Yeah, I think Bush is going to look pretty darn meek compared to Reagan.

As a matter of fact, I think he's going to look pretty darn meek compared to his daddy.

Here's my take on the Reagan legacy: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/6/14192/08434

So Cheers to raygun and his trickle down voo doo ketchup!

There's no comparing Bush to Reagan. There's no comparing Bush to Clinton. Hell, there's no comparing Bush to Nixon. Even comparing him to Harding makes Bush look small, insignificant, and weaselly.

go read a 'zogby' article at politicaljunkie.com about how 'w' will win due to his ability to hold onto 13 key issues. depressing.

Billmon: Why? Because this is a celebrity story, and that's how the audience has been conditioned to respond to celebrity stories. They're a form of entertainment. There's always a new one coming down the pike, and their appeal and durability is based purely on the personal details - on the strength of the story.

Mais, oui! The conditioning (training) has been sublime for decades. Drip, drip, drip. A low fire under the frog in the pot.

Switching languages:

"iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli vendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim imperium fasces legiones omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses."

"Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things -- bread and circuses." Juvenal - 60 A.D. to 140 A. D.

A new reality TV show for the sheeple: "Panem et circenses".

The latest 'quick vote' over at CNN.com.
asks: Should Ronald Reagan's image replace Alexander Hamilton's on the $10 bill?
I suggest we express our opinion.

So it seems all of Bush's political sins are to be washed [...] clean in the blood of the Hollywood lamb.

nice job capturing the essence of their perverse christian ideology -- others suffer so that their sins may be removed. the ephemerality of the "celebrity necroadoration" would be a fitting tribute to the American president who said "I do not recall" 164 times during the Senate hearings of the Iran-Contra Affair. "Ronnie who?"

Go read a 'zogby' article at politicaljunkie.com about how 'w' will win due to his ability to hold onto 13 key issues.

I'd pay more attention to his brother - the pollster:

Zogby: “This has been a good week for the President. Voters like to see their President on the world stage, larger than Washington, DC. The photo ops display a world leader meeting with US allies. With the death of President Reagan, Americans have seen the more compassionate side of George W. Bush. But even with the absence of the bad news from the previous few weeks, the President has not gained in the polls. ... The real movement is among undecideds who numbered only 5% in March and now are 11%. The first jump was due to some Republicans and conservatives leaving the Bush column; the last month has seen some Democrats abandoning Kerry. In this highly charged atmosphere, both candidates will have to get back their base to win.”

So Reagan capitalized upon his movie role of the "Gipper". Bush Jr. can be categorized as the "Gaffer." Compare the "Great Communicator" to this November's "Ex-communicated".

The latest 'quick vote' over at CNN.com.
asks: Should Ronald Reagan's image replace Alexander Hamilton's on the $10 bill?
I suggest we express our opinion.

took the poll, but they didn't have a "HELL NO" option, however 69% say NO, 31% yes.

Hey Billmon--

Apropos of nothing but in case forty folks havent told you this already: Ambassador Wilson is publicly recommending the Whiskey Bar as his favorite blog.

I caught his lecture in Seattle last week, part of his 'Politics of Truth' speaking tour. Tremendously interesting, soft-spoken man.

"usually by convincing themselves a potential action or a pending event will salvage the situation"
I should've thought of it last week, but I have the perfect example of this:
Goebbels, late 1944: "We have secret weapons that we will unleash on our enemies, which are so formidable they will destroy them utterly and turn the tide of the war."

"Ambassador Wilson is publicly recommending the Whiskey Bar as his favorite blog"
Damn! Not that I don't understand him, but still. Kudos to our barkeep!

Reagan, however stupid he may have been, probably deserved the title of Great Communicator. Indeed, this is how he did so much damage. But Bush 43 is The Great Miscommunicator, both in terms of his lies and his inarticulateness. Unfortunately, this is how he does his damage.

Ha. Voting for Bush because he captures the Reagan legacy as incapsulated by the hagiographies would be like voting for the husband of the woman who most resembles Princess Diana--or Britney Spears. Thanks, Billmon, for helping us divide celebrity-journalism porn from coverage of things-that-matter. In the haste of the moment, we tend to forget that the American consumer is if nothing else genre-savvy.

Reagan's speechmaking ability makes W look like the ignorant cracker monkey he is.

Your point being, "Where's the rest of him"?

Apropos of nothing but in case forty folks havent told you this already: Ambassador Wilson is publicly recommending the Whiskey Bar as his favorite blog

Interesting, I wonder if he or his wife are posting here????

If one/both is/are, thanks.

Who is Ronald Reagan?

I just read on Drudge that Clinton hasn't been asked to speak at the funeral services yet and is apparently pissed. Why is this turning into a warm-up for the GOP convention? It is great that someone wants to celebrate this man's life, but why are people falling for this complete bullshit?

It sickens me to hear the Repug's threatening 'you either love Reagan or you are a terrorist' line of crap, and the worst part is being witness to the Dem's professions of gipper-love. Gore was ambushed for 'I invented the internet' , it seems like Bush is going for 'I invented the death of Reagan' or even 'I invented Reagan'. Funny, I got sucked into the vortex of CSpan and watched a SOTU that Reagan gave; Bush-ette was in the audience, same glazed expression and self-important smirk, like he knew he didn't have to do anything more than sit and wait.

I was 2 when we first came under attack by the Reagan Administration, and the only thing I remember from that time was 'Just Say No'. The effectiveness of that campaign speaks volumes of the 'legacy' he leaves behind.

Are they going to mummify Ronnie like Lenin? They would if they thought Nancy would stand for it (my respect for HER has definitely increased recently).

This might provide a quick bump in the polls (especially the nationals, fueled by the Red states), but if this frenzy continues past Friday I smell a backlash.

