with his endorsement, but Kristol is a "friend" she can do without. He's not looking to help her, just trying to keep the Democrats divided and -- behind the typically dishonest bullshit -- to gloat over the plight, the ongoing campaign, of his (and McCain's) opponents.

The one who's really in touch

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I spent time with family over the weekend and generally took a few days off from paying close attention to the presidential race. And so I haven't yet commented on Obama's now-infamous "bitter" remark, the moment's story of stories. Actually, I don't have much to say about it other than that it was mostly true. The problem is, Americans can't handle the truth. Or, rather, those in the media and political classes who claim to speak for "the American people" can't handle the truth, which is that the "heartland" is not what it is made out to be: America at its purest and most genuine. It and those who live there have been romanticized to the point where any critique of it and them, even any perceived critique of it and them, however decontextualized, is taken to be an attack on America more broadly. It and they do not deserve such status, but they have been accorded it nonetheless. Which is why Obama has been so broadly criticized himself. It hardly matters that what he said was taken out of context, let alone that it was mostly true, that is, that many in the "heartland," such as western Pennsylvania, really are bitter and really do vote against their economic interests and for god and guns instead and really do harbour deep-felt resentment against whatever Other their demagogues parade in front of them. What matters is that he said something that could be exploited by his political opponents and turned into the story of stories by a bloodthirsty media establishment.

**********

All that is a longer-than-intended preface to this:

Obama's "bitter" remark -- taken out of context and played up by the media to ridiculous and sensationalistic effect -- have been met with the predictable responses from the likes of Bill and Hillary, Krazy Kristol, Joey Loserman, and every talking head in the chattering class, not to mention from Johnny McCain and the GOP.

But here's Obama himself discussing his remark, and the whole post-remark flap, in Terre Haute, Indiana, last Friday:

The McCain Presidency -- Day One

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

-- Sen. John McCain (Jan. 27, 2008)

**********

Place: The Oval Office
Time: January 20, 2009

Scene: Just hours after being inaugurated, enjoying a moment of quiet in the eye of a storm of Beltway mayhem, President John McCain and Vice President Fred Thompson are having a private conversation, seated in armchairs in the center of the room. We join them in progress...

John: Billy K. is telling me to take preemptive action against Iran.
Fred: I still can't believe you made him secretary of state.
John: He's always stood by me, unlike the rest of the bastards in our party.
Fred: (nodding off) Hmmph, hrrph.
John: Wolfie agrees with him.
Fred: (shaking awake) He's an asshole. Nice move giving him the Pentagon.
John: I'm so tired of you second-guessing me. Just tell me, what should I do?
Fred: (old scripts coming back to him through a haze of consciousness) Iranians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.
John: What the hell do you mean by that? (anger flaring) Wake up, goddamn you!
Fred: This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
John: Are you telling me I don't know what I'm doing?
Fred: That stupid, arrogant son-of-a-bitch!
John: (flabbergasted) Who? Me? Jesus Christ, I knew I should have picked Huck. Or Rudy. He's just so insufferable. Maybe Loser... er, Lieberman. The point is, mistakes may have been made. I'm telling you straight.
Fred: What the hell is that supposed to mean? I know we're all dummies up here, McClane, but give us a little taste of your brilliant genius!
John: It's McCain, not McClane, jackass. And here's a taste of my brilliant genius. You're fired!
Fred: This a just a big joke to you, Horrigan?
John: Who? What? Who the hell's Horrigan? (pause) Oh, right. (finally getting it) You know, Fred, maybe your senile laziness will come in handy one day. It's very… Reaganesque. Now where's that Secret Service detail to escort you back home for a nap before all the parties tonight? (looking around)
Fred: What's all this top secret business I've been hearing about over at the Pentagon?
John: (putting his arm around Fred and walking to the door) Never you mind, Freddy-boy, never you mind. I'll take care of everything.
Fred: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………….

**********

Fred was quoting lines from four of his finest movies: The Hunt for Red October, Die Hard 2: Die Harder, In the Line of Fire, and No Way Out. I'll let you figure out what was what.