Administration Spin, Unaddressed by the Media

What Bush Said, in response to the recent Court ruling on his warrantless surveillance program:

I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.

We strongly believe it's constitutional and if al Qaeda is calling into the United States we want to know why they're calling. (emphasis added)

Here is what was left out of the CBS story that covered this:

Exactly the opposite of what the President directly implied to the America people, FISA DOES allow us to spy on al-Qaeda when it calls into the U.S., and more. While to ensure oversight it requires what -- in every single instance the administration is claiming the program is being used for -- would be an easily procurable warrant, it doesn't even require the warrant to be procured beforehand, if time is an issue. And, although FISA has been in existence, and has worked extremely well (with almost no applications ever denied) for almost thirty years, the current President signed it again, as Amended under the USA Patiot Act signed in the wake of September 11, 2001, tweaking and granting some expanded powers under it to make it procedurally compatible with our perceived post Sept. 11 needs.

Yet the administration, instead, on its own, and secretively, simply ignored FISA, and instituted a sweeping program to spy on citizens -- unchecked and with no oversight -- in direct contravention of it; thereby also directly violating Articles I and II of the Constitution, and raising several potential Bill of Rights issues as well.

Again, the President clearly implied that the program was necessary to spy on al-Qaeda calls into the U.S.; an implication which, as noted above, is blatantly untrue.

There was nothing in the CBS article to indicate these facts above, or even indicate what FISA does, why it exists, or even that it exists.
________

The President also asserted (along, according to the same CBS article, with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) that "we strongly believe [the previously clandestine program] is Constitutional." As adamant as both the President and the Attorney General were and have been about the unchecked surveillance program's constitutionality, they both phrased this as a matter of "belief."

But belief is, by its very nature, subjective. Technically one can't mislead if one is merely relating what they "believe," can they? Asserting that this is their belief, or even convincing themselves of it, also avoids having to address the basic, unambiguous, and clear fact:

Unless the document is suddenly interpreted inconsistently with the way it has been interepreted for over 200 years; unless that document is interpreted in ways that go against the most basic principles upon which our democracy and government -- with its system of limitations and overlapping checks and balances -- was built; unless that document is interpreted in a way that goes against the clear language of the document itself; it is not an issue of belief. It is an issue of fact. The program is unconstitutional.

In the Bill of Rights, several Amendments are relevant to the issue of covert spying by the government upon its own citizens: The First Amendment's right to unfettered free speech, the Fourth's right against unreasonable searches of papers and effects, the Fifth's guarantee of due process, and the Ninth and Tenth's reservation of any powers not specifically enumerated, to the states and people.

The issue originally before the country was, can the Executive, despite all these Amendments, merely take it upon itself to eavesdrop on, wiretap, and intercept communications of U.S. citizens at its sole discretion, or, even, ever?

Certainly the Executive could not, consistent with any of the aforesaid provisions, spy on U.S. citizens solely at its own discretion with no checks or oversight. But in certain instances, for explicitly laid out and genuine reasons (such as, "we think these may possibly be connected to those involved with al-Qaeda," for example), and with some type of record, the government could engage in eavesdropping upon specific American citizens, and not violate the Bill of Rights. So Congress passed a law, FISA (updated Post September 11), laying out the manner in which such spying could be conducted, to make sure that it was not done willy nilly or without any checks or oversight.

While Congress exists to pass our laws, the Executive Branch exists to administer them. Article I of the Constitution states that ALL laws enacted, shall be passed by Congress. Article II states that the President take care that they be faithfully executed.

The current President, although he signed the Amended FISA which explicitly laid out the requirements for covert eavesdroping on U.S. citizens, nevertheless decided to both ignore it, and create a program in direct contravention of it.

The President "contends" that under the "Commander in Chief" clause of Article II, that he has the power to do whatever he wants to promote "national security." Yet there is no such power, either stated or implied, in that clause. It merely assigns him that role when specifically calling up the armed forces for engagement, as, they need someone to command them, and at most might give him some quasi legislative authority related to commandeering our armed forces, in the absence of any specific legislation on the matter.

Essentially the President of the United States is claiming that any laws that specifically prohibit a certain type of government intrusion without oversight, or any Bill of Right's considerations that render such an intrusion of highly questionable constitutionality EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH LAWS, are irrelevant in the event that the Executive branch unilaterally decides that a program or intrusion is "warranted" in the interests of national security. Under this line of reasoning, nothing, not the will of the people expressed through Congress or the laws that they pass, nor even the other provisions of the Constitution of the United States, can prevent the Executive from doing what it wants in the name of national security.

This not only directly violates the first two Articles of the Constitution, but undermines what was perhaps the document's most basic purpose in the first place; to establish a limited government and system of overlapping checks and balances, with no open ended and unchecked powers.

Once again, none of this was covered or even hinted at by the CBS story, which instead simply provided another quote or two in order to provide a "different perspective."

According to the CBS article, ACLU Director Richard Romero, whose organization brought the suit, stated: "At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy."

This is true, but it does not explain why.

Because there are no underlying facts provided by CBS, not only does the issue falsely come off as sounding like a "reasonable debate" between two legitimate but differing perspectives, but it is one in which, to many, a false choice is presented.

CBS also included a statement by Romero that actually helped the President's argument, spin wise; calling the opinion, according to CBS, "Another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

Romero's technical use of the term "legal" and other nuances is largely lost here. As a result, the statement, although presumably not intentional, comes off almost exactly the way that the adminstration is trying to incorrectly frame the issue; that is, that "Democrats are trying to prevent us from combatting terrorism."

Why those who do not support the administration's policies -- which tend to be democrats, although, increasingly, republicans, though the latter often feel constrained by party loyalty in what they can say -- not only often fail to make the correct case, but sometimes even hurt their own cause, is a separate, but important, side question. Perhaps some clues are found in this largely overlooked comment, perhaps not?
_________

The third of the President's three basic assertions, as noted above, was that Americans who "support" what was a blatantly cut and dry legal decision, "do not understand the world we are in today." Yet this is not necessarily correct either:

The problem is that Bush does not understand how democracy, or our Constitution (which he was sworn to uphold) works. He also, along with many of his ongoing supporters, seems to believe in unchecked powers, which go against everything this country was founded upon (and which still has not been adequately explained to Americans -- hence the continuing support for several extreme incumbent Senators and Congresspeople).

He also seems to think that unchecked powers, with no one exercising legitimate oversight with respect to how they are used, is somehow the ONLY way to combat terrorism. Thus allowing terrorists to not only "win," but fundamentally change who we are.

In essence, he has said to America, back on September 20, 2001, that, We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them," yet now has violated the most basic principle upon which America was founded, and in its stead says that others "just don't understand."

Why aren't prominent democrats making the case, and saturating America with it by repeatedly showing how; that the President, continuing a repeated pattern (and supported by much of the current far right wing Congress which has done nothing about it) is once again misleading America on the most critical of issues?

Once again, perhaps some clues are found in this comment, perhaps not.