You make a good case, Billmon. I hope you're right. In the movie world, Dubyanocchio would have been lucky to hang onto a walk-on, no-speaking role in a single film. It would hilarious to hear him try to work his way through one of Ronzo's own speeches. "Tear down this ... uh ... wab ... er ... wall, Mr. Gabba ... Gorshi ... uh ... Gobblychef."

On the other hand, you get a lot of votes when you add up all the oligarchs and their wannabes, the theocratic fanatics and the members of the cohort who love Bush because they themselves can't articulate a single coherent sentence and think his inability to do so means he's one of them. Stir in just a couple of percentage points of people blinded by nostalgia for the golden years of Reagan's presidency and the GOP gets another four years in the White House.

As for the ephemerality of the Ronzo paeans drenching us this week, I hope you're right about that, too. But since every new public building, our money and our national monuments may soon be sullied with the Great Salesman's name or visage, I'm not so sure.

Billmon,

Once again you have hit the nail on the head. The "story" that is being "covered" has been in the can for quite some time and TV is going to get their milage out of it. Come Monday, it's back to business as usual.

As I said in a previous thread: All I can say is, let the Republicans have their moment of grief, their moment to pause and remember Dutch Reagan...because, my friend, the shit is about to hit the fan.

Apropos of nothing but in case forty folks havent told you this already: Ambassador Wilson is publicly recommending the Whiskey Bar as his favorite blog.

Actually, I hadn't heard that yet - although he left a very nice comment on my 1st anniversary post. I'll have to drop him a line and thank him. Or catch his tour, if he comes through Philly.

a bit of raw language for good measure.

this late reagan-revival comes across to me as an episode of feeding frienzy of the turd-slurpers.

I think that Showtime would be very wise, and very richly rewarded, if they offered the Reagan minseries CBS dumped on them on DVD right now, instead of waiting until a few months after airing the property. The DVD would sell like hotcakes and proceeds would far exceed anything they will make months from now. People are longing to see interpretations of the Reagan legacy that are not misty-eyed, right now. If anyone knows someone at Showtime, drop a bug in their ear and give their career a kick in the pants. My credit card is poised and ready.

think that Showtime would be very wise, and very richly rewarded, if they offered the Reagan minseries CBS dumped on them on DVD right now, instead of waiting until a few months after airing the property.

It should be for sale somewhere, it is renting a Blockbuster video. I saw several copies on the shelves there last night.

"......nation's outpouring of nostalgia ....."

Been avoiding 99% of media outlets for the last couple of days, so the only outpouring going on around my place is beer from a bottle.

Whoops, sorry about the multiples. Serious lag.

Just a few wordsto once again thank Ronald Reagan for the encouragement,weapons,and money which he funnelled to our great cause in Afghanistan in the 80 s,which helped sow the seeds of Al queda>

The GOP media hypsters have committed the cardinal PR sin: They've bought into their own bullshit.

Yes, I hope like hell they pay the price for it. Shhh, please don't tell them - let them wander off down this dead-end path and let them discover their folly in November when it's too late to back-track back up the path. This time, they'll slip their own kool-aid rather than asking us to drink it.

An American Success Story

He became increasingly conservative in his views and soon was angling to become governor of California while his children were sent off to boarding schools, creating an emotional and physical distance from their high-profile parents.

"We were raised by nannies and maids," said Michael Reagan, who revealed in an autobiography that he could only recall two occasions when his father said he loved him.

Of all his children, Reagan was closest -- politically and personally -- with his firstborn, Maureen, whom he nicknamed "Mermie." (He loved endearments, and often referred to his wife Nancy as "Mommie," according to his staff.)

Although her beliefs on many issues, including support for the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights, were far from her father's, the two shared an affinity for public office. She ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate from California in 1982, and actively helped her father's re-election campaign. Before her death from cancer in 2001, she had become a national spokeswoman for the Alzheimer's Association and co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.

With his other daughter, Patti Davis -- who adopted her mother's surname to dissociate herself from her father's politics -- tensions were considerably more pronounced, especially after she moved in with a rock musician -- in violation of the Reagans' strict moral code -- before marrying her yoga instructor.

In his autobiography, Reagan wrote that Patti "made it plain to me that she thinks I am wrong and that she is against everything I stand for."

Ron Reagan Jr.'s relationship with his parents was also complicated.

In a memoir, he told of his mother's terse response to his call informing his parents that he was dropping out of Yale University to study with the Joffrey Ballet in New York.

"It's fine with me. I'll get your father," he recalled his mother saying. In recent years, working as a writer and journalist, he has dropped the "Junior" from his name.

Even among siblings, relationships were strained. Michael Reagan wrote that he and Maureen had a falling out in 1983 after she asked him to stop referring to his mother, Jane Wyman, in interviews. And Maureen has said that she was deeply hurt that Patti did not even know about her half-sister for more than seven years. She was further alienated by news releases in her father's gubernatorial campaign that announced he and Nancy had just two children, Patti and Ronnie.

For all that has been written about the Reagan family dynamic, it is telling that so much of what the public has learned has come from their own intensely personal memoirs.

And, as author Delia Ephron mused in 1989, in writing about Maureen Reagan's book, "it is also ironic that this couple who symbolized a return to hearth, home and 1950s innocence, should, in reality, be candidates for a very 1980s study on the troubled family."

more

Well, google first, post later is good advice. The miniseries IS out on dvd. http://tinyurl.com/2lwz2

I got my copy on the way :)

> A few days ago, I joked that the Republicans were out to deify Reagan. I didn't realize they really meant it.

As usual, The Onion got there long ago. I am reprinting the text of copyrighted article from several years ago. If you are a subscriber to their premium service, then you can get a nicely formatted version of it.

SIMI VALLEY, CA--Slave manpower was doubled this week in an effort to assure that erection of the gigantic Reagan Pyramid remains on schedule, and will be completed in time for the 40th President's mummification and
ascension into the Afterworld upon death.

