Hullabaloo

Thursday, May 15, 2008

 
Here We Go Again

by digby

There's a big voter disenfranchisement scheme unfolding in Missouri this week. It could be a very big problem --- they want it in place before November:

Missouri, the battleground state that has accurately picked the Presidential winner in every election since the 1950s, now faces an unprecedented peril this week: the theft of the voting rights of at least 240,000 of its citizens (nuns included) and the sure loss of the swing state of Missouri to Republicans in the Presidential race in November. And If Obama, the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party loses Missouri, he will likely lose the fall election as well.

Unfortunately, the wily "Thor" Hearne, the St. Louis-based voter-fraud propagandist and Republican lawyer who has been the leading GOP operative promoting vote suppression since 2000, has been working closely with the key Republican legislator promoting a new constitutional amendment requiring photo ID. Republicans are rushing to pass the measure before adjournment this Friday and bring it to voters in August, in time to stop enough blacks, the poor, the elderly, students and the disabled from voting Democratic in November.

As John Hickey, the executive director of the advocacy group ProVote, told me, ""If you exclude 240,000 people from the electorate, that is plenty to swing the election in Missouri," with state-wide races having razor-thin victory margins as little as 21,000.

This is one state where it really could make the difference.

Thor Hearne is one of the preeminent vote suppression experts in the Republican party. I've written about him many times. Brad Friedman has been following his every move for years. His involvement means this is a serious move to steal Missouri.

We know this hits African Americans and Latinos hard and it's designed to make them think twice about putting themselves through this legal hassle. But there's another group that's going to be hard hit by this ---- the elderly. And in Arizona, where they now require proof of citizenship, even though they've been voting for 60 years, they are now just out of luck:

The devastating personal impact of denying people the right to vote because they can't get hard-to-get photo ID and birth certificates is best illustrated by a heart-breaking story I reported earlier in the week . I spoke to 97-year-old Shirley Preiss about her efforts to vote in Arizona after having voted for every Democratic Presidential candidate since FDR in 1932. I quote an ACORN organizer about the use of immigrant-bashing as a lever to block American citizens from voting, then I went on to tell Shirley's story. It bears repeating, because what happened to Shirley could happen to every poor person, disabled person, elderly person and minority who doesn't have the ready access to the funds, time and ability to navigate bureaucratic hurdles to obtain government-issued embossed birth certificates and other ID:

"All the discourse here is about immigration," Arizona ACORN organizer Monica Sandschafer observes. "But we're really talking about Arizonans who are Americans and whose legal right to vote is being denied. And while Latino citizens are hit hard, we're finding that all Arizonans are at risk of being disenfranchised by this requirement."

Perhaps no one knows that as well as 97-year-old Shirley Freeda Preiss. She was born at home in Clinton, Kentucky in 1910, before women had the right to vote, and never had a birth certificate. Shirley has voted in every presidential election since FDR first ran in 1932, and proudly describes herself as a "died-in-the-wool Democrat." After living in Arizona for two years, she was eagerly looking forward to casting her ballot in the February primary for the first major woman candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. But lacking a birth certificate or even elementary school records to prove she's a native-born American citizen, the state of Arizona's bureaucrats determined that this former school-teacher who taught generations of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"I have a constitutional right to vote, don't I?" she asks with her soft Southern drawl. "I didn't get to vote because of a birth certificate. What am I going to do now?"

Her strong-willed 78-year-old son, Nathan "Joey" Nemnich, a World War II veteran, is infuriated. "I'm pissed. She's an American citizen who worked her whole life and I want her to vote," he says. He went down to the local Motor Vehicle Division to get her an Arizona ID and register her to vote, armed with copies of his mother's three drivers' licenses from her previous home in Texas, along with copies of her Social Security and Medicare cards. All that wasn't good enough for the state of Arizona. "The sons of bitches are taking away our Constitution," Nemnich says.

In Arizona and now as seems likely in Missouri, Kafkaesque rules blend with right-wing ideology to block American citizens like Shirley Preiss from voting, collateral damage in the Republican-led war on democracy. "I was very disappointed," she says of the state's roadblocks to voting. "It's not acceptable. I've always voted."

digby 5/15/2008 12:00:00 AM |

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

 
A Little Bit At A Time

by digby

One of the most frustrating things about the authoritarian house that Bush built is the argument that you have to trust them, they're only doing it to "keep the country safe." But when you put a large bunch of bozos in boots and uniforms and give them the authority to be assholes --- some of them will inevitably be assholes. If you've read anything about the totalitarian states of the 20th century, you know what can happen. Petty bureaucrats at your car insurance company are one thing. Petty bureaucrats with guns and police powers are another. It's just not a good idea.

The good news (unless you are one) is that so far, they are mostly just fucking with foreigners:

He was a carefree Italian with a recent law degree from a Roman university. She was “a totally Virginia girl,” as she puts it, raised across the road from George Washington’s home. Their romance, sparked by a 2006 meeting in a supermarket in Rome, soon brought the Italian, Domenico Salerno, on frequent visits to Alexandria, Va., where he was welcomed like a favorite son by the parents and neighbors of his girlfriend, Caitlin Cooper.

But on April 29, when Mr. Salerno, 35, presented his passport at Washington Dulles International Airport, a Customs and Border Protection agent refused to let him into the United States. And after hours of questioning, agents would not let him travel back to Rome, either; over his protests in fractured English, he said, they insisted that he had expressed a fear of returning to Italy and had asked for asylum.

Ms. Cooper, 23, who had promised to show her boyfriend another side of her country on this visit — meaning Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon — eventually learned that he had been sent in shackles to a rural Virginia jail. And there he remained for more than 10 days, locked up without charges or legal recourse while Ms. Cooper, her parents and their well-connected neighbors tried everything to get him out.

Mr. Salerno’s case may be extreme, but it underscores the real but little-known dangers that many travelers from Europe and other first-world nations face when they arrive in the United States — problems that can startle Americans as much as their foreign visitors.

[...]

Though citizens of those nations do not need visas to enter the United States for as long as 90 days, their admission is up to the discretion of border agents. There are more than 60 grounds for finding someone inadmissible, including a hunch that the person plans to work or immigrate, or evidence of an overstay, however brief, on an earlier visit.

While those turned away are generally sent home on the next flight, “there are occasional circumstances which require further detention to review their cases,” Ms. De Cima said. And because such “arriving aliens” are not considered to be in the United States at all, even if they are in custody, they have none of the legal rights that even illegal immigrants can claim.

But, hey, after 9/11 you can't take any chances. They must have suspected this guy was some sort of terrorist, right?