Tony Snow, Taking a Moment Out of his Official Duties

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow the other day took a moment out of his official duties.

To do what? To spin some blatant partisan politics on behalf of the RNC. The trouble is, he took this moment not while off work, but while conducting his official duties.

Here is what Press Secretary Tony Snow stated to the Press on Wednesday, August 9th, with respect to the Lieberman Lamont Democratic Primary vote the day before:

As for -- the President has no comment on the winner or loser of the race. That is for the Democratic Party and Democratic voters in the state of Connecticut.

If Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary, does not speak for the White House, who does he speak for? "Fox News"?

Here is what Snow stated only moments earlier. Apparently, what Snow meant was that the President had no comment on the winner or loser of the race, technically:

"This is a defining moment, in some ways, for the Democratic Party. I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president. I would flip it. I think instead, it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they're going to come after you."

It seems highly inappropriate for the Pess Secretary to use his official position to spin something in such an openly (and misleadingly) partisan mannter. But more troubling is that few seemed to blink an eye over this. (One exception was over at the Daily Kos, where SusanG Opined:

Sure, presidents have used their prominence to visit a state and campaign on behalf of their party's nominees close to the general election, but it seems absolutely bizarre to hear one weigh in on this micro-level, with such a level of vitriol, on the non-partisan taxpayer dime. If anyone can hunt up another case like this, of Clinton or Bush I or Reagan pulling this kind of stunt, I'd love to be reassured.

As for the content of Snow's statement, there is becoming an increasingly dangerous disconnect in this country between the concept of democracy, and disagreements as to the best course of action or policy under it. Sure, this was blatant partisan spin (the bizarre fact that it came from the White House Press secretary addressing the press in his official capacities, notwithstanding). But it represents an almost consistent theme on the part of the right, and far right, in place of substantive examination today. And it is a theme which constututes a gross mischaracterization of the issue as well. (And which some democrats, knowing how better than anything else to shoot their own party in the foot -- if not up a bit higher (say, halfway), have been erroneously furthering.)

There is nothing extreme about the idea that Iraq has not helped our national security. And a belief that our security interests are best served by slowly exiting from Iraq (right or wrong), is shared not only by a clear majority of Americans, but by many staunch hawks on "terrorism," as well as many republicans (hawkish or not), including a large number of Generals. Again, correct or incorrect (and who realy has such a crystal ball?) is a separate question.

Nor is there anything extreme in the notion that it is time for Change in a Congress that has been regularly receiving approval ratings in the 20's. Nor in the notion that such a prominent "democratic" Senator, who has often been supportive of what many view as an extreme republican administration, and who in the eyes of many democrats has come to represent the worst of the democratic status quo, would be narrowly defeated by democrats in a largely democratic state.

Yet, seeming to equate any belief on how best to handle our foreign policy not just, erroneously, with "weakness" (itself an extremely weak approach to formulating our best policy possible), but, even more bizarrely, with "extremism," the predominant far right has taken the rhetoric to a whole new level.

It's called "projection." Whether done inadvertently (the guess here) or purposefully, it is the best way to inoculate oneself from the very same charges. No matter how ridiculous, make them against your opponents. Thus, mainstream thought becomes "extreme," and heretofore extreme positions become the norm. It just seems highly unusual that a Press Secretary would devote an entire paragraph exclusively to such highty manipulative partisan spin, without even attempting the appearance of tying it into policy or other White House business. And even more unusual that to the ho hum "media," it was just, seemingly, "business as usual."

The Importance of Language in Efforts to Thwart and Eradicate Terrorism

Yesterday, I wrote about the importance of how we choose to term our efforts to thwart and eradicate international terrorism.

Therein, it was suggested that while our response needs to be intelligent, forceful, and comprehensive, it was very important that our language not make the issue out to be larger than it is, or larger than it has to be. In particular, I spoke of the importance of marginalizing what is at heart a cultural patholology, participated in by fanatical fringe elements.

The reason was that it is very easy to make this a larger cultural or even religious issue with many, blur the lines between anti-Americanism and outright terrorism, and thus inadvertently and of course erroneously render what we would clearly consider to be "terroristic activities" more mainstream in the eyes of more people internationally.

President Bush, once again handling the issue poorly, along with the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group, helped to illustrate this point by engaging in precisely what needs to be avoided:

U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions....

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.

Agreed. It only tends to inflame Muslims, and make those of Islamic faith feel like their religion is being attacked. In this way, such language tends to counterproductively undermine the idea that the terrorist groups are a fringe fanatatical element acting outside of both Islamic and Christian principles.

In a similar way, the overuse of the term "war," even if less obvious, can have a similar effect. The reason is that war, outside of those engaged on one particular side (say, for example, the U.S.) usually has international connotations of "two sides to the story." While one side may be right, and one wrong, the term tends to be less associated with fanatical extremism, and less associated with miniscule splinter groups, than, say what we are really combatting; namely, fanatical anti-Western Islamic extremists.

Some criticize even the phrase "fanatical anti-Western Islamic Extremists." And to the extent that the President of the United States addresses the nation and world, there is no real purpose in him couching the issue in these terms. In assessing policy, however, addressing the situation more definitely and candidly, in a broader context, allows for more precise strategy evaluation.

In addition, the two phrases are also fundamentally different.

The phrase "fanatical anti-Western Islamic Extremists," does tie this terrorism activity to the fringe element of the othewise very popular religion practiced by those few terrorist extremists who would do grave harm to innocents in the Western World. But more importantly, it also clearly disginguishes it from the vast majority.

The ill-advised word "Islamic Fascists" may not. Consider, here in the U.S.A., if, God forbid, patholotical extremists were to bomb an abortion clinic, murdering doctors, assistants, and patients alike. Is there a difference, to the average Christian, upon hearing the term, "Christian Fascists yesterday bombed a building, murdering dozens." Versus "fanatical anti-abortion Christian Extremists yesterday..." The latter certainly seems like a far less damning indictment of the religion per se, rather than an isolation of a very fringe, extreme element.

But again, the more important distinction here is between an analysts need to precisely assess the situation, and our larger message to the world as conveyed by our leaders on a diplomatic front.

update: It has been well noted how influential Vice President Dick Cheney is in the present administration. Many claim that the Vice President has as much if not more real influence than the President. It has also been noted how the Vice President believes that the media does not cover things in the way he would like to see things covered, and that he believes that "Fox" is the lone major "news" station that is "fair and balanced"(to use both his and Fox's term). The Vice President has also requested that when he travel, all applicable hotel TV's be pre tuned to the Fox "news" station. Even the TV in the White House briefing room, traditionally turned to CNN has been switched to Fox.

In my analysis of Fox news yesterday on this issue, I mainly focused on egregious distortions of facts repeatedly engaged in by the so called Fox "analysts" and hosts, that went routinely uncorrected, and that persistently mischaracterized both the democratic party, and democrats in general. But what was also noted was how often the term fascism, or nazism, was used in reference to terrorists.

