I don't get it.

Why hasn't anyone switched away from the Republican Party? When the Democrats got crushed in 1994, ideological conservatives who had been caucusing D because they wanted to remain in the majority party switched to Republican:

Richard Shelby
Dan Richey
Jimmy Hayes
Greg Laughlin
Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Billy Tauzin
Nathan Deal
Mike Parker


Now that the Republicans have been crushed -- twice -- where are the Republicans switching to Democratic? Snowe? Collins? Specter? The Republican Party as it now exists is a radical organization, one run by abhorrent, anti-American figures like Rush Limbaugh. But "moderate" Republicans seem perfectly happy to continue belonging to that party, while paying lip service to "moderation" and "independence." If they are so moderate, why can't they bring themselves to reject the extremism that is their own party? Even when their own political survival is on the line, they prefer to hang with the Rushpublicans, gambling that they can do just enough to hold on to their seats. They'd rather lose, even, than switch (Smith, Sununu, et al). Why?

Bipartisanship watch

The stimulus bill passes the House, 244 - 188. Not a single Republican voted in favor of it.

I'm sure David Broder is penning a furious denunciation of Republican obstructionism this very moment.

Brief thought on Star Trek

I've been watching the original Star Trek programs, which CBS has put on their website. It's interesting to watch how Roddenberry's original vision, in which he had a strong woman as the ship's first officer, became warped, as it were, into what we actually saw on the show, with women seldom portrayed as much more than eye candy, wearing those go-go dancer outfits with their asses hanging out of them:




Nowadays, of course, such a thing wouldn't happen -- we still like our eye candy, but we also have women who are capable of doing something more than looking good and then looking for a man to protect them. But back then, I assume it was done because A) everyone knew women shouldn't lead -- it just felt wrong; and B) the studio people didn't think the concept would sell without a lot of T&A.

Anyway, these shows are pretty interesting. You had blacks and Hispanics playing prominent roles, relevant, cutting edge social commentary at a time of polarization, generally good stories (some of them are even brilliant), appealing characters, and solid acting (In my view Nimoy's superb turn as Spock nullifies Shatner's frequent hamminess as Kirk, plus Shatner does bring charisma to the role). I wonder if there's any TV show out there now that's as courageous, or if the reality TV craze, and generally slovenly state of our culture, have driven the entire medium down to the level of those Star Trek go-go girl outfits.

Bipartisanship

Republicans signaled Sunday that they would not be daunted by President Obama's soaring approval ratings, criticizing his proposed $825-billion economic stimulus plan, his strategy for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay and his decision to exempt a top-ranking Pentagon appointee from new ethics rules.

Some of the sharpest criticism came from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the party's challenger to Obama in the election and the recipient of aggressive outreach as part of the new president's efforts to forge an image of bipartisanship.

Obama honored McCain on the eve of last week's inauguration with a bipartisan candlelight dinner, and he has solicited his former rival's advice on top appointments. McCain has returned the favor by pressing fellow Republicans to speedily confirm Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But Sunday, McCain had few kind words for Obama's initial moves as president. He called it "disingenuous" for the White House to impose new rules to limit the influence of lobbyists but immediately claim an exemption for William Lynn III, the nominee to be deputy Defense secretary, who has lobbied on behalf of defense contractor Raytheon Co.

The whole story.

I really hope all Obama's talk about bipartisanship was aimed more at the Beltway media hacks, and not the Republicans -- otherwise Obama is going to end up looking like a naive fool. Because the Republicans don't care about "bipartisanship," and sitting on a loyal, albeit rump, base that is geographically discrete, and with the backing of an extensive media support network, they don't have to. Getting anything done is going to require slugging it out -- it's the only game the Republicans play. Obama might score some style points with all his pretty talk, but he'd better be able to back it up with some hard punching when it comes down to it.

Interesting that when the Republicans ran the show, any hint of a lack of obedience on the part of the Democrats was met by a firestorm of demands for "bipartisanship," the word "obstructionism" was heard in every news story, and the "liberal" members of the punditocracy wrung their hands and predicted utter doom for the Democratic Party unless they shut up, sat down, and voted for whatever it was that the Republicans wanted. I haven't seen one prediction of doom for the Republicans, despite Obama's sky-high approval ratings, a disastrous economic picture created by Republican misrule that demands immediate attention, and the Republicans getting blown out in two consecutive elections, while their brand name is down there with Enron's. Bipartisanship sure is an odd word in Washington.

"He kept us safe"

We've been told now for years that the Gitmo prisoners were too dangerous to be released, and we're being told now that they are so dangerous, so incredibly radioactive, that they can't be entrusted to our prison system. Yet, the record keeping of these prisoners was so haphazard, that I wonder if anyone even knows who any of them is:

President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is "scattered throughout the executive branch," a senior administration official said. The executive order Obama signed Thursday orders the prison closed within one year, and a Cabinet-level panel named to review each case separately will have to spend its initial weeks and perhaps months scouring the corners of the federal government in search of relevant material.

Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each prisoner. They said that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were reluctant to share information, and that the Bush administration's focus on detention and interrogation made preparation of viable prosecutions a far lower priority.

...

Charles D. "Cully" Stimson, who served as deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee affairs in 2006-2007, said he had persistent problems in attempts to assemble all information on individual cases. Threats to recommend the release or transfer of a detainee were often required, he said, to persuade the CIA to "cough up a sentence or two."

A second former Pentagon official said most individual files are heavily summarized dossiers that do not contain the kind of background and investigative work that would be put together by a federal prosecution team. He described "regular food fights" among different parts of the government over information-sharing on the detainees.