In questioning Mr. Salerno, customs agents seemed to suspect that he intended to work here. Ms. Cooper, a copy editor for an educational publication, said she was in the airport lobby when an agent called to ask about Mr. Salerno’s income and why he visited so often...

Ms. Cooper said that at the airport, when she begged to know what was happening to Mr. Salerno, an agent told her, “You know, he should try spending a little more time in his own country.”

We don't need their kind round here. The customs agent said the man told them he feared being killed if he was sent back to his home country ... Italy. So they had to take him into custody.

Twelve hours later, when Mr. Salerno was granted a five-minute phone call, he called Ms. Cooper and denied saying anything of the kind. Instead, he said, the asylum story seemed to be retaliation for his insisting on speaking to his embassy.

After being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he was taken to the Pamunkey Regional Jail in Hanover, Va., where he ended up in a barracks with 75 other men, including asylum-seekers who told him they had been waiting a year.

Ten days after he landed in Washington, Mr. Salerno was still incarcerated, despite efforts by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and two former immigration prosecutors hired by the Coopers.

“He’s just really scared,” Ms. Cooper said in an interview last Thursday. “He asked me if Virginia has the death penalty.”

You can't blame him for wondering. They finally let him out when the well-connected girlfriend's family contacted the NY Times. He was, of course, put on a plane back to Italy and will likely not be allowed to ever come back. I'm sure this is on his "permanent file" like that Icelandic woman who had overstayed her visa a dozen years ago. But then, why would he want to? Why would anybody?

I keep wondering when this overstuffed police apparatus is going to get so bad that international business decides it's not worth it to do business here. I suspect it's already happening. Did you know that customs now has the legal right to download all information from laptops or cell phones without any kind of probable cause? And it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism either:

The Association of Corporate Travel Executives (ACTE) is warning its members to limit the amount of proprietary business information they carry on laptops and other electronic devices because of fears that government agents can seize that data at U.S. border crossings.

The group is worried that corporate data could be downloaded by agents, leading to potential security breaches and the exposure of information that is supposed to be private. Among the devices that could be searched by border agents are cell phones, handhelds, digital cameras and USB storage devices.

The warning follows a recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that basically upheld the right of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to search laptops and other electronic devices at U.S. borders without reasonable cause or suspicion.

The appeals court decision involved an individual who was arrested in 2005 on charges of child pornography after a warrantless search of his computer by customs officers at Los Angeles International Airport. A district court judge had previously ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution should be suppressed because it was gained via an unreasonable search. That decision was later overturned.

[...]

Many companies, especially in Europe, are having compliance officers look at the broader implications of such searches and have begun curtailing the kind of information their executives can carry on their laptops when traveling to the U.S, she said.

[...]

"There may be some legitimate reasons for wanting to look at the data" on a traveler's electronic device, Gurley said. "But what are the parameters for such searches? Once they have the information, what do they do with it? What are the policies for retention and for data destruction? This shouldn't be such a hidden secret."

It is and there are no criteria. They have just empowered government agents to do whatever they want with your primate information for any reason they choose. To protect us, don't you know.

Trust 'em?


.
digby 5/14/2008 09:12:00 PM |

 
"Minitruths" And Big Lies

by digby


Gabor Steingart in der Spiegel online has been an interesting observer of the presidential race. I haven't always agreed with him, but he brings a different perspective than most journalists and is particularly astute about the US political media. Today he pinpoints something that I don't think ever gets enough attention:

A journalist's twin points of references should be the real and the important. But for months the focus of the election coverage was on trivia. Every insignificant detail got blown out of proportion, with every chipmunk becoming a Godzilla. According to a report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, over 60 percent of election coverage by the US media has been focused on campaign strategies, tactics or personalities -- but not on actual political content.

Reporters focused the most attention on such pressing questions as whether Barack Obama was wearing an American flag lapel pin, whether John McCain had a mistress eight years ago or whether former first lady Hillary Clinton was incorrectly recalling her 1996 trip to Bosnia.

Clinton claimed to recall hearing sniper fire as her plane landed in Bosnia. In fact, as archive TV footage later showed, Clinton was actually greeted by a young girl who recited a poem on the tarmac. That may have been embarrassing for Hillary Clinton, but it is insignificant for voters.

Even the eccentric pastor from Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, is not worth the fuss. "God damn America," he preached. So what? The priest at my Catholic church was a reactionary, while my class teacher was a communist. Perhaps the mad and the blind to the right and the left of our path through life are there simply to show us where the middle way is.

The American public has not only been misled during this election campaign, but has also been fed a constant stream of irrelevant information. In one of his novels, the British writer, essayist and journalist George Orwell invented the Ministry of Truths, which he called "minitruths," with which one would try to confuse the public with small parts of the truth that even when added up do not give the whole picture.

I actually think he understates the phenomenon. These "minitruths" add up to a completely distorted picture.

I have watched a lot of campaigns unfold in the media and I thought 2000 was a low point for sheer trivia and misdirection. But this one is shaping up to be even worse. There are real problems in this country and around the world and yet we have spent the last four months reading and listening to an ever expanding list of celebrity blowhards pontificate for hours about braindead pop psychology and calling it political analysis. And in a new twist, the media have now openly declared themselves to be kingmakers and final arbiters of our election process. It's mind boggling.

If you ever want to know which way the wind is blowing among the gasbag pundits and village scribes, look no further than the poison pen of Maureen Dowd:

Raspberry for Barry

In grim times, a bitter Hillary clings to bitter voters who in grim times supposedly cling to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

Mining that antipathy, the New York senator has been working hard to get the hard-working white voters of hardscrabble Appalachia so she can show that a black man can’t yet be elected president.

Obama breezed through West Virginia, the state he couldn’t charm even wearing a flag pin and promising to invest in “clean coal.” Fast Barry shot some pool Monday afternoon at Schultzie’s Billiards in South Charleston, including prophetically sinking an eight-ball in the pocket, and then fled from Hillary territory to pursue white, blue-collar workers in battleground states and convince them not to vote for John McBush.

Obama is acting the diffident debutante, pretending not to care that he was given a raspberry by a state he will need in the fall.

"Bitter Hillary," "Fast Barry," "diffident debutante" --- this is what the Village dinner parties are tittering about these days. The old hag, the new fag, the same old shit.

