A Mind is a Terrible Thing

TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo
It’s pretty fitting that one day after one of the biggest events this campaign season, the New Hampshire primaries, the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on a case that could significantly affect the 2008 election: the fight over Indiana’s voter ID law. The issues behind Crawford v. Marion County Election Board are pretty simple to understand. The Indiana law, passed by Republicans, prevents citizens from voting without a picture ID, and they say it will stop voter fraud, though they can’t point to a single instance of criminal voter impersonation occurring in the state. It is a solution in search of a problem.

Actually, I have one very simple question: Does the state of Indiana charge people ANY fee whatsoever for a photo ID card?  Unless the card is completely free, it seems to me to imply it is a poll tax.  And those have been declared unconstitutional many, many times.

Voting is supposed to be a citizen’s right — and if someone has to pay money to get a card necessary to be allowed to vote, well, that’s a poll tax.  Even if the card is just a few bucks, the principle’s the same.

Worth a read.

Why I Believe Bush Must Go – washingtonpost.com
By George McGovern
Sunday, January 6, 2008; Page B01
As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president. After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me. Today I have made a different choice.

OMG, this was hilarious.  It also took some serious huevos to pull off a stunt so massively brazen:

The BEAST: America’s Best Fiend
The event we were covering was a quick shot across the Kentucky state line, the grand unveiling of a 60,000 square foot bellwether of our culture’s sheepish intellectually depravity: The Creation Museum. The poured concrete brainchild of Ken Ham, world-renowned creationist douche and president of the Christian apologetics ministry “Answers in Genesis,” this “museum” aims to depict biblical narrative as historic reality. 27 million donated dollars worth of animatronic dinosaurs and humans palling around in the Garden of Eden—madness. Like the slaves of narcotic bliss, we felt physically compelled to participate in this insanity, adding to it whatever we could. Our drug was adrenaline, our bliss: messing with uppity religious primates.

The rest of this "Fear and Loathing at The Creation Museum"-esque piece at the link.

A few days ago, before the Iowa caucuses, I predicted this:

Iowa:  For the Dems, Obama will win, with Clinton and Edwards a near tie.  Media speculation will begin immediately as to when Richardson and Biden will drop out.  For the Reps, Huckabee will likely win but not by as much as people think, with Romney close behind.  (Huck’s recent gaffes will cost him…)  Most of the talk in the news will be about McCain’s unexpectedly strong showing, Giuliani’s poor one, and wondering when the heck Thompson will wise up and drop out so he can go ride around in his golf cart in peace.  Ron Paul will be conspicuously ignored.  Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, too.

The results?

With thanks to Talking Points Memo for the table.

Analysis:  I’d say that I nailed it on the Dem side, as far as results — but word is that Dodd and Biden have already dropped out.  That leaves Kucinich and Richardson, neither of whom really have a chance.

On the other side, I’d say my predictions were far more mixed.  9% is a pretty good lead, although I did predict Huck would win, with Romney in second.  The fact that Thompson and McCain were nearly tied is not so good for McCain’s prospects, given Thompson can barely be stirred from his crypt.  When I saw Guiliani’s numbers, I laughed — and I’d predicted "Mister Noun-Verb-9/11" would do badly.  Ron Paul did okay, but not as well as I’d thought he would; personally, I expected it to be more a McCain-Paul tie for third.  I’d completely forgotten about Hunter — he’s toast, btw.

Update:  There are newer numbers up with more complete returns, but the percentages above are relatively unchanged.  I wanted to add that the really big loser in Iowa was Romney, who blew a lot of money for his anemic 25%, versus Huckabee, who spent very little ($52m vs $1.7m in 2007).  By such standards, Romney got trounced pretty bad. 

Also, Giuliani probably won’t recover from the humiliation — a mere 4% puts him well into "electorally irrelevant" territory.  It surprises me not at all that Mayor 9/11 has begun floating such idiocies as saying he’d consider Cheney (Mr. 9% Approval Rating) as his Veep pick.

But you did read it here earlier: I did say that it was possible these GOP loonies would suggest keeping Cheney as VP.  And Constitutionally, the Vice President isn’t limited to just two 4 year terms.  He literally could be Veep-for-Life.  Now if that doesn’t scare the crap out of decent folks everywhere…  *shudder*

NH and SC are going to be interesting.

Submitted without comment, because I pretty much agree completely with what Steve Benen says here.  By the way, Massachusetts doesn’t have the death penalty, so it’s not exactly like former Gov. Romney could just go out and start killing people.

Isn’t blood-lust a bad thing? – The Carpetbagger Report
Posted January 1st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I hesitate to give too much attention to Mike Huckabee’s promote-my-ad-for-free attack, but Michael Crowley raises a good point. About mid-way through the ad, during a litany of accusations against Mitt Romney, Huckabee criticizes his rival with this data point: “No executions.”

Apparently, Huckabee — you know, the evangelical, pro-life Republican — is going after Romney for not having executed any Americans during his gubernatorial tenure.

I realize Republican politics are far more crass than norms should allow, but it’s disconcerting to think “You didn’t kill anyone” has suddenly become a criticism in conservative circles.