With doctors concurring that the former leader, suffering from Alzheimer's, is expected to die within two years, swift completion of the towering structure is "of paramount priority," according to Republican party insiders.

"Only the most gigantic tomb ever created will be worthy of the Great Communicator," said former Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. "As his mortal subjects, it is our holy duty to provide Reagan with a burial commensurate with his stature, in order that he may enter the Realm of Death bedecked with raiments and honors so that he may take his rightful place beside the mighty Sun God, Ra." From his ranch estate, the bedridden Reagan responded, saying, "Ra."

According to project overseer and Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, the 118,000-ton pyramid, which is visible from a distance of over 40 miles and has already cost the lives of some 50,000 slaves, will serve not only as Reagan's conduit to the Empire of the Gods, but also as an earthly repository of the deified Republican's vast wealth.

"Buried with Reagan will be his finest treasures," Meese said, "including 2,500 MX intercontinental ballistic missiles, 15 Stealth bombers, a golden chalice of jelly beans and his most prized servant, George Bush."

Bush told reporters, "It is my honor and duty to have my sinus passages ceremonially packed with sand before my still-living, pain-racked body is forever locked with my leader's within the Great Reagan's final resting place. Let us all praise Osiris."

The former President's mummified husk will be placed in the burial chamber as perfectly intact as possible. To this end, Reagan's internal organs have already been removed and preserved, encased in ornate protective ceramic vessels and sealed in beeswax.

"This is the spleen that brought down the Evil Russian Empire," said Reagan Chief of Staff James Baker, holding aloft several of Reagan's just-removed innards. "And these are the lungs that ended the Great Iran Hostage Crisis, caused by his weak predecessor, Carter I. Hail Reagan."

According to reports, the massive burial monument staggers the imagination of all who behold it in its sheer splendor and majesty. Exquisite engravings, inlaid with gold and silver leaf and precious jewels, depict the cycle of the Reaganic Creation Myth, with the deified Reagan symbolically castrated by his mother, giving birth to the sun and moon, and then being dismembered by Set, his scattered bodily fragments forming the stars of the night sky.

Despite the great sanctity of its Inner Chamber, the Reagan Pyramid may attract Hittite raiders bent on desecrating and robbing it of its vast treasuries of gold, jewels, fine dyed cloth, rare Hollywood movie stills and a parchment from A.D.. 1982 depicting a $1.3 trillion Defense Department budget increase.

"Thieves and infidels must not violate the Great Reagan's sanctity!" Reagan high-priest Michael Deaver said. "All those who tread these halls without the Seven Keys of Sununu will die victims of the dreaded Curse of Reagan's Tomb!"

He later added, "Mwahh ha ha ha ha!"

The tomb will also be protected from Hittite marauders by a fleet of overhead Stealth bombers, biological and chemical warfare installations surrounding its base, and a $200 billion orbital "Star Wars" defense system.

Though the tomb itself will be off limits to all non-divine earthly beings, the general public will be allowed access to a nearby altar and bronze idol of Reagan, where Republican pilgrims may come to worship the former President and petition his intervention in prayer.

A gigantic statuary portrait of the President, standing over 100 feet high, will also gaze down on worshippers from a gigantic pedestal adorned with the inscription, "I Am Ronald Wilson Reagan, King of Kings. Look On My Works, Ye Mighty, And Despair."

From his bed, Reagan praised the work of his mortal subjects: "Pill lady," he said. "Pill."

Copyright 1996 ONION, INC., All Rights Reserved. Technical
questions/comments? Contact Tech Support Editorial questions/comments?
Contact Editorial Advertising/Sponsorship inquiries? Contact Business

ummmm, s9? would you give us a call at your earliest convenience?

How soon before they start clamoring for a Reagan Memorial (Lincoln-style) to be built on the Mall, or have they begun already? (I've unplugged the TV for the week. Is he still dead, everyone?)

Right next to the new WWII Memorial might be nice, seeing as Ronnie believed he fought valiantly in it. Pretty soon we'll all be believing it.

Meteor: But since every new public building, our money and our national monuments may soon be sullied with the Great Salesman's name or visage, I'm not so sure.

That has long worried me, too, but apparently Norquist's Reagan Legacy Project has been massively unsuccessful. Their goal is to have something named after Reagan in every one of the 3000-odd counties in the country. The total now stands at 43. Apparently in places where you can't use the power of the federal government to override local wishes (which they did, without any grasp or the irony, in renaming DC's National Airport), the idea isn't very popular.

Lady Madge: Clinton hasn't been asked to speak at the funeral services yet

Clinton (the sitting President) was the only president to speak at Nixon's funeral, so it doesn't seem unprecedented if this president is the only one to speak. Even if G.H.W. speaks, that doesn't make it way out of protocol -- after all, he was his VP for two terms.

I was 28 when Reagan was elected. It's comforting that someone who didn't really take in the RR years still has a dim view of him... if that means some people have been getting the unsanitized version of history.

This interview is too long to post here but well worth reading. I don't subscribe to Salon, so I read it on Steve's blog. Ron Reagan, Jr. is okay!

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2004/06/oh-my-god.html#comments

"How does Reagan's own son feel about comparisons with Bush? This Salon interview from last year lays it out (and "My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush" is one of the NICER things Ron Jr. has to say.)

Reagan blasts Bush
"My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush," says the former president's son, in a flame-throwing conversation about the war and the Bush administration's efforts to lay claim to the Reagan legacy...

With regard to the Reagan Celebrity Nostalgia Festival, at this point I have to say, "Bring it on."