And there is nothing much more substantial going on anywhere else. The endless obsession with process, the horse race, the "math," what they're eating, what they're wearing, what they're playing, runs on and on as if it tells us something truly important about what the citizens want and whether these candidates are giving it to them. Meanwhile we have a war, an energy crisis, global warming, economic dislocation, crumbling infrastructure, fifty million uninsured and huge debt both personal and public among many other things that government must tackle in the next four years due mostly to the massive failure of conservative governance. Apparently, the press feels that whether they wear lapel pins or misremember some event from a decade ago are the best means of finding out what the candidates do about those things. Or maybe they just don't give a damn and are entertaining themselves with high school story lines.

These amusing Dowdian character portraits have infected our politics like a toxic chemical spill, turning candidates into fun house mirror versions of normal human beings and treating the voters like spectators in a game for which the media decides the rules and determines the outcome.

Dowd always says she's speaking truth to power. Not so. She speaks truthiness to power and doesn't even know the difference. In her world there isn't any. And since her world is journalism it's a problem for any democracy that relies on a free press to inform the public. No wonder people so often end up throwing up their hands and refusing to participate. Let's hope all these new voters don't read papers or watch TV or they'll quickly become disgusted and apathetic too.


Update: Media Bloodhound has a perfect example of truthiness in action. lest anyone think that my objections to the pervasive cowardice and malpractice of themedia is political in nature, you only have to follow this story about the pentagon mouthpieces. Unfortunately, you can only follow it on blogs like Glenn Greenwald's, since the mainstream media is blacking it out.

.
digby 5/14/2008 02:42:00 PM |

 
Beaten With A Stove

by digby

The ACLU has obtained some more sickening documents:

"These documents provide further evidence that the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad was not aberrational, but was widespread and systemic," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "They only underscore the need for an independent investigation into high-level responsibility for prisoner abuse."

One of the documents released to the ACLU is a list of at least four prisoner deaths that were the subject of Navy Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) investigations. The NCIS document contains new information about the deaths of some of these prisoners, including details about Farhad Mohamed, who had contusions under his eyes and the bottom of his chin, a swollen nose, cuts and large bumps on his forehead when he died in Mosul in 2004. The document also includes details about Naem Sadoon Hatab, a 52-year-old Iraqi man who was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility in Nasiriyah in June 2003; the shooting death of Hemdan El Gashame in Nasiriyah in March 2003; and the death of Manadel Jamadi during an interrogation after his head was beaten with a stove at Abu Ghraib in November 2003.

There was nothing illegal or immoral about any of this, of course, because the president has proclaimed that the US doesn't torture.


.
digby 5/14/2008 08:41:00 AM |

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

 
The Wave Builds

by digby

.... even in Mississippi:

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen released the following statement on Travis Childers' victory in the special election runoff in Mississippi's 1^st Congressional District. With tonight's win, the Democratic majority in Congress has expanded to 236-199.

"Congratulations to Travis Childers on his stunning victory. His victory has sent a political thunderbolt across America tonight. It is yet another rejection of the House Republican agenda, the Bush Administration's misguided policies, and John McCain's campaign for a third Bush term.

"For the first time in more than 30 years the Democratic Party has picked up three Republican seats in special elections in one cycle. Republicans and their outside groups pulled out all the stops in an attempt to nationalize a congressional race and distract voters away from their own candidates' failure to stand up for middle class families. The NRCC broke the bank and spent nearly 20 percent of their cash on hand on a ruby red district. Travis's victory proves that a Democrat who puts the economy, health care, and homegrown values front and center can win anywhere in America. After three consecutive Special Election defeats in districts President Bush twice won easily, it is abundantly clear the American people have turned their back and shut the door on the special interest driven agenda of the Republican Party. There is no district that is safe for Republican candidates because President Bush's failed policies have hurt every community in America.

Ads featuring Reverend Wright aren't working in the deep south. Something's happening.



.
digby 5/13/2008 07:54:00 PM |

 
The New Face Of California

by dday

Something really special happened today in California and I thought I'd mention it.

Today, Karen Bass became the new Speaker of the California State Assembly, the first African-American woman to attain that office, and the highest-ranking woman of color in any state in the union. She's a capable progressive leader, and her ascension to the top of the Legislature power structure is laudable. We have a lot of problems in this state and she's going to have to get right to work. Fortunately, her goals are narrow but focused; to balance the state budget, nearing a $20 billion dollar hole, and to restructure the structural revenue deficit that makes every state budget here an adventure. She wants to do it in a progressive way, making sure everybody shares in the sacrifice and the benefits, and letting all the stakeholders know that California's future is worth paying for.

But beyond what this means for the rising progressive movement here, and it means plenty, the optics of an African-American woman becoming one of the two highest-ranking Democrats in the nation's largest state is undeniably powerful. We talk about what it means to see a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton running for President but those historical barriers are being broken every day in offices large and small.

Chris Bowers had a great post the other day looking at how under-represented groups are starting to take leadership roles in the party with which they have increasingly identified, and the implications.

Whatever its flaws, the Democratic Party really is the party for "everyone else" in America. Virtually every ethnic, religious and sexual minority votes for Democrats by overwhelming margins. Vulnerable economic groups, such as single women, union members, and low-income voters also break for Democrats by overwhelming margins. Fewer than 50% of the Democrats in the United States House and United States Senate combined are white, male, straight and Christian. Even the elites of the Democratic Party are very different, on demographic level, from the elites in the media and business community in America.

For quite some time, the Democratic Party struggled with a "loser" image nationally. Given its minority heavy, downtrodden heavy, freaks and geeks membership, it isn't a huge secret how it developed that negative brand. However, over the last few years, something unusual is starting to happen: traditionally under-represented groups are starting to occupy leadership roles in the party, and the party is starting to win a lot of elections. Now, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, Democrats hold 235 seats in the House (a number that is soon to rise quite a bit), even though the highest Republicans ever reached was 232. In addition to holding the majority of Governors, state legislatures, and members of the U.S. Senate, all of those majorities are expected to expand significantly in 2008. To top it all off, the Democratic presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, is expected to become the next President of the United States.

On this great day for the state of California, I'm pleased to see the party live up to mirroring the face of the electorate. I'm happy to see those decisions go rewarded. And I'm proud of Karen Bass.




.
dday 5/13/2008 03:00:00 PM |

 
Make It Work

by digby

d-day wrote an interesting post last night about the Bush Justice Department's legal opinion outlining what kind of power the legislative branch has to stop an out of control Executive without resorting to the courts. He concluded:

Here's the thing. These may be Bush Administration lawyers doing the talking here, but they're absolutely right. The Congress has all sorts of tools in their arsenal to force compliance from the executive branch. They can shut down the nomination process. They can eliminate any and all expenditures for the President and staff or executive agencies. They can refuse to enact spending bills for programs and policies prized by the executive. They can constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court that may investigate the executive. They can use the power of inherent contempt to try those neglecting a Congressional subpoena, and imprison them. And they can, you know, vote to remove the President from office, or all civil officers of the United States, for that matter.

