Quote of the day: The NYT explains editorially why Republicans in Congress have to go (Plus: Frank Rich jabs at the "Beltway establishment")
>
"This election is indeed about George W. Bush--and the Congressional majority's insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds."
--from the conclusion of today's New York Times lead editorial, "The Difference Two Years Made"*
"On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election," the editorial begins, "we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory."
The Republican majority in Congress, the editorial notes, "has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy." And, of course, "Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition--and even the more moderate members of their own party--out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation." [Excuse us, NYT, but was there ever a moment when House GOP boss of bosses Tom DeLay, seen here in his famous mugshot, made any attempt to hide the fact that he planned to do everything he could think of to ensure a permanent Republican majority in Congress?]But "the breaking point," says the editorial, "came over the Republicans' attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. . . . [O]ver the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president's ability to do whatever he wants."
ALSO TALKING--Frank Rich points finger of shame at the obliviousness of the "Beltway establishment"
"Throw the Truthiness Bums Out," shouts Frank Rich's NYT column today, and he has a lot to say about "the incessant shell game played with fiction and reality" in this campaign season. Paying tribute to Stephen Colbert's coinage, "truthiness," he takes aim at the now-standard substitution by right wingers of the make-believe article for the real thing. And he concludes with this provocative suggestion*:In retrospect, the defining moment of the 2006 campaign may well have been back in April, when Mr. Colbert appeared at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner [pictured above]. Call it a cultural primary. His performance was judged a bomb by the Washington press corps, which yukked it up instead for a Bush impersonator who joined the president in a benign sketch commissioned by the White House. But millions of Americans watching C-Span and the Web did get Mr. Colbert's routine. They recognized that the Beltway establishment sitting stone-faced in his audience was the butt of his jokes, especially the very news media that had parroted Bush administration fictions leading America into the quagmire of Iraq.
Five months later, a video of Mr. Colbert's dinner speech is still a runaway iTunes hit and his comic contempt for Washington is more popular than ever. It's enough to give you hope that the voters may rally for reality on this crucial Election Day even as desperate politicians and some of their media enablers try one more time to stay their fictional course.
- - - - - - - - - -
As usual, the full text of the NYT editorial and the Rich column are appended in a comment.
posted by KenInNY @ 2:42 PM
2 comments
|
Reddit
2 Comments:
(1) Here is the full text of the NYT editorial:
November 5, 2006
Editorial
The Difference Two Years Made
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House--and for the most part, the Senate--during President Bush's tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country's dependence on foreign oil.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition--and even the more moderate members of their own party--out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women's rights.
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans' attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president's ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don't need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.
After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president's campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush's goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.
This election is indeed about George W. Bush--and the Congressional majority's insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.
(2) And here is the full text of Frank Rich's column:
November 5, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Throw the Truthiness Bums Out
By FRANK RICH
EACH voter will have a favorite moment from the fabulous midterms of 2006. Forced to pick my own, I'd go for Lynne Cheney's pre-Halloween slapdown of Wolf Blitzer on CNN. It's not in every political campaign that you get to watch the wife of the vice president of the United States slug it out about lesbian sex while promoting a children's book titled "Our 50 States: A Family Adventure Across America."
The pretext for this improbable dust-up was a last-ditch strategy by the flailing incumbent Republican senator of Virginia, George Allen. Desperate to resuscitate his campaign, Senator Allen attacked his opponent, Jim Webb, for writing sexually explicit passages in his acclaimed novels about the Vietnam War. Mr. Webb fought back by pointing out, among other Republican hypocrisies, Mrs. Cheney's authorship of an out-of-print 1981 novel, "Sisters," with steamy sexual interludes suitable for "The L Word."
When Mr. Blitzer brought up "Sisters" on live television, Mrs. Cheney went ballistic, calling Mr. Webb a liar. The exchange would have been a TiVo keeper had only the CNN anchor called Mrs. Cheney out by reading aloud just one of the many "Sisters" passages floating around the Internet: "The women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve crossing a dark cathedral stage--no, Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit and knew themselves as they truly were." But you can't have everything.
Even without Eve and Eve, this silly episode will stay with me as a representative sample of this election year. It wasn't just that the entire Cheney-Blitzer-Webb-Allen fracas had nothing to do with the issues that confront the country. It was completely detached from reality. Mr. Allen, who has been caught on video in real life spewing a racial epithet, didn't attack Mr. Webb for any actual bad behavior, but merely for the imaginary behavior of invented characters in a book. As if it weren't enough for Mrs. Cheney to regurgitate Mr. Allen's ludicrous argument, she fudged the contents of her own novel, further fictionalizing what was fiction to start with. Then she turned around and attacked CNN for broadcasting nonfiction--a k a news--like her husband's endorsement of waterboarding in a widely disseminated radio interview.
The incessant shell game played with fiction and reality turned this episode of Mr. Blitzer's program, "The Situation Room," into a sober inversion of Comedy Central's "Colbert Report," in which Stephen Colbert's satirical Fox-style TV blowhard interviews real-life politicians. Here the interviewer, Mr. Blitzer, was real, but the politician, Mrs. Cheney, was bogus, shamelessly making everything up and hoping her playacting would make her outrageous fictions credible. Maybe in some precincts it did.