What I remember from the Glory Days of Reagan was how people were so eager and willing to call his 'aw shucks' presentation as a display of great communication and statesmanship. I now think people readily bought into it because of the nastiness, divisiveness and jarring realities of the preceeding two decades. America wanted to be united, happy, powerful, honorable and saved. A 'cowboy' actor was hired to play the part as hero.

It is obvious that same script was handed over to W., to play the same role, only this time without a horse and a smirk instead of a smile. Problem is, Bush has the wrong agents, he applies too much "make up" and is a seriously bad actor. His policies have yielded our country divided, unstable, dishonored and for the first time in decades, actually quite vulnerable.

America still wants/needs to be saved by some white-hatted hero, to escape to some Hollywood happy ending inside our TV sets, shopping malls, and mainstream self-delusion. We want to be so comfortable we don't have to care. Again.

But the bodies and the bombs, the scandals and the resignations, the hate-spew from an intensely oppositional populace, is overwhelming, and almost more keenly, I believe, for the ignorant.

So let them celebrate the end of their Golden Boy and his Golden Era, and 'remember' how proud and shiney and safe and happy they were. Because the movie will end and then it's time to go home.

It may be bedtime for Bonzo,
but it's curtains for Bush.

Just think of the Presidency as a story. Everyone knows a good story must have a villain in order to produce a necessary conflict, one that builds suspense over the course of the story. In my lifetime, we’ve had good story presidents and presidential stories that just fell flat.

John Kennedy’s story ended so abruptly that even people born after his death experience a certain longing of what might have been. This was a story that still captures the imagination of new generations.

The villain won in Lyndon Johnson’s story. His villain was Vietnam. Nixon was a bit unique in that his own dark side was itself the character of his villain. Carter just wasn’t up to the hero’s challenge.

Then along came Ronald Wilson Reagan. He seemed born to play the hero in a great life and death struggle. Everything about his life up to the moment he took the oath of office had seemingly shaped him into the perfect underdog against what was then the perceived Goliath of the old Soviet Empire. He won against incredible odds. The doubts, which began early in his story, built to such a fever that there were times in the middle of the saga when virtually every reader held their breath and cringed in anticipation of his utter defeat.

The first George Bush had a great story too. Trouble was, he vanquished the villain so early in the story that most people put the book down halfway through his presidency. He was thus limited to one term. Clinton comes along and the only villain of worth they can muster is the “vast right wing conspiracy”. It worked pretty well, all things considered. He is the only modern President to leave office with higher Gallop poll approval ratings than Reagan.

Eventually, we got to the story of Dubya, little Bush or as some called him, shrub. The story line unfolded reasonably well, actually the stage was set to perfection, but whereas Reagan was an optimistic and confident hero, George W. came across as an arrogant, stubborn and seemingly dependent character that probably wasn’t really smart enough to do the job right. His audience tended to get bored easily after a while. It wasn’t that he didn’t have a good role and an awesome plot. He just didn’t have the integrity to pull off the Oscar winning performance his part had been written for. This particular story was perhaps the one with the most irony. Dubya’s greatest asset was thought to be his likeability but in the end, billions of people on the planet and tens of millions at home found that when it came right down to it, they didn’t much care for the mis-underestimated golden boy from Crawford, Texas. His re-election campaign ended in such abject failure that the out party not only regained control of the White House, but claimed majorities in both congressional houses as well. The fitting end to shrub’s dalliance with history was the appointment by his successor to the Supreme Court three of the most liberal and activist justices in history, two seats of which had been held by Republican appointed conservatives.

With the death of President Reagan, Americans have seen the more compassionate side of George W. Bush.

Right. He went golfing on Monday. I can tell he's just all tore up. (as we say here in tejas)

As for Ambassador Wilson, come often and share your thoughts, even if it has to be anonymously.

Will the Onion ever get the Pulitzer it deserves? I swear, during the darker days of 2002, it was the only media outlet that was even approaching the truth.

As for comparing Bush to Reagan- let's do just that! what great fun! I say we do a split screen of Reagan doing a speech on one side and chimpy on the other.

Compare and contrast. Discuss. For all I disagreed with reagan, at least he could speak the english language. Chimpy makes eubonics sound elegant.

How soon before they start clamoring for a Reagan Memorial (Lincoln-style) to be built on the Mall, or have they begun already? (I've unplugged the TV for the week. Is he still dead, everyone?)

Oh, they didn't wait for him to die before starting on a memorial. I recall a bill was pushed through the House a few years ago that decreed that one of the few remaining areas on the Mall be reserved for a Reagan memorial, and that it would be built without interference by the National Capital Planning Commission, architectural review, hearings, or any of those other pesky avenues for popular or local input (really!) I'm not sure what became of it; I can't imagine any similar crap could have gotten through the Senate, even with a Republican majority.

Right next to the new WWII Memorial might be nice, seeing as Ronnie believed he fought valiantly in it. Pretty soon we'll all be believing it.

Fought? Why he shot down 23 Japanese Zeros and single-handedly liberated two Nazi concentration camps and made training films for the Air Force. And anybody who doesn't believe it is a dirty commie pinko fag!

(Actually, in his autobiography, there's a hilarious passage where Reagan makes a big elaborate deal about how glad he was to get out of the service and get home to his wife and kids - which in his case meant taking off his uniform and having his chauffeur drive him from the studio to his mansion in Brentwood, or wherever.)

What can you say? The man may not have been that bright, but he sure had an active fantasy life.

Ashcroft

via WaPo , here's a link to Ashcroft's testimony today in front of the Senate Judiciary committee

Is someone going to do a photoshop of Reagan feeding the chimp with a baby's bottle?

Rove was to early to tell Nancy to use that pillow. Bush could have had a good week spining about a "won" UN resolution and a "successful" G8 meeting. Now these great achievements in foreign policy will be ignored.
They may try to kepp the Reagan celebrity scene up but adding some juicy story about a Bill C. who told a Mr. K. to burgle the window and use that pillow. Throw in some drugs and it will go another week. But even for Rove, thats a little far fetched.

