Archive for March, 2007

Snap! Chris Rock Brings the Pain - to Giuliani

Posted by parmenides on March 30th, 2007

I know there is all sorts of good politics to talk about, but I want to focus on comedians again, since they are funny. That seems pretty obvious, but listening to them is a lot more entertaining than Alberto Gonzales testifying before Congress on C-SPAN.

Normally I focus on Stephen Colbert, since his faux conservatism really hits the absurdity of the conservative position on its head and exposes the lunacy behind their propaganda. But comedians in general often have a better grasp on how to delivery a succinct message in a way that stick in people’s heads, often even after hearing the joke only once.

Here are two recent gems from Chris Rock on last week’s SNL.

On Guiliani: “He’s great – in a crisis. But in real life Giuliani’s kinda like a pit bull. He’s great when you have a burglar, but if you don’t, he just might eat your kids.”

On having a black president: “Is America ready for a black President? I say why not? We just had a retarded one.”

The Giuliani bit is awesome. My friends in NYC have said the same thing, but no so succinctly. He is great in a crisis, but under normal circumstances he is an arrogant, close-minded dictator. And Lord knows we do not need more of those running the country. Rock’s pit bull quote brings that sentiment down to a funny and immensely understandable concept. They guy is good for only one thing. Running the country on a day-to-day basis is not it. But as head of Homeland Security? Now that would be a great job for any President to give to the Rudester.

Now the joke about having a retarded President may go to far for some people’s taste. But I do like it since it explodes the stupid question of whether we are ready for a black President. By relating that question to retardation, he is saying the question itself is retarded. At this day and age, we should be beyond asking this inane query. And yet, we are not. That is, well, retarded.

Blinded by the Light

Posted by parmenides on March 29th, 2007

Once in awhile you get the truth. Not the cold, hard, factual, scientific type truth, but truth that lays bare the soul of a person, or political party, or idea. Modern political propaganda does not like this sort of truth. Messaging, to a large degree, is an attempt to hide that truth from the public, since the real reasons for supporting an idea or policy is often not very pretty.

For example, if you have a candid talk with the people who really drive the anti-immigration movement, you will find them to be significantly racist. But you would never know that from listening to Lou Dobbs, who often shouts down and derisively attacks anyone who claims the anti-immigration movement is driven by racism. That is the point of good messaging: cover up the bad and highlight the good.

An example of that just happened yesterday, and likely will again today. The prepared statement of Kyle Sampson, AG Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff, to the Senate laid out in clear, precise language, that politics and performance were one and the same. In other words, if you were not pursuing cases the Administration wanted you to pursue, you were not performing well.

Sampson goes so far as to say,

“The distinction between `political’ and `performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial.”

Bingo. This is what many people were thinking was the White House’s attitude, (more…)

Finally the Senate Has Come Back to Washington

Posted by parmenides on March 28th, 2007

Evey watch wrestling? Remember when The Rock would enter the arena and yell, “Finally, The Rock has come back to “insert name of town where he was at”? No? Just me I suppose. Oh well, never mind.

The point being that the Senate finally grew some where it needed to and passed an Iraq Supplemental Bill that includes language to withdrawal troops from Iraq sometime next year. That means Bush will have a Supplemental he will either have to veto, or accept conditions on bringing the troops home.

Bush will veto, but that is okay. It is a poltically unpalatable thing to do, but unless the Dems get on top of their messaging game, it may not turn out as well for them as they hope.

First of all, counter Republican spin by appropriating it; a time tested an incredibly infuriating tactic to your opposition if done well. Bush claims the Dems are denying the troops funding by passing timetables for withdrawal. On the contrary, Congress passed funding for the troops. If Bush vetoes, he is denying the troops much needed funds. The Commander in Chief denying his brave fighting forces the money they need to get better protected Humvees and body armor? Disgraceful.

I would repeat this line over and over.

“It is unconscionable that the Commander in Chief would deny much needed funds and equipment to the troops he has sent into harms way.”

And another gem (more…)

Gathering Storm, part 2 of II

Posted by parmenides on March 26th, 2007

In my late night ramblings, I forgot the main political element from last week regarding the AttorneyGate.  Both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees authorized subpoenas for Administration officials to force them to testify before Congress regarding this affair.  This is over Bush’s objections, saying his people would have private conversations with Congress but not under oath and with no transcripts.

The Democrats have not issued the subpoenas yet, but could soon.  If Bush does not capitulate in a reasonable manner, Congress should bring the hammer down and issue the subpoenas.  This is not a matter of national security; there is no executive privilege here.

The cat is pretty much out of the bag on this one anyway.  There is very little to hide at this point other than more evidence of Administration officials lying to Congress.  And the worst that will probably happen is Gonzales will lose his job.   We know Gonzales and his deputy, Kyle Sampson, have already lied to Congress, so issuing subpoenas is completely legitimate in this instance.  In any event, you do not know if a crime was committed until you have witnesses testify under oath.