There are dozens of ways for this Congress to get the attention of the President, as the Justice Department's own lawyers recognize. But of course, they won't do that. They worry about their image, their perception by the voters, what the Republican noise machine would say about them, and all the rest.

I agree. But that's politics. All politicians worry about their image, their perception by the voters, what the opposition will say about them and all the rest. They always have and they always will. Profiles in courage in politics are as rare as someone who is seven feet tall. If doing the right thing depends upon that, then doing the right thing never gets done.

Why do politicians worry about their image, their perception by the voters and what the opposition will do? Because their main purpose in life (aside from those who are just plain corrupt and want to steal taxpayers money) is keeping their seats. That means they have to always ensure that their constituents are happy with them. It's human nature. It's democracy.

So why is it then so difficult for them to do the right thing? The voters must want them to and will reward them for it, right?

That's the rub. Showdowns between the legislative and executive branch are unpredictable. And politicians are always fighting the last war:

November 15, 1995
Web posted at: 11:10 a.m. EST

While Americans have shifted toward the Republicans in the question of who has the best approach toward dealing with the budget deficit, more blame the GOP than Democrats for the bringing about the partial government shutdown this week, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. The poll sampled the opinions of 652 adult Americans on Tuesday. Sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points.

When it comes to dealing with the tough choices involved in cutting programs to reduce the federal budget deficit while maintaining needed federal programs, poll respondents chose the Democrats over the Republicans, the opposite results from a poll in July.

Best Approach to Budget
Now July
Democrats 49% 43%
Republicans 36% 44%


When asked if they personally view the government shutdown as a crisis, as a major problem, as a minor problem, or not a problem at all, a majority of respondents said it was a major or minor problem.

Government Shutdown
Crisis 11%
Major problem 40%
Minor problem 33%
Not a problem 14%


Overall, Americans blame the Republican leaders in Congress more for the recent shutdown of the federal government, not President Clinton.

Blame for Shutdown
GOP leaders 49%
President Clinton 26%
Both 19%

Here's a fairly typical news report of the time:

Monday morning, just before driving back to Washington for another plunge into the meat grinder once known as the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Owen B. Pickett was asked the question on the lips of a lot of angry citizens.

``Just what in the name of God are you guys doing up there?''

Pickett, along with every other elected federal official, has heard the question in one form or another for weeks.

With the government in a nominal shutdown - one that inconveniences only the governed, not those who govern - and political leaders calling one another names in public that one should not call a rodent in private, Pickett could only shake his head and concede, ``The exercise we're going through right now is totally uncalled for.''

``Shutting down the government,'' he said, ``isn't any way to do business. It's a bad reflection on everybody. It's inexcusable and simply should not be permitted.''

Pickett, a Democrat who for nine years has represented most of Norfolk and Virginia Beach in Congress, said in a lengthy interview that he's hearing no small amount of anger from people in the district.

``They are cynical and upset,'' he said, ``and very severe in their criticism. They say things like, `What's wrong up there?' and `Why can't you settle your differences? Who's in charge?' ''

Granted, that is ancient history to most people. But it isn't ancient history to the congress, which remembers very well that in a head on collision with the executive, they can pay a steep price with the public.

Newt Gingrich lost his revolution over that one. The press turned on him and dealt him the worst humiliation possible:



Congresscritters and Senators care about perception and image and what the opposition (and the media, by the way) will do because their careers depend on it.

This is why it's important to have a strong and thriving *independent* progressive movement, to push from outside the political process to build public support for specific issues. During the Martin Luther King day flap in the primary earlier this year, Robert Borosage wrote a piece to which I've referred before:

The lesson of the King years isn't a choice between rhetoric and reality, or between experience and change. The lesson of the King years is the vital necessity of an independent progressive movement to demand change against the resistance of both entrenched interests and cautious reformers.

King understood that electing good liberal leaders - whether the young and fresh like Kennedy or the experienced and wily like Johnson -- was necessary but not sufficient. "Freedom," he taught, is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." King called each of us to vote but also to act. "Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."

Obama is right that there is power in the word, that hope has a true force in the world. Hillary is right that Johnson's experience and forcefulness were vital to passing the civil rights laws. But King's example and lesson is that neither of these is sufficient. It takes a movement to force even a sympathetic president to act.

You cannot depend upon politicians alone --- any politicians --- to defeat the status quo, no matter how much they may promise. The forces of aristocratic privilege are very, very strong. They must believe that it is in their political interests to do so. And in the case of things like civil liberties or social justice or any other issue for which there is no moneyed interest to promote it, it must come from a mass of average citizens demanding change from the outside.

Political machines can gain power and sometimes keep it. Only an independent political movement can make them use it for the greater good.


.
digby 5/13/2008 12:55:00 PM |

 
Global Test II

by dday

Four years ago, Bush defenders got a lot of mileage out of a comment that John Kerry made in the third Presidential debate.

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Bush defenders immediately pounced on this by deliberately using a different definition of the word "global" that Kerry intended, and claiming that Kerry wanted to subject American national security to a vote by the United Nations.

Four years later, Barack Obama sat down for an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and asked him a leading question about Israel which Obama handled fairly well.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.

So off of that, the Republican leader in the House John Boehner has decided that Obama called Israel a constant wound and a constant sore, instead of what he actually said, that the conflict is a wound, and conflict resolution is preferable.

It's important to recognize that a core part of Republican strategy in 2008, in addition to disenfranchising Democratic voters, is simply lying about their opponent. And the lies will vary from this variety of misinterpretation, to asserting that Obama's policies are socialist despite the fact that, you know, they're far from it, or making up wild stories that Obama favors some kind of $777 trillion dollar reparations fund. There's no real slickness to the strategy, or forethought put into it. Birds are gonna fly, fish are gonna swim, and Republicans are gonna lie about the Democrat.

Goldberg, a conservative, managed to display some intellectual honesty and point out that Boehner is, in fact, lying. The question is whether or not the rest of the media will follow his lead when some lie like this becomes front and center in the election.

Oh, in case you're wondering, the answer is "no, they won't, they'll give Republicans ample opportunity to lie and won't step in to correct the record."


.
dday 5/13/2008 11:05:00 AM |

Monday, May 12, 2008

 
How To Play The Game

by dday

This is honestly the saddest news item I've seen in the whole of the Bush Administration.