Reagan's speechmaking ability makes W look like the ignorant cracker monkey he is.

Absolutely. Reagan's greatest strength was his skill as a trained, professional orator. Public speaking (with the exception of 9/11) is Bush's greatest weakness. After a week of everyone watching all of Reagan's Greatest Hits all the time, Bush will look like a one-hit wonder from 'where are they now?'.

The Reagan love-fest will backfire on Bush by revealing just how great the "stature gap" is between Reagan and W.

Is the GOP really so desperate to believe they'll get some kind of campaign bounce out of this? In Minnesota after Wellstone died, there was an outpouring of adoration that made Reagan's obituaries look practically libelous. Didn't really hold up for the election a few days later. Maybe we could convice the Republicans to hold a big memorial ceremony for the Gipper, and whip up some manufactured outrage about how shamelessly partisan the whole affair was.

Because this is a celebrity story, and that's how the TV audience has been conditioned to respond to celebrity stories. They're a form of entertainment. There's always a new one coming down the pike, and their appeal and durability is based purely on the personal details - on the strength of the story.

Yeah, the GOP PR machine must be losing its edge. Otherwise, it would have arranged for Reagan to die near the end of October when they could have gotten some effective bounce from his deification.

I guess they couldn't talk Nancy into putting poor Ronnie in cold storage until then, making the announcement of his death and having their Ronnielapooza at that time. She is still pissed at the Bushites for refusing to fund stem cell research to prevent diseases such as Alzheimer's.

Given the nature of Billmon's recent posts: Reagan and torture...

Do you suppose I can be lashed for flying my flag at full mast on Friday?

I'm not sure that one goes gentle into oblivion. For all I know, it could have been ten years of horror for Reagan. Or ten years of physical suffering with no cognition beyond pain.

In any event, no one deserves Alzheimers or to endure what his family did (and I assure you, I have little positive to say about his presidency other than he wasn't as bad as Bush). And Bush's continued dicking around with stem cell research demonstrates his lack of genuine caring about Reagan and others who could benefit from this new science.

Bush, Kerry to pull ads in Reagan salute

And I'm obliged to vote for this guy? Hurm. I think I hear Nader calling...

From the moment the news flashed Reagan had finally cashed out, I figured Dubya would get a bounce. But as so many have pointed out, any such bounce will be shortlived.

Things are still nasty in Iraq. In my neck of the woods, 4 national guardsmen from the same unit were killed over there last Thursday and Friday. These guys were never meant to be the frontline warriors. If I'm not mistaken, two of them were in their 50's.

Sheeeeeeyat. I'm 50. I'd NEVER envision myself in a combat theatre. My GI Joe days are long behind me. I ain't as young as I used to be, and the power of self preservation is strong.

So, that's going to be the enduring story - the Iraq fuckup continues. And the economy is sitting on the edge of an oily cliff.

As you see the bounce in the polls this week, consider it a "dead cat" bounce.

When I look at Ashcroft, Bush, the torture, the legal maneuverings, all I can say is:

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

Ooops, my bad. That was Bush II talking about A Queda.

Maybe I meant this:

I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.

Oh heck, I can't help it . . . now that the libretto is in the forefront of my mind again [from memory, excuse any scribal errors]:

O what a circus, O what a show!
Argentina has gone to town
over the death of an actress called Eva Peron.
We've all gone crazy, mourning all day and mourning all night,
falling over ourselves to get all
of the misery right.

O what an exit, that's how to go!
When they're ringing your curtain down
demand to be buried like Eva Peron.
It's quite a sunset,
and good for the country in a roundabout way:
we've made the front page
of all the world's papers today.

But who was this Santa Evita,
why all this howling hysterical sorrow?
What kind of Goddess
has lived among us?
How will we ever get by without her?

She had her moments, she had some style:
the best show in town was the crowd
outside the Casa Rosada crying "Eva Peron!"
But that's all gone now; as soon as the smoke from the funeral clears
we're all gonna see how
she did nothing for years.

Salve Regina, Mater Misericordiae
Salve, salve Regina Peron;
ad te clamamus, exules filii Eva,
ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes,
O Clemens O Pia!

Sing you fools but you've got it wrong
enjoy your prayers, you haven't got long.
Your Queen is dead, your King is through:
she's not coming back to you.

Instead of government we had a stage,
instead of ideals a prima donna's rage;
instead of laws we were given a crowd;
she didn't say much but she said it loud.

And who am I, who dares to keep
his head held high while millions weep?
why the exception to the rule?
opportunist, traitor, fool?
or just a man who grew and saw,
from seventeen to twenty-four,
his country bled, crucified --
she's not the only one who died.

. . .

From the libretto of 'Evita', Webber & Rice; the solo is for the (fictionalised) character of Che Guevara.

If only Saint Ronnie had done "nothing for years" -- it would have been a huge improvement.

Do you suppose they will hire a professional taxidermist to preserve his body, for installation in a glass case to which millions of Amurkan Kultists will make pilgrimage to show their patriotism and devotion? Do you suppose that bits of his old suits will be sold as talismans against disease and bad luck? Will someone steal the body?

Kerry is pulling ads at this time because they would be less effective in the middle of the media worship of Reagan.

Its called strategy.

Reagan next to WWII memorial? Or Bush next to Vietnam Memorial? Which sentence sounds more absurd? The evidence is clear: Reagan even did fake better than W!

Lady Madge,

Remember Clinton's speech at Nixon's funeral?

Jimmy Jazz,

Somehow this reminds me of the summer of Gary Condit. I joked that the news was all Condit all the time. Now it's all Reagan all the time. Backlash is inevitable if they don’t move on by Monday.

Kerry is pulling ads at this time because they would be less effective in the middle of the media worship of Reagan. Its called strategy.