The 2002 midterms were ridiculed as the "Seinfeld" election--about nothing--and 2006 often does seem like the "Colbert" election, so suffused is it with unreality, or what Mr. Colbert calls "truthiness." Or perhaps the "Borat" election, after the character created by Mr. Colbert's equally popular British counterpart, Sacha Baron Cohen, whose mockumentary about the American travels of a crude fictional TV reporter from Kazakhstan opened to great acclaim this weekend. Like both these comedians, our politicians and their media surrogates have been going to extremes this year to blur the difference between truth and truthiness, all the better to confuse the audience.
But there's one important difference. When Mr. Colbert's fake talking head provokes a real congressman into making a fool of himself or Mr. Baron Cohen's fake reporter tries to storm the real White House's gates, it's a merry prank for our entertainment. By contrast, the clowns on the ballot busily falsifying reality are vying to be in charge of our real world at one of the most perilous times in our history.
While lying politicians and hyperbolic negative TV campaign ads are American staples, the artificial realities created this year are on a scale worthy of Disney, if not Stalin. In the campaign's final stretch, Congress and President Bush passed with great fanfare a new law to erect a 700-mile border fence to keep out rampaging Mexican immigrants, but guaranteed no money to actually build it. Rush Limbaugh tried to persuade his devoted audience that Michael J. Fox had exaggerated his Parkinson's symptoms in an ad for candidates who support stem-cell research purely as an act.
In a class by itself is the president's down-to-the-wire effort to brand his party as the defender of "traditional" marriage even as the same-sex scandals of conservative leaders on and off Capitol Hill make "La Cage aux Folles" look like "The Sound of Music." Just in recent days, the Rev. Ted Haggard, a favored Bush spiritual adviser and visitor to the Oval Office (if not the Lincoln Bedroom), resigned as leader of the National Association of Evangelicals after accusations that he patronized a male prostitute, and the Talking Points Memo blog broke the story of the Republican Party taking money from a gay-porn distributor whose stars include active-duty soldiers. (A film version of Mrs. Cheney's "Sisters," alas, still awaits.)
And always, always there's the false reality imposed on Iraq: "Absolutely, we're winning!" in the president's recent formulation. After all this time, you'd think the Iraq fictions wouldn't work anymore. The overwhelming majority of Americans now know that we were conned into this mess in the first place by two fake story lines manufactured by the White House, a connection between 9/11 and Saddam and an imminent threat of nuclear Armageddon. Both were trotted out in our last midterm campaign to rush a feckless Congress into voting for a war authorization before Election Day. As the administration pulls the same ploy four years later, this time to keep the fiasco going, you have to wonder if it can get away with lying once more.
Given the polls, I would have said no, but last week's John Kerry farce gives me pause. Whatever lame joke or snide remark the senator was trying to impart, it was no more relevant to the reality unfolding in Iraq than the sex scenes in Jim Webb's novels. But as the White House ingeniously inflated a molehill by a noncandidate into a mountain of fake news, real news from Iraq was often downplayed or ignored entirely. It was a chilling example of how even now a skit ginned up by the administration screenwriters can dwarf and obliterate reality in our media culture.
On the same day Mr. Kerry blundered, the United States suffered a palpable and major defeat in Iraq. The Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, once again doing the bidding of the anti-American leader Moktada al-Sadr, somehow coerced American forces into dismantling their cordon of Sadr City, where they were searching for a kidnapped soldier. As the melodramatic debates over how much Mr. Kerry should apologize dragged on longer, still more real news got short shrift: the October death toll for Americans in Iraq was the highest in nearly two years. Some 90 percent of the dead were enlisted men and nearly a third were on extended tours of duty or their second or third tours. Their average age was 24.
When the premises for war were being sold four years ago, you could turn to the fake news of Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" to find the skepticism that might poke holes in the propaganda. Four years later, the press is much chastened by its failure to do its job back then, but not all of the press. While both Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert made sport of the media's overkill on the Kerry story, their counterparts in "real" television news, especially but not exclusively on cable, flogged it incessantly. Only after The New York Times uncovered a classified Pentagon chart documenting Iraq's rapid descent into chaos did reality begin to intrude on the contrived contretemps posed by another tone-deaf flub from a former presidential candidate not even on the ballot.
In retrospect, the defining moment of the 2006 campaign may well have been back in April, when Mr. Colbert appeared at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner. Call it a cultural primary. His performance was judged a bomb by the Washington press corps, which yukked it up instead for a Bush impersonator who joined the president in a benign sketch commissioned by the White House. But millions of Americans watching C-Span and the Web did get Mr. Colbert's routine. They recognized that the Beltway establishment sitting stone-faced in his audience was the butt of his jokes, especially the very news media that had parroted Bush administration fictions leading America into the quagmire of Iraq.
Five months later, a video of Mr. Colbert's dinner speech is still a runaway iTunes hit and his comic contempt for Washington is more popular than ever. It's enough to give you hope that the voters may rally for reality on this crucial Election Day even as desperate politicians and some of their media enablers try one more time to stay their fictional course.
As soon as I saw Mrs. Cheneys little "performance" the other day I thought of Clintons take down of Chris Wallace. I think this was some lame attempt on the part of Karl Rove to do for the right what Bill did for the left that day.
There's two words that make all the difference. Righteous Indignation.
Post a Comment
<< Home