So the Congress has taken the Bush Administration to court to enforce subpoenas of officials involved in the US Attorney purge. The Administration's lawyers have laid out, in an 83-page document, their opinion of the case, which (surprise) rests on the notion that the judiciary branch should stay out of a political dispute between the other two branches. And they conclude that the legislative has plenty of cards to play in such a battle against the executive.

"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote [...]

As part of their argument, the administration lawyers cited Congress' considerable leverage as the more traditional means of getting what it wants. This is from the motion:

And the Legislative Branch may vindicate its interests without enlisting judicial support: Congress has a variety of other means by which it can exert pressure on the Executive Branch, such as the withholding of consent for Presidential nominations, reducing Executive Branch appropriations, and the exercise of other powers Congress has under the Constitution.

Here's the thing. These may be Bush Administration lawyers doing the talking here, but they're absolutely right. The Congress has all sorts of tools in their arsenal to force compliance from the executive branch. They can shut down the nomination process. They can eliminate any and all expenditures for the President and staff or executive agencies. They can refuse to enact spending bills for programs and policies prized by the executive. They can constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court that may investigate the executive. They can use the power of inherent contempt to try those neglecting a Congressional subpoena, and imprison them. And they can, you know, vote to remove the President from office, or all civil officers of the United States, for that matter.

There are dozens of ways for this Congress to get the attention of the President, as the Justice Department's own lawyers recognize. But of course, they won't do that. They worry about their image, their perception by the voters, what the Republican noise machine would say about them, and all the rest.

I'm certain that this reminder by the DoJ wasn't an effort to get the Democratic Congress to recognize their own power, or even an effort to get the courts to rule in their favor. It was an effort to get Republicans to recall what tools they can use in the event of a Democratic President. A committed minority in the Senate can make life more miserable for the incoming executive than this majority has ever made it for George Bush; executive power rollback is in some ways simply a matter of Congressional will. One thing is clear; the go-along-to-get-along nature of the Democrats over the past eight years will not be reciprocated.

And it's deeply embarrassing that it takes a bunch of Regent University grads or whoever they've got on the case at the Bush Justice Department to point this out.


.
dday 5/12/2008 09:35:00 PM |

 
There Is No They There

by digby

Steve Benen points to more self-serving media navel gazing:

Harwood explained that the McCain campaign, in a move that “many Republicans would find ironic,” is pushing the line that the press is friendlier to Obama. Harwood said, “John McCain’s benefited from very friendly press coverage for many years, but he’s going to try to argue, which will have corollary benefit of rallying conservatives, if he can pull it off, of saying, ‘The press wants Obama to win. I’m pushing back, too.’”

Tim Russert added, “In 2002, John McCain referred to the press as his base.” To which Harwood responded, “They were his base.”

I guess somebody should have reminded them that the name of the show they were on is called ---Meet The Press. They are the "they" of which they speak. But then Russert spent two years pontificating on the same show about Scooter Libby pretending he wasn't a major playing in the investigation, so this isn't exactly new. He's the Village High Inquisitor, charged with ensuring that the one true conventional wisdom is adhered to for the good of all. He isn't a member of the press at all.


.
digby 5/12/2008 05:47:00 PM |

 
We're Chillin'

by digby

I realize that a good many people think I'm living in cloud cuckoo-land, but apparently a large majority of the Democratic party is drooling and delusional right along with me:

Pushing back against political punditry, more than six in 10 Democrats say there's no rush for Hillary Clinton to leave the presidential race even as Barack Obama consolidates his support for the nomination and scores solidly in general-election tests.

Despite Obama's advantage in delegates and popular vote, 64 percent of Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say Clinton should remain in the race. Even among Obama's supporters, 42 percent say so.

That's not a majority endorsement of Clinton's candidacy; Democrats by a 12-point margin would rather see Obama as the nominee, a lead that's held steadily in ABC News/Washington Post polls since early March. Instead it reflects a rejection of the notion that the drawn-out contest will hurt the party's prospects. Seventy-one percent think it'll either make no difference in November (56 percent) or actually help the party (15 percent).

Those views correspond with opinions on Clinton continuing her candidacy. And in a related result, 85 percent of Democrats (including Democratic-leaning independents) are confident the party would come together behind Obama as the nominee though fewer, 45 percent, are "very" confident of it. That underscores the importance of the endgame for the party's prospects.

The second slot is one possibility: Clinton continues as the preferred choice as Obama's running mate, with 39 percent of Democrats saying they'd like him to pick her if he's the nominee. That peaks at 59 percent of African-Americans, 47 percent of Clinton supporters and 42 percent of women (vs. 34 percent of men).

I'm not necessarily endorsing the Unity ticket, but I don't see a lot of hate and division in those numbers. If nearly 60% of African Americans prefer Clinton on the ticket, it's fair to say that the party isn't irrevocably broken.

And McCain just looks sad;

In other signs of difficulties for McCain, Obama leads him in trust to handle the public's top issue, the economy, by 10 points; in trust to handle gasoline prices, by 20 points; and in trust to handle health care, by 24 points. On personal attributes Obama leads by wide margins as being better able to bring needed change, having the better temperament for the job, better empathy and a clearer vision for the future.

McCain also could suffer from the broader public discontent, generally and with George W. Bush in particular. Public disgruntlement neared a record high in this poll, with 82 percent of Americans saying the country's seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the past year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973. And Bush slipped to his career low approval rating, 31 percent.

In a related result, the Democratic Party in general leads the Republicans in trust to handle the main issues the nation faces, by 53-32 percent the biggest gap in favor of the Democrats in data since 1982. The question, again, is whether that fades in Bush's wake.

It won't unless the Democrats allow McCain to be a different kind 'o Republican. It's not a big window for him, but it's a window nonetheless:

There are significant areas in which McCain can push back against Obama. After a five-year decline prompted by the unpopular president and the war in Iraq, there's been a recovery this year in Republican affiliation possibly the precursor of post-Bush politics. The change is slight but bears watching: On average in ABC/Post polls this year 28 percent of Americans have identified themselves as Republicans, compared with a 24-year low of 25 percent last year. It peaked at 31 percent in 2003.

As you can see by the numbers, the Democratic party is doing fine. They have the most exciting politician in the country running for president at a time when the opposing party is falling apart. But they should not get cocky. McCain's base, the media, will help him distance himself from Bush with everything they have and that's his best hope.

It would be wise for everyone to heed this warning:

McCain has a credible brand with the public, who see him as a maverick and a reformer. If McCain succeeds on his current path, he may be able to use his own popularity to infuse the Republicans with new life and a new narrative--the "Change Republican." The risk is amplified because there are 34 open House seats and 5 open Senate seats. Unlike incumbents, these Republican candidates--who aren't from Washington--could seize onto McCain's "Change Republican" brand and ride his coattails to a Republican comeback. Democrats could lose the House and Senate, and the White House would be out of reach.