What is worse, really, is that firing an attorney to stop an investigation is a crime, even under the unPatriot Act.  That is the crux of the issue from a legal standpoint.  But the ultimate problem revolves around how political firings stop the justice system from working.  Americans want prosecutors who pursue criminals, not political gain for those in power.

So do not buy this executive privilege nonsense.  There is no excuse for illegal behavior, and there should be no official protections for it.  Nor should there be any protections for investigating possible illegal behavior.

The Gathering Storm, Part II

Posted by parmenides on March 26th, 2007

The second in our three part series of major political events from the last week centers around none other than the U.S. attorney firings.  Things have been moving fast on this story, and you will learn no more detail about this scandal here.  I cannot even begin to enumerate all the back and forth that has gone on, but I will try to boil it down to what I think the essential narratives are.

1) The White House fired eight U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

Let us be serious.  The prosecutors were canned because they went after corrupt Republican officials more so than Democrats.  Period.  This is not worthy of debate, so if you are ever put in a position to discuss this issue, beat down anyone who tries to claim the attorneys were fired for performance reasons.

2) This scandal shows a lack of accountability in the White House.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. It is not the crime; it is the cover up.  Better to fess up your guilt than try to hide it.  The firings may have actually been legal, (more…)

The Gathering Storm, Part 1

Posted by parmenides on March 25th, 2007

Man this was a busy week. Three things of importance happened, all of which point to a political and possibly Constitutional showdown with the Bush Administration Here is the first one.

Getting the troops home

The House passed the Iraq War supplemental, 218-212, and included language to withdrawal the troops from Iraq by August 2008. Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a Supplemental bill that called for troops to be home by March 31, 2008.

This, despite Bush’s threat to veto the bill. He claimed it was irresponsible to add the troop withdrawal rider on the supplemental because it would delay much needed funding for the troops. This is a great case of a borrower not liking the conditions for a loan and then blaming the bank for causing them to not accept the offer. If he wants to veto the bill because he does not like it, fine, but that is his action and he has to accept responsibility for it. He cannot blame Congress for the Iraq mess, especially when it is finally trying to do its rightful part to try and fix it.

Rep. John Murtha put it even more bluntly – Iraq is Bush’s problem, not Congress’. Once again this Administration is passing the buck and refusing to take responsibility for its actions. Bush got us into Iraq, it is his ultimate responsibility to get us out.

Democrats like Murtha need to keep putting the burden of Iraq onto Bush and push back hard if Republicans try to hang the Iraq albatross around Democrat’s necks. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, (more…)

Lying Like a Rug

Posted by parmenides on March 22nd, 2007

In my previous post I mentioned the Plame/Libby scandal had gotten me thinking about lying as a tool in the messaging work bench. As most of you may know, many conservative pundits have taken to outright lying about Valerie Plame, the covert CIA agent whose cover was illegally blown by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and others in the Administration. It seems these pundits now claim Ms. Plame was not a covert agent.

This is patently false. The current head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, has testified to the fact that she was. Clearly the conservatives do not care about the truth, since even after Hayden’s testimony, they still continue advocate the falsehood that she was not covert.

The reasons why the conservative pundits will outright lie about this are pretty obvious. Blowing the cover of an intelligence agent is illegal. If Plame was not covert, then there was no crime, hence no cover up, and thus this whole Plame scandal was a political witch hunt and Libby should be pardoned. In essence, the conservatives want the public to think convicting Libby on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice was unjust and a waste of time and money.

They are wrong, and they know it. They have been exposed, just like the Swift Boat veterans were in the ‘04 Presidential election, and yet they keep on coming with the same lies. But most reasonable, morally upstanding people would back down if something they said was shown to be false. Progressives certainly do. However, in the realm of politics and messaging, lying often has its place.

I got some insight into this issue while talking to a patent lawyer the other day. (more…)

The Real Crime in the Plame/Libby Scandal

Posted by parmenides on March 20th, 2007

I promised more on Libby, but by the time I got around to writing this, other events have dwarfed it.  Apparently, the public and Congress cannot get enough of Attorney General Gonzales and his firing of seven U.S. attorneys.  Oh, and the fact that Republicans up and down the line had something to do with it, most notably Karl Rove.

Apparently the public does not like to government firing attorneys for doing their jobs well of investigating corruption.  Gee, I wonder why?  Elected Republicans break the law, U.S. attorneys investigate and prosecute them, and then the attorneys lose their jobs because they tried to keep those in power honest.

Easy.  Now take the Libby scandal.  The government had some people tell the media that a certain person who tried to expose as a lie the White House’s claims about Saddam getting yellow cake from Niger was only out for revenge on the government for some kind of slight while mentioning his vendetta was aided by his wife, a covert CIA agent.

Huh?  Most people do not know what Niger is, much less where it is - that and the fact that the above story is not even necessarily factually accurate.  For instance, (more…)