While watching and assessing an hour plus of straight coverage on Fox, there were two other consistent trends noted. The first was mainly concentrated on the Sean Hannity Show. (Fox calls this show the "Hannity and Colmes show," but this is a misnomer. Hannity runs the show, Colmes speaks rarely. When he does, he raises obvious and well known points in "opposition" to the constant right wing themes being trumpeted, that often get immediately contradicted, and that essentiallly do little more than give the show the faux appearance of "balance."

Ironically, this first trend consisted of Hannity's near ubiquitous use of Karl Rove's grossly misapplied phrase that "democrats" are "deeply, profoundly, and consistently" wrong on terrorism. He applied it numerous times to democrats, slipping it in, along with other right wing talking points, at almost every opportunity. It was somewhat reminiscent of Fox's tendency to try and slip in how the word "balance" or "balanced" at every possible moment, while almost constantly being the exact opposite.

The second theme of Fox, and again, more prevalent on Hannity's show but a reasonably consistent theme throughout, consisted of comparing the terrorist movement with the rise of nazism. As Hannity put it, "We are watching the rise of Nazism before our eyes."

No, we are not. And the main reason is the same reason why we have to treat the terrorism problem a lot differently than a conventional war. It consists of sovereignless, borderless, almost amorphous extremist groups, with no other binding national or other ideology save their own -- and the backing of no formal army, but with the ability to pathologically wreak havoc in a world rife with WMD capable materials. It is a very different phenomenon. To treat, combat, thwart and eradicate it intelligently, requires recognizing it as such.

But in watching "Fox," the Channel that Vice President Cheney has called "balanced," it is interesting to note how President Bush's statements often seem to echo what is stated on Fox. Or perhaps it is the other way around. Either way, the relationship, for a station that masquerades as a news station on politics and policy, is fairly profound.

QUESTION: WHY DO REPUBLICANS HAVE TO GET THE FACTS BLATANTLY WRONG TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENTS?

Ken Mehlman, citing facts that are simply not true, in order to support his point. This pattern is repeated over and over and over and over.

The question that democrats, and in fact all Americans, have to ask, over and over and over, is why?

On a related note, The White House is trying to use the foiled London bombing plot to suggest that democrats are weak on national security, because, as President Bush put in in a public statement earlier today: "This shows that the United States is very much at risk."

As the above link also illustrates, WH Press Secretary Tony Snow, who interestingly used his spokesperson platform to play openly partisan politics, and grotesquely mischaracterize the Connecticut Senate race and democratic party as well (a more balanced view here), stated that the democrats "wanted to raise a White Flag on the war on terror." It is interesting how war on terror apparently means war in Iraq, which was unconnected to 9/11 and no more connected to al-Qaeda than dozens and dozens of other countries (including the United States, by the logic used of those who claim Iraq was "connected.")

Question for All Americans, including republicans. Similar to Mehlman's tactic above, why do right wing republicans grotesquely mischaracterize their opponent's positions in order to support their own points?

Another question the foiled London airplane plot raises, is, why wasn't the plot on September 11, 2001 similarly foiled? While at that time the general populace may not have been as aware of the risk, experts certainly and unambiguously were.

What is the War on Terror, and A Moment With Fox

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, on the Fox Channel ("Your World," with Neil Cavuto):

This isn't just a war of disconnected events by small groups of fanatics, this is a real war.

Actually, that is precisly what it is, "connected" or disconnected ( as both are applicable).

Yet the incorrect way that Delay characterizes this has become the predominant characterization by the far right, and to some extent by the media, as well.

This does not mean that the danger posed by sociologically psychotic international, sovereignless terrorist groups that try to will things their way by murdering innocents, is not grave. Particularly in an era of increasing proliferation of WMD biological agents and fissile materials.

What it does mean is that one of the reason we have not been effective in lessening (let alone eradicating) this threat, is that we don't even correctly recognize or characterize what it is.

The problem is that many believe that to underscore its "severity," they have to view it this way. Thus, step one out of the gate is a misassessment, making it increasingly likely that the assessments that flow from it, will be similarly incorrect.

Another problem is that calling it this incorrectly mischaracterizes it to the rest of the world. Instead of marginalizing such radicalism and keeping it correctly on the fringes (lessening recruitment, building world opinion favorably, and promoting cooperation), it renders it far more mainstream than it really is.

For example, immediately before this statement, Delay was illustrating how not enough Americans (and in particular, not enough democrats) view the response of Isreal to the unprovoked Hezbollah kidnapping as appropriate. It is the opinion of this blog that Israel, given the constant threat that is has operated under, has the right to do whatever is necessary to eradicate Hezbollah north of its borders. But the issue of what is the most effective long term response remains an open question.

Whether its strategy is correct or incorrect, it has managed to turn a good portion of the world against Israel rather than against Hezbolllah. Yet Hezbollah is not Lebanon, is in effect holding Lebanon hostage as well as the Israel soldiers that provided the "spark" to start this, is appparently committed to the destruction of another state (and not just its government therein) and in many ways is operating like a terrorist organization.

By expanding the idea of what the war on terror is, merely because we in many ways, and perhaps correctly, view Hezbollah as a terrorist groups, this again only gives more world credibility to those who would seek to do us harm.

It is even more reason to not call it a war at all. This would avoid even the appearance of having to draw unnecessary distinctions between various extreme political, pseudo terrorist, and terrorist organizations. More importantly, it would allow us to focus whole heartedly on what we need to focus on. Securing America while protecting its founding liberties, and eradicating terrorists bent against us. The most counterproductive thing that can be done is to turn such "terrorism" into a larger and more mainstream thing that it is.

The end result of such a persistent path, of course, would be making it a broader socio religious struggle. It is not a battle of Muslims versus Christians, which would then make us no smarter than the seemingly insane factions in Iraq trying to kill each other right now seemingly only because of group identity. And we come from a two hundred year basis of the greatest democracy on Earth, to understate the contrast. But making it a larger socio religious struggle in essence removes the fringe terrorist element from it; also tremendously counterproductive to our efforts to mitigate and eradicate so called terrorist activity.

Yet it would seem as if a few -- and it is very few -- but like most zealots with a predominant voice, want to turn it into this. Similarly, comparisons to WWII, or to the new WWIII, are equally counterproductive, if not, in the long run, wholly and foolishly destructive.

Being strong on terrorism is not talking it into a broader thing than it is. That is called being foolish, not to mention thumping one's chest with a suit and tie on from the cush offices of a media or political center somewhere in America. Being strong on terrorism means effectively, and with focus, putting our best energies and efforts into dealing intelligently and forcefully with the issue. There is a big difference between that, and all the rhetoric that we constantly seem to hearing.

update: Balancing out Fox nicely, Anne Coulter is on this same show, along with Delay. That is, a far right wing representative, Delay, "balanced" out by a far right wing extremist, Coulter.

Coulter proceeds to twist almost every fact, and then states, with respect to Iraq, and quite disparagingly, "well, what war would they (those that don't agree with her, which Coulter narrowly calls "democrats") fight?"