It wouldn't be all "change." They'd combine this with the usual scare tactics and terror-mongering--tired old tactics that failed in 2006.

Lest my fellow Democratic partisans worry, I'm not giving away any secrets that the Republican strategists don't know. In the last few days, a strategy memo on this same topic has been circulated by Republican strategists.

There is a big Achilles heel to this strategy. On the issues that the public will judge McCain he is not change. McCain's tempered approaches on immigration and climate change are small bore stuff compared to the defining narratives on the war and the economy. On the issues central to voters, McCain is not change. The media pundits who think the public will view him as a maverick still don't understand this vulnerability.

In many ways the emergence of a Democratic majority rests on whether John McCain gets away with becoming a "Change Republican."

The answer is probably "no" but let this serve as notice to all of us: the ball is in our court.

The Republican party is George W. Bush --- there is no daylight. They acclaimed him as the second coming of Winston Churchill and Alexander the Great just three years ago. They put him back in the White House and then swaggered around calling Democrats neutered farm animals.

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

They can run from that but they can't hide. Bush and the conservative movement he represents need to be tied around McCain's neck so tight he can't breathe.


.
digby 5/12/2008 04:09:00 PM |

 
Long Answers To Stupid Questions

by digby

Question: Do I agree that Hillary Clinton is a racist and why haven't I disavowed, renounced and rebuked her?

Answer: No I do not think she is a racist and I haven't disavowed, renounced and rebuked her for the same reason I didn't disavow, deplore and rebuke Barack Obama for saying that white working class voters cling to God and guns because they are bitter.

Why? Because they are ridiculous, MSM-style trumped up controversies.

Candidates speak imprecisely from time to time, particularly during presidential campaigns which are superhuman, exhausting efforts. They are human beings and they get tired.

In those separate comments, both candidates were clumsily trying to explain the meaning and motivation of the two coalitions that have formed during the primary. I would imagine that both of them wish they hadn't said it, considering the blow back. But neither of them were trying to be dismissive or derisive toward the other candidate's coalition. After all, both of them are quite bright and knew that neither one of them could hope to win in the fall without it.

Bob Somerby points to a discussion of this topic on Reliable Sources this week-end:

We’ve discussed The Cult of the Offhand Comment before; its commandments shape much of our sad, sorry discourse. But as we noted on Friday, the hub-bub over Clinton’s remark illustrates another key point. Within the world of the mainstream press, pundits are allowed to discuss certain topics—but disfavored politicians will be trashed for doing the same. The press can discuss them; the pols need permission! And uh-oh! On Sunday’s Reliable Sources, Clarence Page expressed this rule rather perfectly. We call attention to his exchange with Howard Kurtz because it illustrates this key point so nicely:

KURTZ (5/12/08): Clarence Page, was this a terrible racial remark for Hillary Clinton to make about white voters?

PAGE: Well, it was not good political etiquette. I can't remember when I have ever heard a candidate speak so candidly. It's normally your operatives, your surrogates, your consultants who talk like that—or us, the pundits.

Or us, the pundits! In fact, the nation’s pundits had been “talking like that” non-stop, around the clock, for weeks. Aside from the clumsiness of her remark, why shouldn’t Clinton have done the same? Kurtz pursued things further:

KURTZ (continuing directly): But that's not to say that—But that's the point. It's not to say that it's not true. In fact, she is quoting an Associated Press article.

PAGE: Truth is only part of the game here, Howard. We're talking about politics, after all. And we're talking about a candidate who up front says, well, my opponent is weak with white voters. So I'm going to go out and get them.

You know, race is still too sensitive a topic in this country for you to just blindly say that as if we're talking about, say, Catholic voters, say, during the 1960 campaign with JFK.

Race is too sensitive a topic, Page said. For that reason, we are allowed to discuss it non-stop. But we’ll have to reserve the right to beat up on pols when they do.

Note one more part of Page’s remark. It’s OK to talk about Catholic voters in 1960; you just can’t talk about white voters now. Let’s expand that point just a bit:

As we noted months ago, pundits thought it was A-OK when Huckabee’s opponents noted that his Iowa win was driven by evangelical voters. That was OK—but a few weeks later, it wasn’t OK to say that Obama’s win in South Carolina was largely driven by black voters. Presumably, that’s because of the press corps’ finely-developed sensitivities about these very difficult matters. Either that, or these people have a set of rules which may not make perfect sense.

Again, do I think Clinton should have said what she said? Of course not. I'm sure she agrees. Neither do I think that Barack Obama was happy with himself for saying that voters he needs to win in the fall are bitter. Partisans on both sides may think each of these candidates are racists or snobs, but neither of them are stupid. Both Clinton and Obama were clumsily repeating observations they'd heard, oh --- a million times --- about"what the white working class voter really wants." It's a non-stop topic among the gasbags, an obsession among pollsters. Library shelves are lined with books on the subject.

Page says no politician should ever bring this up, and he is probably right. But you can hardly blame either one of them for slipping up in the middle of a grueling campaign when asked about it, considering that it's pretty much all the media have been talking about for weeks.

For those of you who are interested in whether this race really is racist, I would urge you to read the posts by Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com. It's not exactly clear what all the motivating factors are, of course, but it's certainly more complicated than race --- or the latest craze, age:

Age or Education?

Amidst the personal craziness last week, I neglected to link to two columns from network pollsters that provide some valuable data from the exit polls on the Obama-Clinton race tabulated by race, education and income. Interest in this issue peaked last week after Barack Obama, said the following after his loss in the Pennsylvania primary:

I have to say if you look at and I know my staff has talked about this: If you look at the numbers, in fact, our problem has less to do with white working class voters. In fact, the problem is that, to the extent there is a problem, is that the older voters are very loyal to Senator Clinton.

ABC's polling director Gary Langer combined data from exit polls to look at support for the two candidates among white voters by age and income. "Age clearly is a factor," he concludes, "but it’s equally clear that socioeconomic status, as measured by the education and income alike, is independently a factor, and a big one."

I suspect this is simply because people of lesser means associate Clinton with better economic times and they are feeling the pinch of debt and insecurity. The working class is a group that always liked Bill and probably like Hill as a result. (Working class African Americans are probably paying closer attention to Barack's inspiring personal story, for obvious reasons, and are choosing him for affirmative, inspirational reasons, as are many upper class whites.) The MSM and blogospheric echo chamber's tantrums notwithstanding, I don't think it's too much more complicated than that.