In case my Imaginary Readers are wondering — I am completely 100% against capital punishment.

By the way, registration is still required for commenting on posts.  It’s free and I promise I don’t let anybody see the email addresses used to register.  (If you’re concerned about it, just use a free GMail, Yahoo, or Hotmail account.)  This helps me keep the comment spam under control.  Sorry for any inconvenience.

First off, I am no political pundit or expert.  These are just my opinions based on nothing more than my own surmising and guesses.  Also, for the record, I’ve often been wrong — especially when it came to estimating the true extent of the GOP and Bush campaign mendacity and willingness to rig elections.

That said, here’s what I’m predicting for the 1st round of primaries/caucuses.  Why?  It’s my blog. 

Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a progressive-liberal Democrat who basically is of the opinion that the Republicans have ruined everything they’ve touched since I was born (nearly 45 years ago now) — so don’t go expecting me to say nice things about the GOP candidates.  I make no pretense of being ‘fair or balanced’.  (On the other hand, none of the Dems really lights my fire, either…  The one Democratic Party candidate I like — Chris Dodd — has no chance of getting anywhere this round.)

Iowa:  For the Dems, Obama will win, with Clinton and Edwards a near tie.  Media speculation will begin immediately as to when Richardson and Biden will drop out.  For the Reps, Huckabee will likely win but not by as much as people think, with Romney close behind.  (Huck’s recent gaffes will cost him…)  Most of the talk in the news will be about McCain’s unexpectedly strong showing, Giuliani’s poor one, and wondering when the heck Thompson will wise up and drop out so he can go ride around in his golf cart in peace.  Ron Paul will be conspicuously ignored.  Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, too.

New Hampshire:  I think Obama will win here, too, as he has the momentum, and again Clinton and Edwards will be close, but with Hillary ahead.  By now, Biden will drop out, as will Dodd and Thompson.  No idea when Kucinich will throw in the towel again, save that’ll be so late in the process people will ask, "He was still running?"  Romney will win in NH, as the voters there find Mitt’s faux ‘corporate conservatism with a slathering of newly donned social conservatism’ to be less offensive than Huckabee’s over-the-top "I’m God’s Candidate" fundamentalist whackjob egoism.  McCain will do surprisingly well, and Rudy "I am 9/11" Giuliani so bad that talk of his dropping out will commence.

South Carolina:  Huckabee, in a walk, because the GOP voters there can’t stand New Englander Yankees and aren’t fooled at all by Mitt’s fake new social conservatism.  I’d add that Romney’s Mormon faith will become a tangible liability throughout the Southern states.  They also haven’t forgotten McCain’s ‘illegitimate black child’ (thanks to Karl Rove’s slime machine in 2000).  Here though I think we’ll find out whether or not McCain appeals sufficiently anyway for the non-whackjob fraction of the Republican party to come out to vote.  Ron Paul will win lots and lots of votes (esp. from those who think his racist and anti-immigrant comments are a plus) — and continue to be ignored by the press.  As for the Dems, I think we find out here whether or not Clinton flamed out early as "the shoo-in lock candidate".  Reason I say this?  Because once upon a time, the talk was all about how Dean was inevitable… until he wasn’t.  Hillary’s campaign machine is exactly that — a relentless machine — but the excitement and momentum seem to be shifting to Obama.  As for Edwards?  An unexpectedly poor showing in his own back yard will result in a campaign that limps along just long enough for him to be considered the VP pick again.  Giuliani will probably hang on, despite dismal results — but I think he’ll drop after the Feb 2nd round of primaries.  His humongous ego demands no less.

In summary:  It’s worth remembering that in the last several primaries, the presumptive "it’s theirs to lose" candidate hasn’t been winning the nomination.  Unless he’s the former VP (Bush 41, Gore).  It’s always been one of the 2nd tier candidates.  Furthermore, the Iowa results have usually been found completely irrelevant after the fact.  In 2000, lots of people assumed McCain was going to trounce the idiot Texas Governor — until South Carolina.  In 2004, as I said, the Dean juggernaut was deemed unstoppable, but the press and its conservative-heavy punditocracy kept hammering away at him until one "yeeeargh!’ yell basically inflicted the first "death by sound-bite" killing of a candidacy, propelling a then lackluster Kerry campaign into the presumptive lead.  (In 1988, I contend that Dukakis was offed by "death by unfortunate video image" — to wit, the tank ride with the silly blue helmet.  Not by ‘Willie Horton’.  That was just the coup-de-grace.  Kerry’s windsurfing was a similarly painful visual.)