Perhaps a war that was in our interests, is the answer. With respect to terrorists, perhaps a "war" against the terrorists themselves. Which Iraq had no more to do with than dozens of other states prior to military intervention therein in March of 2003. Additionally, a "war" against the terrorists themselves, given the nature and size of sovereign terrorist groups, such actions would more correctly be characterized as a series of covert actions, unless another government actually supports and assists and gives complete sanctuary to terrorist groups, as the Taliban in Afghanistan did.)

update 2: Sean Hannity comes on next, a few moments later, with former House Republican speaker Newt Gingrich.

It seems hard for Hannity to speak without distorting the facts. He goes through a long hypothetical, about how the arrests in England today of the suspected terrorists illustrates that democrats (and many republicans, he conveniently leaves out) are wrong with regard to every charge that they have leveled against him. Particularly that he "misled" America. But the problem is, the issues with this adminstration have nothing to do with him "misleading America" on the general risks from terrorism, and in fact none of the long litany Hannity cited has anything to do with it.

Listening to the next statement by Hannity, even more contorted, it is impossible to watch this channel, if one does not get most of their news elsewhere and is otherwise reasonably well informed, without deciding to vote for the party this station clearly exists to support. It is literally non stop.

I used to believe that Hannity was really a Mussolinni type individual. I now realize what I had forgotten (and used to know when I watched that station on occasion). He is just a profoundly wrong individual, who has a great way with words and a great way of communicating, who is clearly very earnest and believes what he says, but simply on partisan issues can't seem to view anything objectively. In fact, rarely does five minutes go by without Hannity grotesquely distorting some fact or issue, or simply getting it flat out backwards. It is pervasive, and consistent.

update 3: Hannity misstates the NSA issue by stating that we can't even intercept calls from known terrorists (such a blatant mischaracterization of the issue that a 3d grader, were partisan politics taken out of this, would be awarded an "F" for this question on an exam), as a way of "asking" Republican Governor Mitt Romney a loaded question. (Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetss, providing balance, as the most liberal of the four guests during this time period. Except for Romney is a republican.)

Romney states: "The number one liberty is the right to stay alive."

Ben Franklin, paraphrased "Those who would chose security over libery deserve, and will probably get, neither."

Again, the issue is not whether we need to do more or less in combatting terrorism. (We need to do more.) The issue is using it as an excuse to abandon the basic founding and constitutional principles of America, which many republicans take great issue with as well. (Just not ever on Fox. Conveniently.)

update 4: Guest number five appears. More balance. Former Republican major and staunch conservative Rudy Guiliani.

update 5: Hannity: "We are watching the rise of Nazism before our eyes," in reference to soverignless terrorists. Yet this is a fringe fanatical element with no borders or sovereign support, unless we sucessfully and counterproductively manage to turn it into something bigger that it is, and certainly that in the interests of world peace, that it needs to be. It is also a particularly ironic statement by Hannity, given that it was Hitler himself who used "defense of the realm" as an excuse to violate the rule of law, and that most of the litany of "claims" against Bush that Hannity went through just mere minutes earlier, had to do with abdicating the rule of law in "defense" of the realm.

update 6: Show "Sidekick" Alan Colmes, throughout all of this, is a joke. What he says are blatantly obvious statements that almost everybody knows. These, thrown in every once in a while from an otherwise largely dormant Colmes, provide the "appearance" of balance, that give Hannity and assorted guests opportunities to undermine those statements (to which Colmes almost never responds.)

update 7: Rudy Guiliani "We made this mistake in the 30's, thinking we could negotiate with these people, and we are making it again. " Who is he referring to that wants to negotiate? And negotiate with who? Is he confusing the Hezbollah issue? That's Israel's battle, we're not fighting it. And, unfortunately, Israel, being in a difficult position, has rallied world opinion agains them. Again, the irony of this comment is not lost.

Guiliani: With respect to Joe Lieberman: "I don't know why his political party won't allow him that kind of political flexibility." It's not his party, it's called democracy. And it was the people of Connecticut. A slightly different perspective.

This station would be an insult to jouralism, if it was journalism. It's not, which makes it all the more pernicious, since it nevertheless poses as a "news" source for politics and policy.

KARL ROVE: "Deeply and Profoundly and Consistently Wrong." And What Democrats can learn.

Rove Is, to use his own terminology, "Deeply, Profoundly, and Consistently Wrong." Yet his communications and strategy have great affect on the American voter and pysche.

He is wrong on policy, but yet is able to convince much of America that the far right is correct on policy. And he is able to convince much of America that democrats, including moderate democrats, and independents (let alone liberals), are wrong. He is wrong on the facts, and again, manages to convince voters of the opposite.

Yet democrats are often seemingly unable to do the same. In addition, democrats are often misperceived, and mischaracterized, when they do have the facts on their side.

Why is that?

Part of it may have to do with understanding their opponent; that is, understanding why their opponent does what they do, and why thus they have been sucessful with American voters.

The prevalent perception among democrats, for example, is to believe that the "right wing" simply lies to and manipulates everybody. That it knows exactly what it is doing in this regard. And that it knows it is wrong.

Yet this may be a terribly self destructive, if not naive, belief. A failure to understand one's opponents can often be a huge impediment to defeating them.

Yet this same analogy may not as aptly apply to republicans, and, in particular, to the far right.

Why? Republicans, and again, in particular, the far right, may not have to understand democrats. They know what they believe, and they spin it well; successfully characterizing themselves, democrats, and the issues. And in fact, it is their misunderstsanding of democrats, in large part, that often helps them "sell" what they believe.

On the other hand, and quite in contrast, since democrats have not successfully characterized themselves, the republicans, or the issues -- let alone taken their perception of republicans or the far right and sold it to America (let alone again a harshly mischaracterized caricature even worse than the reality), it matters that they understand the right wing.

The main reasons for this are to be able to know what the right wing is doing. And, more importantly, to understand why it has reached so many people, despite, in the reapplied words of Karl Rove, being "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.")

Alll democrats really need to know about the power of belief, to begin to break this down, can be summarized by any number of examples, such as this one found here.

T.R. was a great conservationist, that he was a fierce watchdog of big business, that he was an early proponent of Social Security and the minimum wage.

Why is this relevant? Because,

Karl Rove gushes over him.

That is worth repeating. Karl Rove "gushes" over a leader who "was a great conservationist, ... a fierce watchdog of big business...an early proponent of Social Security and the minimum wage. "

But maybe the author of that piece has his facts wrong. Maybe Rove in fact, doesn't "gush over" T.R., but instead hates him the same way he hates many democrats who have the exact same values as T.R. That would seem a whole lot more consistent.

But it is unlikely.

Why? Because the republican party, increasingly dominated by its own right and far right wing, and today spouting forth principle that it does more to undermine than uphold, has fooled itself almost as much as the American people. And it not only has mischaracterized democrats, it largely has to believe those mischaracterizations to maintain its own beliefs.