No doubt there are racists among them, but I would guess that for every racist Democratic woman who voted for Clinton (I say a woman because racist males wouldn't be likely to have feminist leanings either) there is a sexist Democratic male who voted for Obama. I doubt that one is more prevalent than the other in the Party. What remains to be seen is whether there are enough racist independent voters out in the country to tip the election to McCain. I doubt that too. The country is sick of Republicans and their policies and unless we allow John McCain to pretend that he is something other than a standard issue Republican, he can't win.


Update: And for those of you who are still interested in how the media affect our politics, read that Reliable Sources transcript.

I'm not a primary partisan, but I certainly agree with this:

SIMON: ...I find that if you go into Hillary crowds, the anger you find on the part of her supporters, especially women supporters, is directed not against Barack Obama, but against the media.

There is a real deep hatred for how the media has treated Hillary Clinton. We've treated her unfairly, they say. We've been sexist. The debates of male-dominated media have beaten her up, have given her tougher questions. She complains she got the first question.

This actually makes it easier for Obama to unify the party. They're not angry at him. They're angry at the media.

KURTZ: And Kate Zernike, have you have found that as well? And do you think there is some justification among those who passionately support Hillary Clinton's candidacy that she just simply hasn't gotten a fair break from the press?

ZERNIKE: Yes. I mean, I think what people were reacting to this week wasn't so much the media declaring the race over, as it was this kind of "Ding dong the witch is dead" quality about that tone to the comments. And I do think people are angry.

And I think when you look at, you know, the percentages of Hillary Clinton supporters who say they won't support Obama, I think Roger is right. They're mad at -- they're mad at the media. They're not necessarily mad at Obama.

They talk about it like it was somebody else who did it instead of themselves.

They showed they can give Barack the treatment too during the Wright business and they'll be doing it with gusto going forward, I'm sure. But, the most amazing story of the media in this primary was its blatant sexism. They know it and they don't care.

Update: Joan Walsh is right about this: John "how do we beat the bitch" McCain is a hypocritical jackass. Obama should just keep doing what he's doing and he'll be fine.



.
digby 5/12/2008 12:28:00 PM |

 
The Log In Our Own Eye

by tristero

PZ Myers links to a story of truly monstrous religious madness:

"Two weeks after The Observer revealed the shocking story of Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, murdered because of her infatuation with a British solider in Basra, southern Iraq, her father is defiant. Sitting in the front garden of his well-kept home in the city's Al-Fursi district, he remains a free man, despite having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his student daughter to death."

And that isn't all. Read PZ's post for more details that will increase your despair for humanity.

What singularly shocks is the extent to which this behavior was accepted by the community. I would imagine that there are proportionally about as many Muslim fathers capable of psychotic rage who would stomp their daughter to death as there are Christian and Jewish ones - that is, not many at all. So obviously, something is seriously twisted about any community, religious or otherwise, that condones such insanity.

That said, this ghastly incident will probably serve as an occasion for some folks to re-assert the moral superiority of "the West" and to denounce the evils of "multi-culturalism." It shouldn't: generalizing from this horror is utterly fallacious. For if one does generalize, then one needs also to turn those generalizations back on ourselves.

In our larger society, we have plenty of objectively immoral acts that we condone or excuse or avoid confronting that make claims of higher moral standards absurd. One example: The people of the United States will almost surely permit the men who planned and executed the razing of Fallujah to escape justice, only one of countless war crimes for which the present leaders of this country will never be held accountable.

Obviously, stomping a child to death is a uniquely horrible crime. And it points to something seriously askew in the immediate cultural milieu if that community finds any excuse to condone or excuse it. Of course, anyone with an ounce of moral sense unequivocally condemns it. But incidents like this represent no opportunity to hold our own larger society up as an exemplar for others. Condemning is one thing, and fully deserved. Feeling superior is another, and is utterly unwarranted.

tristero 5/12/2008 10:51:00 AM |

 
Show Us Your Papers

by digby


And so it begins:

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.

The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

Sponsors of the amendment — which requires the approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum — say it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship.

Voting experts say the Missouri amendment represents the next logical step for those who have supported stronger voter ID requirements and the next battleground in how elections are conducted. Similar measures requiring proof of citizenship are being considered in at least 19 state legislatures. Bills in Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and South Carolina have strong support. But only in Missouri does the requirement have a chance of taking effect before the presidential election.

In Arizona, the only state that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, more than 38,000 voter registration applications have been thrown out since the state adopted its measure in 2004. That number was included in election data obtained through a lawsuit filed by voting rights advocates and provided to The New York Times. More than 70 percent of those registrations came from people who stated under oath that they were born in the United States, the data showed.

This is what the voter fraud fraud has always been about: making voting such a hassle that a lot of voters will just figure it isn't worth the trouble or don't feel like being treated like dirt by officials who suspect them of being criminals on the basis of their ethnicity. I would imagine that there are a whole lot of older people who've never had to prove their citizenship in their lives and wouldn't have a clue about how to go about doing it.

This whittling away at the franchise will be one of the greatest accomplishments of the conservative movement when all is said and done. They simply don't believe in the democratic concept of one person one vote. Never have.


.
digby 5/12/2008 12:00:00 AM |

Sunday, May 11, 2008

 
Grave Appearance Problems

by digby

A decision by a military judge on Friday to disqualify a top Pentagon official from any further role in a Guantánamo war crimes case was a major new challenge to the Bush administration’s legal approach to the war on terrorism.

The ruling, in the case against Salim Hamdan, a detainee who was a driver for Osama bin Laden, transformed what had been something of a Pentagon soap opera over how to prosecute detainees into a formal ruling that gave new force to critics’ accusations of improper political influence over this country’s first use of military commissions since World War II.

At issue is the role of a Pentagon office called the “convening authority,” which oversees the military prosecutors and has extensive power over the defense lawyers and judges in the cases against Guantánamo detainees. One role of that office is to be a neutral arbiter, deciding such matters as allocation of resources for both the defense and prosecution and which charges brought by prosecutors should go to trial.

But military defense lawyers and other critics have said officials running that office have overstepped the bounds of impartiality by pushing prosecutors to charge more detainees and to use evidence obtained under coercive interrogations.

Lawyers said the ruling set the stage for new challenges that could slow even the administration’s highest priority Guantánamo prosecution, against six detainees for the 2001 terrorist attacks. One of the six is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-professed planner of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

“The military judge has said that, at the very least, there are grave appearance problems with this system,” said Michael J. Berrigan, the deputy chief defense counsel for the Guantánamo cases.