GOP Predictions:  Despite McCain’s unexpected recent poll surge and Romney’s previously strong numbers, I don’t think the GOP’s anywhere near done with being batsh*t crazy and will nominate Huckabee.  His seemingly fatal flaws, including pardoning personally intervening as governor to push the parole for that convicted rapist who went on to rape and kill again, will be swept under the rug — just like a certain Texas governor’s past was (cocaine use, DUI, going AWOL, etc.).  Huckabee is the only GOP candidate out there who really appeals to the same 25% of the electorate that still thinks Dubya is the bestest Prezdint evah.  Win the GOP base, you win the nomination.  He’ll pick a nobody with no known voting record as his Veep — just someone who can deliver a key state somewhere, but who also has an impeccable right-wing fundamentalist reputation.  This veep nominee will do most of the ‘dog-whistling’ necessary to get out the rabid right-wing GOP zombie vote, while the media will push fake stories about Huckabee "softening his fundamentalist conservative rhetoric" — except he won’t ever actually do that.  We’ll all just be told repeatedly he is.  They love their propagandistic memes — as it’s how all those lies about Gore stuck to him (Internet, ‘Love Story’, brown suits, etc.), through sheer repetition.  (Oh, by the way, that Veep choice goes out the window if Dick Cheney gets to head or otherwise control the VP selection committee again, which I actually think is within the realm of possibility.  In this case, get ready for 8 more years of a different flavor of Bush (just about as dumb, but more rabidly theocratic) with Darth Vader as his puppeteer.) 

(Update above:  Correction per comment from Robert.  He’s correct, Huckabee didn’t parole Dumond, my bad.  Huck, in his official capacity as governor, did however send a letter to the Arkansas parole board urging that they grant Wayne Dumond parole, and also pushed the false meme that Dumond had been convicted wrongly for raping a woman distantly related to Bill Clinton.  Dumond’s subsequent rape and murder of another woman pretty much proved the man’s violent misogyny.  This much is verified fact, including the correspondence to the parole board — and an official Huckabee campaign website isn’t exactly the best place to go for objectivity.  If one notices, I did not link to a single candidate’s campaign website here — and I’m not endorsing any of them.  None.  Except for "not a Republican’.  A bankrupted economy, a government that tortures prisoners  and violates laws at whim, and two unfinished ‘wars’?  Their record ain’t exactly good…)

Dem Predictions:  Stephanie’s gonna hate me for this, but I think it’ll be an Obama/Edwards ticket in ‘08.  Ever since Reagan was President, the American people have been sold the "President as Daddy-surrogate" image.  Obama’s being black won’t be held against him to the degree that Hillary Clinton’s being female will count against her.   Obama could just stand up there and read the newspaper and people would still swoon at the sound of his resonant baritone voice; Clinton, on the other hand, is constantly being called "shrill".  The tragic thing is there’ll be women who won’t vote for Clinton because they think masculinity is an asset in a President and femininity a weakness.  There are also a lot of folks out there on the right wing of both the GOP and Dems who just don’t like Hillary, no matter how good she’d be (and actually I think she’d be great), whereas few except the overt racists hate Obama.  It’s appearance over substance, but that’s why so many rubes voted for Bush instead of Gore and Kerry (not enough to actually win but plenty to push the election into stealing range…).  On average, American voters are pretty dumb and surprisingly sexist — and the media’s been pushing to keep them that way.

Bonus speculations:  Oh, by the by, you’d think people would be more mature than this, but both Obama’s and Huckabee’s names will be used against them. The really sad part is the mainstream media will feed this childish playground taunting behavior.  Ron Paul will launch a 3rd party candidacy (he has the money for it) and win a few percent of the vote but deemed irrelevant to the final outcome.  Bloomberg?  Don’t be silly — it’s just stupid talk.

Winner in ‘08?  Obama/Edwards.  With the usual GOP-favoring voting irregularities in the usual swing states making the election results closer than they ought to be.  But it won’t be enough to overcome the post-Dubya loathing.

-Becca

…that is all…

With that, I leave off my rather prolific commentary blogging of this day and wish you all a much happier New Year 2008.

More punditological wankery:

Jackson Diehl – Make-or-Break Time in Iraq? – washingtonpost.com
Yet, for once, saying that the next six to 12 months will win or lose the war just might be right.

Rubbish.  The ‘war’ in Iraq was won a long time ago — in fact, it was won in 2003 when Saddam Hussein’s regime fell and the Ba’athist government overthrown by the invading American-led coalition forces.  It ended then and there, even before Saddam Hussein was captured, because he was no longer at all in control of Iraq.

On the day the Iraqi government fell and its army essentially dissipated into the populace, it stopped being a war and became an Occupation.

Thing is, you never, ever win an occupation.  Can’t be done.  Jefferson himself said that governmental power derives from the consent of the governed.  Occupied people don’t consent to being occupied.  Never in human civilization’s history has an occupied country ever failed eventually to throw out, defeat, or absorb its occupying invaders.  Sure, it can take a long, long time — years, or even decades in the case of the once mighty Roman Empire.

But occupiers always leave, either willingly or forced.  There is no ‘winning’ an occupation.  Because there is no war.  Just a bloody, endless stalemated occupation — and if you notice, none of these proponents of staying in Iraq or Afghanistan ever say that America’s soldiers will come home.  Or if they do, it’s always "some time in the future but it would be irresponsible to actually set any date for withdrawal."

Anyway, as long as we let them call an occupation a ‘war’, we who stand for peace and for the rights of others to be left alone have already lost.