When democrats begin to recognize this (and begin to show it as well), they as a party can begin to relate the principles to people in a way that does not alienate them; that does not make voters feel that they need to "defend" their choices; that does not make voters immediately skeptical because democrats seem to tell them what to conclude, rather than why; that does not make voters think that democrats are just "playing politics;" that does not make them think, subconsiously, at least that they don't understand them (the voter) because the voter that needs to be reached (as opposed to the already committed staunch democrat) does not usually think that everyone apart from democrats is a "liar and a cheat." Most importantly, they can begin TO UNDERSTAND why so many republican messages, misleading as they are, nevertheless "resonate" with so many American voters, and thus what to pay attention to, and why.)

In fact, this type of of appealing communication is exactly what Rove achieves in that famous quote of his borrowed above, and many others. Notice also how Rove's quote, and to a lesser extent, the quotes by RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, in that short and highly misleading and destructive AP article linked above, accomplish this.

Notice, in comparison, how the quote by the DNC spokesperson, not only does nothing to refute the also highly misleading but effective quote by Mehlman, or explain why it is wrong (apparently believing that it is simply obvious, when, to the non staunch democrat, it is likely no such thing), but also accomplishes none of the objectives above. (This short AP article, and the DNC quote, and why they both matter so much is, is also discussed at bottom here, and in more depth, here. The latter piece also puts much of this in the context of the highly mischaracterized Connecticut primary race between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, which Lamont won yesterday by a narow margin, and which remains very relevant, as Lieberman has vowed to run as an "independent democrat.")

The far right has a mesage. It may be wrong. It may mischaracterize. But until this is shown, those messages are going to have a highly disproportionate effect on the national debate, as they have for the past six years. And in order to effectively show it, democrats must first understand it, and why it is believed.

Here are some things for the democratic party, and for democrats and independents to focus on in terms of exposing the right wing for what it is, and why it is crucial before being able to effectively communicate almost any other basic message.

ONCE AGAIN, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS ACCUSED, BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, OF MISLEADING CONGRESS

This is clearly part of a larger, pervasive pattern. The Bush Administration withholding, or providing misleading, information. As noted in the Washington Post:

A conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat have accused the Bush Administration of misleading Congress by withholding key information about India
when the House voted last week to support U.S. plans to sell nuclear technology to New Delhi. Administration officials knew at the time -- but did not tell lawmakers -- that it planned to sanction two Indian firms for selling missile parts to Iran.

As the Post also notes, in a July 28 Letter to the Secretary of the State, Dana Rohrabaker (R-CA) and William D. Delahunt (D-MA), "top members of the House International Relations Subcomittee, " along with member Howard Berman (D-CA), wrote:

to express our grave concerns about testimony provided by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Frank Record at a July 20, 2005 hearing
on U.S. Nonproliferation Strategies – testimony that is, on its face, highly misleading if not intentionally deceptive (emphasis added).

Again, this pattern of withholding, or providing misleading, information, has been ongoing.

As noted in both the link above, and herein, paraphrased:

Consider the highly controversial, and costly, medicare prescription drug bill, bizarrely passed in the wee hours of the night late in late November, 2003:

The Bush Administration warned its chief medicare actuary to not share his actual cost estimates of the controversial program with Congress: cost estimates about a hundred and fifty billion dollars higher than Congress' presumed cost of the program.

Tom Scully, medicare administrator, also called the sharing of such critical information with Congress prior to the vote as; "insubordination." And he had an email sent to his chief actuary stating that "the consequences of insubordination were extremely severe," which Foster took to mean his job itself. And, as the NY Times, and the Wall Street Journal noted (according to numerous sites) reported Scully also stated in conversation with health staff that "'If Rick Foster gives that to you, I'll fire him so fast his head will spin."

Since when has sharing the most basic, critical information with Congress, that Congress needs to know before it votes on a bill that was projected (unbeknownst to Congress) to cost over half a trillion dollars, "insubordination"? Apparently since the Bush Administration took office.

Jjust a few of Senator Ted Kennedy's points from a little noted speech on the floor of the Senate, also referenced in the links above:

...Under the Bush administration, openness and accountability have been replaced by secrecy and evasion of responsibility.

...In May 2001, Vice President Cheney's energy task force issued its report recommending more oil and gas drilling...In light of his former employment at Halliburton, [not] astonishing. What was astonishing was the Vice President's refusal to identify the people and groups who helped write the policy.

The nonpartisan, investigative arm of Congress [the GA)], following reports that campaign contributors had special access while the public was shut out, asked, ``Who serves on the task force; what information is being presented to [it], and by whom is it being given... The administration [simply] refused to comply.

...In July 2003, the 9/11 Commission's [bipartisan] cochairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, complained publicly that the administration was [once again] failing to provide requested information. In October 2003, the Commission...after repeated
requests, [finally had] to subpoena records from the FAA. In November 2003, after multiple requests, the Commission again had to subpoena information, this time from the Department of Defense.

For the rest of that fall and spring, the administration repeatedly tried to deny access to presidential documents important to the Commission's investigation... Key members of the administration balked at testifying.

...Last October, Congressmen Christopher Shays [R-CT] and Henry Waxman [D-CA], the chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations, asked for an audit of the Development Fund for Iraq. The copy they
received had over 400 items blacked out. They had so much difficulty obtaining
an unredacted report from the Defense Department that they had to prepare a
subpoena. Once they finally received an unredacted copy, guess what had been
blacked out? More than $218 million in charges from Halliburton. So far, no one has been held accountable.

...There is also a pattern of withholding information from members of Congress on the administration's nominations. In '03, Miguel Estrada was nominated for a Federal judgeship. We requested legal memoranda he wrote as Assistant Solicitor General, and..were repeatedly denied. In '04, Alberto Gonzales was nominated to be Attorney General. We requested various memoranda he authorized on administration torture policy, and we were repeatedly denied.

Earlier this year...we requested documents to determine if John Bolton]acted appropriately in his previous job, and we have been repeatedly denied.

...In 2003, the Food and Drug Administration kept secret a report that children on antidepressants were twice as likely to be involved in suicide-related behavior. The FDA also prevented the author of the study--their expert on the issue--from presenting his findings to an FDA advisory committee.

...In April 2004, the ranking member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, was forced to place holds on several
EPA nominees after the administration refused to respond to twelve outstanding
information requests, including information on air pollution.

Then, of course, there is Iraq.

The Republican Party Today. Not What it Pretends to Be.

There is very little left of the republican party. Yes, "it" has dominated national politics. But 'it," as is well chronicled elsewhere, is in fact the republican party's own right and far right wing (and here's what its feature presentation, the Bush administration, is doing to the principles of democracy upon which America was founded and built).

The problem is that many Americans still don't recognize this, as the media does an absolutely abhorrent job of covering issues with potential partisan ramifications, lest the right wing of the republican party jump and down and scream how "biased" the media is. And the media insists on lumping almost everything into a category of "liberal" or "conservative," with occasional "moderates" (democrats who support Joe Lieberman, and republicans who are not far right wing conservative, along with, in the Senate for example, Chafee, McCain, Collins and Snowe). Even so called "liberal" commentators and pundits in the media routinely partake of this game.