Pulling the ads also saves money that would otherwise be spent from the campaign chest.

"How soon before they start clamoring for a Reagan Memorial (Lincoln-style) to be built on the Mall, or have they begun already? (I've unplugged the TV for the week. Is he still dead, everyone?"

Won't he also be carved into Mt. Rushmore?

ByteB,

I went to CNN but couldn't find a place to vote. I did, however, write a remembrance about Reagan. Glowing, I assure you.

Billmon!!

This is great news that Wilson recommended your blog. Maybe this is the way we'll get you to a wider audience.

Given the nature of Billmon's recent posts: Reagan and torture...

Do you suppose I can be lashed for flying my flag at full mast on Friday?

That's why I don't fly the flag in my yard.

I don't want to be obliged to take it down every time an asshole visits the heavenly proctologist.

So, when did the Attorny General become the President's private attorney?

We'll now turn to Senator Feinstein.

FEINSTEIN: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Attorney General.

I'm really concerned by the answers that I've heard today, because we've passed laws against torture. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has laws. The Geneva Conventions have laws to which we subscribe by treaty. And it seems to me, what you're doing this morning -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- is essentially reserving this for the executive domain and not being willing to share the public policy that results in the ratification of treaties and the passage of laws as it respects torture.

These memos clearly do exist, and if you read the newspapers they appear to be an effort to redefine torture and narrow the prohibition against it by carving out a class of something called exceptional interrogation. So these memos actually either reverse or substantially alter 30 years of interpretation by our body, as well as the executive, of the Geneva Conventions.

I'd like to ask you this: Will you share access of these memos on a classified basis?

ASHCROFT: It's a long-standing position of administrations going back decades that a variety of high-level memoranda and advice are presumptively protected as a function of the separation of powers; that the president has the right to get advice from his attorney without having the advice provided outside that stream of counsel.

Only the president asserts privilege, which I have not done. But I believe that's the basis for my refusal, and I think it's a valid basis.

The main comparison between Reagan and W. Bush is that they were both handpicked by the right wing of their party to play the part of president while others ran things behind the scenes. Reagan, a professional, albeit B-Grade, actor gave a much more convincing performance. Both work/worked from scripts and babble like idiots when off-script. Both presided over govenments eager to circumvent the law at any opportunity. Well, maybe there's more to compare than I thought.

Maybe this is the way we'll get you to a wider audience.

Being completely and totally selfish here, I don't WANT a wider audience! This bar's so crowded most of the time, I can't keep up reading through the comments.

Should have taken that Evelyn Wood course years ago...

The UN Security Council resolution on Iraq has just been passed unanimously

If your going to talk fondly (not) of the regun era,dont forget the fact that nancy was in charge using the zodiac as their guide.

Mushinronsha, cmdicely,

uh-huh. And is this also strategy?

Or could it be that, like Gore before him, Kerry takes the left for granted and panders to the center? That wasn't a very good strategy as I recall. Democrats should not be praising Reagan, whether they're campaigning or not.

It's a long-standing position of administrations going back decades that a variety of high-level memoranda and advice are presumptively protected as a function of the separation of powers; that the president has the right to get advice from his attorney without having the advice provided outside that stream of counsel.

Asscroft is the most incompetent attorney general ever. First of all, he's not the president's attorney. So what's he claiming here? executive privilege? attorney -client privilege? It's bogus to claim that congress doesn't have oversight of the justice department. They need to slap his happy ass with a big fat contempt of congress citation and subpoena the memos.

And third of all, if he saying that he gave the president advice on torture? if so then he is REALLY a dumbass, cause he just admitted that the president knew about these policies- and probably approved them. Clear lawbreaking in my opinion.

The UN Security Council resolution on Iraq has just been passed unanimously

Some sweetheart deals done in the last week.

Interests.......................

Maybe some Russian, Chinese, German and French troops will be sent to protect.

Via atrios, a more elegant argument about why both chimpy and asscrack need to go to jail:

Bush to US Constitution: Drop Dead.

Well, as Kerry has had his own incarnations - and reincarnations - from Irishman to Polack to Jew - maybe he identifies with a guy who spent his life acting too.

Maybe Kerry's just holding fire until his 'Acme genealogical chart' has been drawn up, then he can carry on trying to be all things to all men

4legsgood -- What a concept! Split-screen with the Great Communicator "Aw, shucks"-ing on one side and W. on the other, unable to get out 5 words without mispronouncing at least 2 of them. Talk about a stature gap...

UN. Yes and No.

How much did it cost USUK for this resolution?

How much will it cost the Kurds, again!

nancy was in charge using the zodiac as their guide

Didja ever think you'd live to see the day when that sounded like the more sane alternative to what's going on now?

The GOP media hypsters have committed the cardinal PR sin: They've bought into their own bullshit.

Even worse, they've oversold their own bullshit. The-All-Ronnie-All-The-Time necro-philia wallow-fest will have all but the true believers ready to hurl by the end of the week. Enough Already!!! Enough, Yesterday!!!

[Note to bar patrons -- we need more necro-based catch phrases. What best describes the necro-orgy of wing nut revisionism?]

The man may not have been that bright, but he sure had an active fantasy life.

Actually, I think he was fairly bright -- just not in a factual sort of way. When he was doing baseball games on radio, he would read a wire service outline of the game, and flesh it out into all of the textured action of a baseball game. Pure fiction, but effective. There was one game where the wire went down, and he had the batter fouling off one pitch after another for an extended period.

I also read that he could skim a briefing book, and make a presentation armed with nothing more than his 3 by 5 cards, and he wowed the audience with his expertise.

Of course, he never did get the Ruskies to agree to a joint defense, in repelling a Martian invasion.