A CIA spokesman denied that the agency had not been "forthcoming" with detainee information, saying that such suggestions were "simply wrong" and that "we have worked very closely with other agencies to share what we know" about the prisoners. While denying there had been problems, one intelligence official said the Defense Department was far more likely to be responsible for any information lapses, since it had initially detained and interrogated most of the prisoners and had been in charge of them at the prison.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that the Defense Department would cooperate fully in the review.

"Fundamentally, we believe that the individual files on each detainee are comprehensive and sufficiently organized," Morrell said. He added that "in many cases, there will be thousands of pages of documents . . . which makes a comprehensive assessment a time-consuming endeavor."

"Not all the documents are physically located in one place," Morrell said, but most are available through a database.

"The main point here is that there are lots of records, and we are prepared to make them available to anybody who needs to see them as part of this review."

There have been indications from within and outside the government for some time, however, that evidence and other materials on the Guantanamo prisoners were in disarray, even though most of the detainees have been held for years.

Justice Department lawyers responding in federal courts to defense challenges over the past six months have said repeatedly that the government was overwhelmed by the sudden need to assemble material after Supreme Court rulings giving detainees habeas corpus and other rights.

In one federal filing, the Justice Department said that "the record . . . is not simply a collection of papers sitting in a box at the Defense Department. It is a massive undertaking just to produce the record in this one case." In another filing, the department said that "defending these cases requires an intense, inter-agency coordination of efforts. None of the relevant agencies, however, was prepared to handle this volume of habeas cases on an expedited basis."

Evidence gathered for military commission trials is in disarray, according to some former officials, who said military lawyers lacked the trial experience to prosecute complex international terrorism cases.

In a court filing this month, Darrel Vandeveld, a former military prosecutor at Guantanamo who asked to be relieved of his duties, said evidence was "strewn throughout the prosecution offices in desk drawers, bookcases packed with vaguely-labeled plastic containers, or even simply piled on the tops of desks."

He said he once accidentally found "crucial physical evidence" that "had been tossed in a locker located at Guantanamo and promptly forgotten."

If these people are so incredibly dangerous, doesn't it make fucking sense to deal with them in some kind of organized fashion, so everyone would know exactly what they are dealing with? Apparently not to Bush. And the toughtalking, swaggering, brush clearing cowboy was able to bully the CIA when it came to getting information shaped the way he wanted it during the runup to Iraq, but when it comes to making them share information on the allegedly most dangerous people in the world, people so menacing that we had to subvert the Constitution and international law in order to deny them trials and keep them locked up, well, he was just too weak to get that job done.

It's Bush to a T: cynical, amoral symbolism backed by utterly inept management, poor planning, and no think-through. And this is the guy the conservatives are saying "kept us safe." Bullshit. If you can't maintain decent records on the most scary, bad men the world has ever known, you can't work shoplifting security at Walmart.

Guantanamo, the PATRIOT Act, FISA, the Military commissions Act -- it's our generation's Japanese Internment, Bull Connor, black list -- our generation's stain that future generations will look back on and feel superior to us for, and tell themselves they'll never be so short-sighted as to make the same mistakes.

Inaugural blurb

I thought Obama's speech sucked. It was nothing more than a cut-and-paste of the most recent six inaugural addresses, delivered in a harsh, scolding tone. Not vintage Obama at all.

Aretha Franklin is, in my view, the most important artist this country has produced in any medium except film. She's also pretty much done. Every time I hear her sing now I end up cringing, stopping my ears, and then running to play some vintage Aretha, YGaB (my favorite of hers, and one of my favorite albums ever), or I Never Loved A Man, to wash the sound out of my ears.

Garth Brooks is an awesome performer, energetic, charismatic, warm, and he looks like he's out there having the time of his life, and he wants you to have the time of your life, too. I don't even like country music. But I'd go to a Brooks concert, just because it would be a blast. Of course, I'd probably end up getting into a fight with a drunk redneck or two, but that would just add to the experience.


Watching all the red and blue up on the stage, the eclectic choice of performers, makes me almost think Obama can pull this "Bringing us together" stuff off. He certainly seems determined. But if he fails....

Not all asses are created equal

Kissing Bill Clinton's ass = bad:

The more things change, the more Bill Clinton.....talks. And talks. And talks.

The country's "first black president" until the real one came along was the big hit at the Fairfax Hotel Monday night, where he held court near the entrance, lecturing Doris Kearns Goodwin about progressive voting patterns and Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett about ... well, we couldn't really hear over the din, but he did most of the talking and she nodded and said, "That's exactly right." Very diplomatic of her...

(Of course, it's quite possible -- even probable -- that Jarrett simply agreed with Clinton, but, well, this is a Clinton we're talking about here. And Clinton snark never goes out of style.)


Kissing Maureen Dowd's ass is something to be proud of:

Steve Clemons:thanks for the note Wig—actually, not embarrassed at all. I liked the post I did—and find the comments that have followed amusing. Don't know Somerby but glad what I wrote gave him time to scribble on something.

One is a former, successful president, known around the world for his political smarts and policy expertise. The other is a fucking lunatic. Guess whose ass warrants kissing in Washington?


Clemons is part of two in-crowds: the Marshall/Iglesias/etc blogging clique, and the Washington insider clique. I'm sure Clemons' personal future is quite bright given his connections; given what that says about what it takes to get ahead in Washington, though, well, the future of the rest of us might not be so promising.



Maybe we can't, after all.