That doesn't change the reality of what is happening in America, a reality that at least some moderate and informed republicans are beginning to become all too aware of.

This list now includes Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Nancy Riley, who just switched to the democratic party. Riley, who, according to the AP, felt like there was no room in the republican party for "moderates," put it this way:

"The moderate Republican has been pushed aside for the extreme right wing."

More importantly, an extreme right wing that tries to pretend it is something it is not.

So what does all this mean? Does it mean that as the country lurches to the right politically, that the democratic party inevitably, kicking and screaming or not, will adjust? Maybe.

This is not good for America, however, as America was founded upon, became great based upon, and is great because of, the basic priciples of freedom and equality and opportunity and justice and responsbility which the democratic party - including part of its much maligned liberal base - and to some degree moderate republicans, has trumpeted and instilled.

What it really indicates is just one more sign that it is well past time for a new political party in America. Republicans have been hijacked by far right conservatives. And the democratic party does not stand up to the present administration, and is largely ineffectual. And, perhaps worst of all, there is justifiable discontent with a previously popular Senator who represents the worst of the democratic party status quo, and who has been a supporter to some extent of the Bush Adminstration -- and democrats somehow see this a bad thing for democrats that a more traditional democrat and outsider has generated a great deal of support in opposition. In other words, it does not even appear that a somehow satisfied and sated democratic party (how it can feel this way after getting hammered by the far right wing for several years is indicative of just how much it is time for change) recognizes what it is in its own interests. (note also the almost insanely warped logic implicit in the above linked piece by Dan Balz in the Washington Post, that somehow not staying in Iraq is "dovish" on national security, as if it was Iraq that presented the terrorism threat to us, and not al-Qaeda and related sovereignless terrorist cells which we have lost focus on while overemphasizing Iraq.)

A new political party, for balance, should really be to the left of the democratic party, but that means that the author of this blog would likely have no part of it. Too bad, with the five or six website visits this blog gets a day (ranking it solidly within the top 3 million Internet blogs out there, a stunning achievement by any measure), that is quite a loss. Frankly, a party that is neither to the left nor the right of the democratic party might be a better party, but as a practical matter is might just split the non and borderline republican vote. Also, any such party, just like everything and every body in America who does not reiterate standard conservative or right wing conservative dogma, it will immediately be labeled, by the media as well, as "liberal." The dreaded "L" word. So it might just as well be.

The best thing would be for democrats to get a clue. But that seems to be just slightly more likely than Israel and Hezbollah becoming buddies.

Smearing Jack Murtha, and the Fox Channel

Regarding the absurd lawsuit against Representative Jack Murtha (a highly decorated and devout marine supporter his entire life, who bent over backward not to identify anybody and who was also speaking to the deplorable situation our troops have been placed in) , what makes this an interesting story is that, as Glenn Greenwald repeatedly pointed out to the lawyer bringing the suit is that many republicans made the same comments Murtha did.

In response, the lawyer, Mark Zaid, stated that he was "unaware" of this and would be happy to add them to the suit if examples were given. So, unlike most other talk show guests on the democratic side of things, who tend to let false assertions or promises fall by the way side after the show, Greenwald followed up and did exactly that.

Zaid's response to this sticky situation? What choice did he have. But Lawyers tend to be nothing if not clever. Zaid said he would add GOP rep and staunch Bush supporter John Kline unless he "apologized." Which also means he had to extend the same offer to Murtha. Thus, in effect, part of the goal, attacking Murtha, may be accomplished.

Kline can apologize, as his opponents can not use that against him because his statements that he would now be apologizing for, support his opponents. Opponents who by and large tend to think that strategically, going into Iraq was a bad choice, that it has been managed extremely poorly, has placed our soldiers in untenable situations, and if anything, diverted our focus and worsened the overall war on terror. Murtha apologizing for the same thing however would not only undermine a basic principle of democracy -- being able to hold and share divergent opinions about the consequences of our choices as a country (and which in Murtha's case was accurate as well) -- but make Murtha vulnerable to his political opponents, who are on Kline's side.

How will this new development be covered? As noted by Greenwald:

Fox News trumpeted the Murtha lawsuit on numerous programs all day on Thursday (Congressman Murtha accused of smearing the Marines!). One wonders
(rhetorically) whether they will report on this new development -- that a pro-war, pro-Bush Congressman who is also a former Marine is accused of the same thing. One additionally wonders whether the right-wing pundits who viciously attacked Murtha over the lawsuit will do the same to Kline. One wonders, too, if Hinderaker will mention the threatened lawsuit (you can ask him here). They can read the accusatory statements made by Kline here.

Perhaps other media sources could report on the way Fox "presents" news as a story in itself. Particulary, now that it has smeared Murtha all over the place, the story regarding how much coverage Fox gives to, and how it handles, the fact that republican Congressman and staunch Bush supporter John Kline (as well as other republicans) said the same things as Murtha, if not more harshly.

This is without a doubt a relevant, if not important story, given how the media shapes perception, and how Fox either implicitly, or overtly (or both), actively seeks to do so in accordance with its own agenda despite the fact that it continually presents itself as a "fair and balanced" news station. But that is very unlikely. The media can't even get its own stories that may have partisan implications straight.

It looks like

With the continued, if not increased, violence in Iraq,that once again, Ivo Daalder was right, and the Washington Post, was wrong.

But the Post has been wrong, on what is one of this era's defining issues, from the start.

THE PRESS FINALLY begins to address what matters.....

It's about time. And, if anything, far understated.

And this coming from a press which has not even done a good good covering the defining yet "potentially partisan" issues of our day. Then, or now. Or See...

DEMOCRATS SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT, and Lieberman, Lamont

From an article in the International Herald Tribune, also referenced in a post yesterday on the Daily Kos:

"'A Lieberman loss is very bad for Democrats; it says we are one dimension[sic] on Iraq,' says Peter Hart, a top Democratic polltaker."

This illogical and counterproductive suggestion by democrats, is in stark contrast to the typical republican approach to strategy and message communications. Almost every time republicans talk to the media, whether asked or not, whether on point or not, they tend to try and communicate as many possible talking points as they can, and tie it into a larger pattern,if they can.

Democrats, on the other hand, often engage in the political equivalent of talking about the weather. Or worse, as in the case above.

They will do the job of the media; providing analytical perspective that does not really help the democrats achieve necessary communication goals. And they will do this instead of taking the opportunity to be heard, and using it to find a way to correct or illustrate a fact, message, and/or an opponent's pervasive pattern. (And, as Hart illustrates, they will sometimes do the job of republicans as well, as discussed below.)

Similarly, democrats will often handicap the horse race, once again, taking media questioners too literally. Or, they will say something thinking they are somehow "galvanizing the base." E.g; "We like our chances because the republicans are not popular," instead of showing why they should win and showing the pattern of what the increasingly far right republican party does, which also "galvanizes" the base just as well..

(One such example is the underdiscussed Bush Administration and far right wing obsession with secrecy. As with several other patterns (disparaging the press for exercising it's first amendment rights and responsibilities, labeling those who disagree as traitors, ignoring the separation of powers under the Constitution) this statement from here (as pointed out) aptly applies:

"A lot of countries have been founded upon this principle. Just none of them democracies."