I'll withhold my judgement until I see (read) shrub's remarks on Friday and what kind of "memorial service" they hold at the GOP convention. The right lambasted the left for turning Wellstone's service into a political rally. Will anyone have the guts to challenge the Repub's if they use Reagan's death for political gain?

...went to CNN but couldn't find a place to vote.

front page www.cnn.com, bottom lower right corner above the from our partners section.

The UN Resolution worries the shit out of me. Now the Arab world must be thinking.........

The Fish...............The Fan is waiting for a HUGE TURD.

Excessive comparisons between Reagan and Bush are dangerous for the latter - people will notice that Dubya went senile much earlier.

uh-huh. And is this also strategy?

In part, yes, and in part the honest ability to see the genuine good that is in people -- even if they aren't all good -- across the partisan divide. Which, also, is a useful trait in a leader.

Bedtime for Bonzo.
Curtains for Bush.

I like that.

Four Legs: Did you see Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer, with Bush asking the world to fight Binladin then turning to his gulf party?
And Amb. Wilson (as anyone else) may be anonymous to us when posting here, but he's probably not really for Billmon, who may be able to check the IPs of the comments.

"Is someone going to do a photoshop of Reagan feeding the chimp with a baby's bottle?"
It's been a long time since I haven't seen a Billmon's photoshop here around ;) (hint, hint)

Cloned Poster: My take is rather that France and Russia (and others) basically said to Bush they would vote the more-or-less acceptable resolution if he forgets any hope of seeing them cancelling Iraqi debt (tens of billions) in the G8 summit right now.
But clearly it also means the UN can't rule Iraq and will be seen as the Enemy if they take over if Bush pulls back.

Ashcroft: But I believe that's the basis for my refusal

Um, if you are refusing to provide information to Congress, you better know the basis of your refusal, not just "believe" that something is the basis.

There are sometimes where guessing is not an option.

And, by the way, you are the United States Government's lawyer not the President's personal lawyer. You aren't even the President's particular lawyer in his capacity as President, that would be the White House Counsel.

The Congress, you will note, has oversight authority over pretty much the entirety of the US government, and anything you do for the government belongs to them.

T2 : There is a big difference. Reagan's cowboy clothes fit him comfortably, sort of like they came right out of a western movie. GW looks like a little boy playing dress-up again when he's in his ranch duds. For both, there's got to be some point at which even ignorant admirers are going to figure out that their hero isn't really Top Gun or Matt Dillon. Isn't there?

Two words: Walter Mitty

Where's James Thurber when we need him?

My own take on Reagan: a man who could believe six impossible things before breakfast.

Certainly feels like Alice through the Looking Glass around here. Naah, more like Kafka.

CluelessJoe

Iraq is a ClusterFuck. All those "Private Contractors" are spooks and special forces in kevlar.

Methinks ..............................

cmdicely,

I fail to see any good in Reagan's character. We are still paying the costs of his administration, especially with respect to foreign policy. Reagan was a character without much character, little more than a mouthpiece for people who are still running the show today.

Don't get me wrong, I want Bush out of there as much as anyone else at this bar. But I think Kerry is running his campaign far too much like Gore did before him, and will thus likely suffer the same fate. To the degree that he's doing as good as he is, it's because El Arbusto is far worse off than his Pappy was 4 years ago. Not because Kerry is inspiring.

St. Ronald,week-long seance,massive obituary frenzy , '80s nostalgia festival, celebrity necroadoration

NOW there's really nothing left to say about him. you are too hot billmon, can you get any better?? probably, but jesus i'm gonna split a gut.

cluelessjoe, about "usually by convincing themselves a potential action or a pending event will salvage the situation" compares that to how "Goebbels [in] late 1944 [said] "We have secret weapons that we will unleash on our enemies, which are so formidable they will destroy them utterly and turn the tide of the war.""

A better parallel in WWII is how Hitler believed the death of FDR would unravel the allies, like czarinna Catharina's demise saved Frederik the Great.

Route 66, I decided to get my kicks over at the WaPo link you posted to Ashcroft's testimony. Turns out it's basically one long "shut the fuck up" to the concept of oversight:

Second, let me - we are at war. And for us to begin to discuss all the legal ramifications of the war is not in our best interest and it has never been in times of war.

This is a long understood and long-established practice. Frank Murphy, for example, who during the World War II time in the Roosevelt administration - let me just read to you what he said about the way these things.

He explained in part refusing to give his opinion to the Senate, citing what was already long-established practice of attorneys general in 1939. He put it this way. And I'm quoting.

While the constitutional powers of the president in time of war, now the quote starts, "have never been specifically defined and, in fact, cannot be, since their extent and limitations are largely dependent on conditions and circumstances. The right to take specific action might not exist under one state of facts, while under another it might be the absolute duty of the executive to take such action."

I'm not doing anything other than to say that there is a long-established policy reason grounded in national security that indicates that the development and the debate of hypotheses and practice of what can and can't be done by a president in time of war is not good government. (emphasis added)

But whatever Ashcroft's using is too strong for me, I feel sick.

As rememberinggiap has eloquently noted in the past few threads, not only is the truth about how WW2 was conducted and who actually won it (the Soviets) being twisted out of all recognition, but this administration is now trying to persuade us that it's refighting the bloody thing - (almost) single-handedly again, natch - solely in order to posture that it is now beyond criticism.

The hope within the GOP that pageantry surrounding Reagan's passing will boost George W. Bush in the polls reminds me of a favorite Gahan Wilson cartoon. An eager group of scientists are clustered around a graph. A pair of wires is connected to electrodes, just below the last point on the graph's steeply declining curve, and the most wild-eyed of the scientists is pointing at the electrodes with one hand, and grasping a switch with the other:

"And when it reaches here, we'll give it a little electric shock, and it will go up again!"