Uh Huh

A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial, sometimes likened to a drumhead court-martial or Drumhead trial, is a sham legal proceeding or court. Kangaroo courts are judicial proceedings that deny due process in the name of expediency. The outcome of such a trial is essentially made in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.

The term is often applied to courts subjectively judged as such, while others consider the court to be legitimate and legal. A kangaroo court may be a court that has had its integrity compromised; for example, if the judge is not impartial and refuses to be recused.

It may also be an elaborately scripted event intended to appear fair while having the outcome predetermined from the start. Terms meaning "show trial", like the German Schauprozess, indicate the result is fixed before (usually guilty): the "trial" is just for show. Notorious were Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin's kangaroo trials against his enemies, whom he labeled enemies of the people, notably in the context of the Great Purge. Another example is Roland Freisler's "processes" against the enemies of the National-Socialist regime.

Just saying.


.
digby 5/11/2008 11:42:00 AM |

Saturday, May 10, 2008

 
Saturday Night At The Movies



Sky high Fe: Downey carries the torch for Iron Man























Robert Downey Jr. forges a head.


By Dennis Hartley

Although it’s about a month too early according to my calendar, the season of popcorn has now been officially thrust upon us with the release of Iron Man, the latest live-action “issue” produced from the seemingly inexhaustible stable of Marvel Comics superheroes.

This marks the fourth feature film and the second fantasy-adventure in a row from director-writer-actor Jon Favreau (Made, Elf and Zathura: A Space Adventure). Despite his growing list of director’s credits, Favreau the actor is probably still most recognizable for his role as the neurotic, lovelorn stand-up comic in Doug Liman’s 1996 cult film Swingers. Favreau also wrote the screenplay for that film, which means that you can credit (or blame) him with being the party who is responsible for adding the now ubiquitous catchphrase “Vegas, baby, Vegas!” to the pop culture lexicon.

For his new film, Favreau turns screenwriting chores over to Mark Fegus and Hawk Otsby; but those who are paying close attention will catch a brief, clever visual homage to Swingers in the opening sequence, which takes place in (you guessed it) Las Vegas. Favreau casts himself as one of the nattily attired security men for wealthy inventor/industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) who is in town to accept a recognition award for his ingenious achievements in the advancement of weapons technology. Stark is a cocky eccentric who enjoys the typical pursuits and distractions of a rich playboy, when not ensconced in the high-tech basement laboratory of his (movie fabulous) cliff mansion in Malibu. He is attended to by a beautiful and trusty gal Friday, Pepper Pots (Gwyneth Paltrow). In other words, he’s living the uber-geek’s fantasy life.

While on a junket in Afghanistan to demonstrate and promote sales of his latest missile technology, Stark’s military escort convoy is ambushed and he is captured by a group of terrorists, who then demand that he construct a crude prototype of his new warhead for their further development. With the assistance of a fellow prisoner, (a doctor/scientist, naturally) Stark instead constructs an armored suit with built-in weapon technology and jet-propulsion capabilities, which enables his eventual escape. You know-the kind of thing most of us can throw together by just recycling a few items laying about the cave.

Stark is quite shaken by his experience, and is particularly traumatized by the realization that the terrorist’s cave complex was chock-a-block with crates of weaponry labeled “Stark Industries”. He calls a press conference after his return to the states. Stricken by his conscience, he announces that his company will detach themselves from the propagation of the war machine and instead devote research and development to high-tech products that will be more beneficial to humanity (now THERE’S a fantasy). The scene reminded me of that famous newsreel where a-bomb developer Robert Oppenheimer utters his mournful epiphany: “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds”, precipitating the anti-nuke crusade he was to embark on for the rest of his life.

This sudden and unexpected amendment to the corporate mission statement doesn’t settle well with the VP of Stark Industries, Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges) who thinks the CEO has gone off his rocker. Obadiah’s duplicitous machinations eventually lead to his transmogrification into our newly minted superhero’s first arch-nemesis, “Iron Monger”.

Paltrow and Downey have great chemistry in all their scenes together. I would have enjoyed a bit more screen time for Bridges; the transformation of his character from standard issue corporate weasel to super villain suffers a bit of the bum’s rush. This is likely due to time constraints; the movie clocks in at just over two hours as is, and it always takes longer to “introduce” the protagonist in the first installment of a franchise.

The film is thankfully bereft of the headache and/or vertigo-inducing f/x overkill one usually encounters in this genre (the reason I generally avoid the comic book inspired action flicks these days; chalk it up to the joys of aging). The action sequences are exciting and quite well done, but parceled out in just the right amounts. The emphasis is on character development, helped along quite nicely by a talented cast. Downey’s knack for physical comedy enlivens a hugely entertaining montage depicting the construction of his “new and improved” body armor. Downey keeps getting better, and despite the fact that he is not the first actor one thinks of as the “superhero type” he is perfectly cast here as the complex Tony Stark. You could say… the irony suits him well (insert groan here).

Heavy metal kids: Rocketeer, Inframan, Robocop Trilogy, Transformers , King of the Rocket Men, J-Men Forever!, Gandahar(aka Light Years), Aliens, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Knightriders, Excalibur, The Court Jester, Monty Python and the Holy Grail , The Wizard of Oz, Man in the Iron Mask(1939), The Man in the Iron Mask (1998),The Iron Giant , Castle in the Sky, The Terminator, Dr. No, The Spy Who Loved Me.


.
Dennis Hartley 5/10/2008 06:00:00 PM |

 
FDL Book Salon

by digby

The Good Fight




“Ours is a time of great political disaffection, and I understand it, because so far in this new century, we have failed the people of this country. We’ve got a lot of damage to repair. There are no magic bullets. Future generations will look back on this period as a very dark one if we fail. But heaven help us if we don’t try.” Harry Reid, The Good Fight: Hard Lessons From Searchlight To Washington

No kidding.

I didn't know much about Harry Reid's background before I read his memoir other than that he came from a small town, had boxed in his youth and served on the Nevada gaming commission before going into politics. I assumed I wouldn't be reading the usual up-by-his-Sperry top-siders from Andover to Yale that usually characterizes political biography in this country but I have to say that this wasn't what I expected either:

I come from a mining town.

But by the time I came along - December 2, 1939 - the leading industry in my hometown of Searchlight, Nevada, was no longer mining, it was prostitution. I don't exaggerate. There was a local law that said you could not have a house of prostitution or a place that served alcohol within so many feet of a school. Once, when it was determined that one of the clubs was in violation of this law, they moved the school.

As a boy, I learned to swim at a whorehouse. Nobody in town had ever seen such a fancy inground tiled pool in their lives as