It's a much better thing to be emphasizing than, say, "a Lieberman loss is very bad for democrats." Particularly when Lieberman has been somewhat supportive of the same Bush Administration to whose policies the above statement aptly applies.

In such communications, democrats will also sometimes tend to argue, perhaps without meaning to. This at least is an attempt in the right direction, but in politics, it is often counterproductive.
Worse, demcorats will often tend to conclude, rather than to SHOW.

This idea of showing rather than telling is critical in politics: In a nutshell, democrats lose to republicans (and, increasingly, far right wing republicans who should be easily defeated) for three main reasons. 1) they argue about these fundamental reasons and tendencies such as those suggested here, coming up with all sorts of misfocused, peripheral and often far over intellectualized reasons as to what they need to do, and why they lose to far right wingers -- or worse, engage in excusing making and blaming others; 2) while republicans tend to sell, they tend to argue; and, 3) republicans tend to repeatedly show, democrats tend to conclude, or even tell people what they think, or should think.

There are a host of other tendencies exhibited when democrats speak to the media. Another one of the worst is when they say something that appears strong, to, once again, "galvanize the base," or "stand up to" the right, so to speak, that is strong in vitriole and conclusions, but not as strong in the point made.

Republicans often do the opposite. One classic example from the 2004 election, by Nicole Devinish, referred to Vietnam, of all things, where it was the President who had a record to explain, not Kerry:

"Instead of explaining his record, John Kerry has turned to political attacks on the President. John Kerry is doing exactly what he said he would never do. Divide America over who served, and how."

This statement is grotesquely misleading on many levels, but tremendously effective. What partisan democrats miss (and what the Kerry campaign missed) is that because it was blatantly misleading to them, they assume that it is so to everybody else. That is, again, because of the tendency on the part of democrats to "think that everybody knows what they know." (Examples of this are endless. Here is one, where the person thinks this, and is wrong as well about the underlying point, from the type of (perhaps left wing, perhaps just fed up?) liberal that the far right likes to incorrectly classify almost everyone in America that does not agree with them as (and that it needs to believe in order to maintain its own views). but again, the key point, is repeated over and over. "Everybody knows this." It is what democrats believe, and they are wrong.

(Incidentally, the Kerry Campaign response on the same issue of Kerry's service in Vietnam, at the same time as Devinish's, was also typical; "they are just a bunch of republicah hacks." Yes, to staunch Kerry supporters, that appeared obvious. But to everybody else, it failed to make a point).

Again, democrats tend to do this, because they often assume that the facts speak for the themselves. In politics, in particular, the opposite is true. People tend in politics to skew, filter, and interpret things to support what they have already decided. The tendencies by democrats, as appealing as some of the typical base appealing statements are to other democrats, tend to only heighten this response in the average voter, thus closing them off to the actual facts or perspectives -- as opposed to the right wing rhetoric and spin that they have been constantly bombarded with, and have implicitly bought.

In other words, democrats often speak to other democrats, rather than to a broader cross section of Americans. And they tend to get self righteous about it. More than once, by educated liberals (not democrats, but liberals, and certainly not most liberals, but enough to exhibit why this tends to occur) I have been accused of being a "republican troll" SOLELY for making this point: "democrats needs to communicate to a broader cross section of Americans." For this exact same point I have also been accused of "trying to push the republican playbook."

Being that winning in politics means getting more votes than the other side, thus effectively communicating with and reaching more people, this would be like a football game where one suggests one team needs to put the ball in the end zone more, and some players, getting it backwards, complain that this strategy helps the other team win.

It seems a bit far fetched, but it helps explain this tendency of democrats to think that everybody knows what they know, and to talk to other democrats rather than to a broader cross section of Americans.

This list could go on. But the main point of this piece is to make the point that when democrats speak to or through the media, under any auspices, they often are not fully cognizant of what that opportunity means, how to take advantage of it, and what to convey.

Once again, when it comes to strategy points, democrats are best sticking to the republican playbook, so to speak (if that is what it is), and communicating what needs to be communicated for voters to know what they need to know, and stop saying all the other incessant babble that they constantly engage in.

This reflects part of the need -- and is one of the many reasons for previous failure by democrats -- to stop allowing republicans to define democrats, republicans, and the issues (one recent example on the more difficult issue of flag burning.)

Democrats need to continually illustrate the pattern by the right and far right of rhetoric not matching reality, of espousing the very principles that it constantly trumpets on the one hand, while misunderstanding or trampling upon them on the other, of constantly engaging in factual distortions and misleading rhetoric that either appeals to our worst biases and emotions, or to our best emotions but in an illogical and manipulative way. (Always, and here is the controversial clincher; in a way that suggests they are manipulating themselves as well. This allows people to be open to the suggestion that democrats are making, without engaging in the typical partisan response of skewing their own interpretation in order to defend their choices.)

Such an approach accomplishes several critical things. It establishes the pattern so that each successive reiteration can reinforce it, and thus begins to correctly characterize the other side (the opposite of what is happening presently) while underming its misleading recitation of the issues, and allows:

Of course, first and foremose, CONSTANTLY reiterating and emphasizing the actual facts to have far more success thereby.

So here is Peter Hart, doing what? Of course, as a pollster, maybe he feels inclined to say something clever; another problem with democrats. They often, invariably, seem without trying to appear clever, while republicans appear earnest (remember, It's not about how stauch Lamont supporters or other staunch democrats perceive what republicans, conservatives, and the increasingly dominant far right wing conservatives say, it's about how average Americans perceive it, whic is often very different than what partisan democrats may tend to think).

What Hart says takes the republican tendency of accomplishing several things with one statement, to a whole new level. Hart does accomplish several things with this one statement. It seems to be rare among democratic strategists and spokespeople, so this is to be commended.

The problem is, most of what Hart accomplishes is bad.

Many people in the real world, to some degree enabled by a media that continues to present this (the vitriol expressed, even though it does not come close to the far more extreme, yet somehow palatably packaged far right vitriol) believe that the left is knee jerk rabid anti Lieberman, and that this is what is wrong with them. But the reality is that many think Lieberman is a very likeable but now ineffective and far too status quo Democrat Senator, who accomodates not just Republican policies but sometimes far right wing policies. But then again, aside from the fact that change is needed, how often has this case been made in the mainstream?

So here is Hart, who probably doesn't understand why many democrats don't approve of the job Lieberman is doing, and perhaps is a fan of Lieberman as well (Lieberman's other fan club.) And what does he do?

He makes an inane statement. "Lieberman Losing would be bad for democrats." Let's see, democrats have been geting clobbered by far right wing republicans. Congress is tilted ridiculously to the right. And a popular incumbent democratic Senator who is in many ways supportive of numerous conservative policies loses to someone that is not, and this is bad for democrats? Someone who I'd say represents the status quo, except Lieberman is worse than that. He represents the worst of it. Democrats in Congress who don't stand up to this administration (when even a couple of the relatively few moderate republicans in Congress are "trying" to do this) and one who in many ways has done the opposite.

Hart manages to take something very good, and spin it into something very bad.

The next part of the quote is not as poor; "politically, Iraq should be a debate about the Bush administration." But it is then followed by the similarly inane "A Lieberman defeat detracts from that."

Politically, Iraq should be a debate about the Bush administration. Democrats need to make it one. But how does a Lieberman loss detract from that? Only because that is the way moderate democrats are self destructively spinning it. "Well," they sometimes tend to respond, "anti Lieberman folks are just against this war, and his strong support of it." But anti Lieberman folks have a right to think this war was a mistake, mismanaged, and persisted in without an adequately flexible and creative response/approach, for far too long.

Additionally, if it is about the Bush Administartion, and the poor way it has handled things and made foreign policy choices, why shouldn't Lieberman, who has supported these, be defeated?

And that is not the only reason that Lieberman is opposed by so many democrats. He just has not been effective, has supported numerous administration policies, almost all of which have been misguided, and frankly, given what this Congress has accomplished in the past several years, it is time to "throw the bums out," now as perhaps as much as ever in our history. And democratic strategists undermine this message but making the Lieberman thing into something it is not.

I hate to comparing Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) with Lieberman, but it would be like republicans arguing that a Chafee loss to (to a more staunch republican who would then, like Lamont, probably win, albeit unlikely in R.I. as a practical matter) would be bad for republicans. How ridiculous does that sound? That is almost how ridiculous what Hart said is, but is evidence once again of democrats allowing republican to set the agenda and define the terms: "A Lieberman loss is bad for democrats."

But Hart's comment is even worse for other reasons. For months now, democrats have allowed the media (and sometimes themselves) to falsely characterize this issue as one where democrats need to have a cohesive position on Iraq.

Why? That suggests that there is an easy answer on Iraq. There is not. In fact, the lack of an out is the precise reason to not have gone in the first place unless necessary. (And democrats also have needed since early 2004 to stop playing along with the republican and media spin that a vote for the resolution was a blank check to invade. It was not, nor was the military action in March of '03 even consistent with the resolution back in October of '02.)

Iraq is an issue to be debated. The real issue is making the right choices in the face of evolving circumstances, which the far right wing leadership has not done, again and again and again. On North Korea, on Iran in particular (who a few years ago WAS TRYING to help us and got rewarded by being labeled as part of the axis of evil several weeks later), on the Israeli Palestine conflict, on China, on Russia, on almost everywhere on the globe (and on domestic policy, on the Constitution, on secrecy, on fiscal responsibility, on the environment) and, of course, on Iraq. Over and over and over and over. That's what happens when America becomes led not by facts, but by rhetoric.

Yet democrats have not only allowed the media to criticize democrats for not having a coherent postion on Iraq, they themselves have often suggested it. Moreover, they have done so instead of focusing on what Iraq is really about, and instead of making it about the increasingly obvious perils of preset policy that fails to adjust to the realities of the world and that utterly fails to adjust to changing conditions and information. (The best example, of dozens, is of course the administration obsession with Iraq prior to 9/11, while it ignored al-Qaeda. Yet the same pattern has continued.)

So what does Hart do? He tops this off one better. He then takes this same quest for a coherent policy, and instead of steering away from it in ways that make the effective points, he first supports it by incorrectly turning anti Liebermanism into it, then he torpedoes it with wholly negative spin; "A Liberman loss would be bad for democrats." "It makes them one dimensional."

The article reciting Hart's quote then follows with. "More than a few democrats think Hart is right." But, again, only if democrats spin it this way.

There should not be a problem with a Democrat favoring our action in Iraq. Reasonable minds can disagree. And there seems to be some truth to the author's (and many others') premise that there is intolerance for this position on a lot of the blogs.

But democratic strategists spinning it this way is one of the worse things that can be done, in the face of the reality that people are going to have strong views about a voluntary war action that is getting American soldiers killed, possibly inspiring insurgency and therefore not assisting, and according to many experts at least, enabling terrorist cell recruitment.

Democrats need to make the points intead. And one of the main points for Lieberman's unpopularity, is not only his position on the war. (Hillary Clinton has been incorrectly criticized for wishiwashiness on Iraq -- even viciously attacked by moveon.org, in another example of democratic self destructiveness -- when unless someone has a crystal ball or has talked to thousands of Iraqi leaders, insurgents and soldiers, they shouldn't presume so much). It is Lieberman's support for what has been by far the worst administration in modern history, and his support of the administration's handling of the Iraq action.

Additonally, while the article itself makes some good points and some inane points (that Lieberman's outrage at Clinton "distracted" republicans from impeachment in the 90's is a particularly good example of the latter), this rather rigid tendency to turn the Lieberman issue into a larger than it is vote on the war is also not productive. In the Tribune article, Bloomberg reporter Al Hunt also reports:

"The war in Iraq is a deeply divisive issue, which makes it the most legitimate reason to mount a political challenge in a democracy. Yet Lieberman's defenders portray the Lamont insurgency as a 'jihad,' and one commentator suggested the future of civility in American politics is at stake.'" These are not smart strategies either.

Those assertions are of course by Lieberman supporters. But Lieberman detractors play into this as well, by also turning it into something larger than it is. (And frankly, there is a little bit of truth to the idea that Lieberman has been a bit villainized. But again, democrats' playing into this, on either side of the Lieberman discussion, does not help.)

On the other hand, wanting fresh ideas after three terms itself is not exactly villainizing Lieberman. He hasn't done a good job. He has not used his leadership role to fight for the issues that matter. He is too supportive of poor administration policies: And this does not come from reviling the administration, as Bloomberg reporter Al Hunt and many others suggest, but from vehemently disagreeing with its far right wing, anti democratic, and increasingly anti constitutional, not to mention limited and overly simplistic world view of things. Also contrary to the assertions by Hunt and some others, three terms in the Senate does not mean that it is a travesty if someone loses, but that perhaps it is time to make way for some much needed change.

Instead of villainizing Lieberman, democrats need to make throwing out Congress a vote on the way all things, including Iraq, have been handled, as well as the accomodation of an administration slowly if unwittingly dismantling the pillars of democracy. (Yes, unwittingly. See the comments to that piece. Democrats, start addressing a larger audience). Business as usual just has not worked, particularly for democrats.

As far as Hart's apparently popular sentiment goes, it serves as just another example of democrats shooting themselves in the foot. On the one hand, there are the democrats calling for a cohesive strategy. And on the other, democrats then using examples of just such a cohesive strategy, to spin it negatively for democrats. "A Lieberman loss says we are one dimensional," was Hart's phrase. Nice job. Maybe the republicans can just stay home and watch football this autumn if democrats do their job for them.

(As an aside, the statement is attributed to Peter Hart, "top democratic poll taker." Not to be confused with Peter Hart of FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, which generally does a pretty good job, and whose points on the importance of responsibility in media reporting should get more exposure than they do.)