Note to bar patrons -- we need more necro-based catch phrases. What best describes the necro-orgy of wing nut revisionism?

cannibalistic necrophagious incest

CNN has been an entertainment channel for at least five years. On the other hand, facts are stubborn things, and facts are going to shape W's "image." And the facts are not his friend.

Sukabi,

Thank you.

Billmon and barflies,

Damn you all. I took the day off to catch up on paperwork and instead I've been sitting here drinking in this bar all day. Stop it already! Every time I get up to go to my other desk, one of you offers me another drink. I'm a total addict.

Btw, out of curiosity, I just checked approval ratings. Total term approval ratings for Clinton - 55%. For Reagan - 53%. With the national mythmaking in progress you'd think his ratings would be more like 90%.

Due this media overload; we must demand a postponement of the Peterson trial, else a certain mistrial.

CNN question of the day: Wolfe Blitzer's page.

Or could it be that, like Gore before him, Kerry takes the left for granted and panders to the center? That wasn't a very good strategy as I recall. Democrats should not be praising Reagan, whether they're campaigning or not.

Look, I don't like it any better than you do but, at the moment, Kerry is doing what he can to remain neck and neck with Bush. The odds are very much stacked against Kerry - were Bush a more competent leader, it wouldn't even be a contest now. The American people will stick with an incumbent president unless the incumbent just blows (which Bush does, luckily for us).

If you want to hold Kerry to a high level of purity as a candidate, be my guest because it's your right as a citizen. But if enough of you do that, we're going to be looking at Bush wag his hiney in our faces for another four years - it's that close. Right now, he has to meet only one standard for me - that he beat Bush in November.

If Kerry does win, then I'll hold him to a very high level of purity as a president. I don't expect he'd do nearly as good a job as I would want from my president but he's going to have a very tough job, especially working with a Rethug Congress and a GOP attack machine biting at his ankles every day. He may not be the perfect candidate or run the perfect campaign but he's better than the alternative (IMHO).

route66:

ASHCROFT: It's a long-standing position of administrations going back decades that a variety of high-level memoranda and advice are presumptively protected as a function of the separation of powers; that the president has the right to get advice from his attorney without having the advice provided outside that stream of counsel.

As I said before, Ashcroft must be living in fantasyland. He's talking like he's the President's personal counsel, which he most certainly is not.

I see this as real evidence of the Bunker Mentality that Capitol Hill Blue reported on.

> ummmm, s9? would you give us a call at your earliest convenience?

Fair use. Have your lawyer call my lawyer.

4 more wars:

(quoting Ashcroft)

Second, let me - we are at war. And for us to begin to discuss all the legal ramifications of the war is not in our best interest and it has never been in times of war.

Probably I'm slipping into early Alzheimer's myself, but can somebody tell me when Congress declared war? Recently?

@slopthrop
wingnut revisionism = regurgitated necromantic coprophilia

Btw, out of curiosity, I just checked approval ratings. Total term approval ratings for Clinton - 55%. For Reagan - 53%. With the national mythmaking in progress you'd think his ratings would be more like 90%.

When the history books are re-written by the Ministry of Truth, Reagan's ratings will be 90%, Sassybelle. And all references to Clinton will be deleted, except those that declare him to be the Anti-Christ.

UN Resolution = Iraq is Sovereign Country............. let's see how it pans out.

Reckon he's been dead for years and only brought out now to distract from W's dew drops, or, as pablo suggested right out, Nancy used a pillow to get attention away from W's dew drops?

Here is AJ's take on the UN.

Notice the last paragraph

Won't he also be carved into Mt. Rushmore?

No, they'll save time and just rename it Mt. Reagan.

As soon as the funeral is over the war in Iraq will take front and center again and Bush will continue to falter. The Bushies are dazed and confused.

The Plame case, the torture case, Asscroft, etc, etc, etc. There is so many crimes the Bushies have committed how can everything be pushed under the table? Middle America has already decided. I still don't know who the repubs or anyone else is poling to even get 40% for Bush. His ship is sunk.

I will be glad when this Ragass shit is over. I didn't vote for that asshole and his draconian economic policies.

The CNN poll is running 69-against, 31-for putting RR on the $10 bill! Vote early and often.

Three words sum up the Reagan Legacy:

Trickle. Down. Economics.

I harbor no hatred of Reagan. However, if the Republican National Committee and Bush-Cheney '04 actually believe everything they've been saying about the man publicly, you gotta think that they're wondering why he didn't pop out of the casket Monday morning, on schedule.

This week's social construction of Reagan proves the political right controls the purchase of the real. How this fact redounds to Bush depends on the credibility of his inheritence of the unquestioned reality of Reagan's legacy. Now the right-wing must aggressively demonstrate as unequivocally as possible the inappropriateness of Kerry to represent these "truths."

I'd sure like to think Bush is beyond rescue, even with the Reagan thing going Bush's way. One certainty is the competition for meaning, or as Volosivov said, the power to maintain the "uniaccentuality of the sign," favors Bush. That's a giant bonus for him.

Four Legs: Did you see Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer, with Bush asking the world to fight Binladin then turning to his gulf party?

I have. It's enough to make a person barf. Continuously.

Asscroft should take notice that even if he were the president's counsel (which he's not) he certainly wouldn't be able to assert privilege. Asscrack is as lousy a lawyer as he was a senator.

To paraprase Ron, Jr.: Dubya ain't shit.

Night Owl

Three words sum up the Reagan Legacy:

Trickle. Down. Economics.

Are you sure you don't mean

Trickle. Down. Leg. ?

at June 8, 2004 06:21 PM

Same. Same. I was just using the long form.

So true. Do they really think he will get a bounce from this? By next week, most people will barely remember Reagan.

Well, let's see. Remember that Reagan supported Ssddam Hussein throughout the 80s in a variety of ways. Somebody needs to make a campaign commercial focused on that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.

In addition, Reagan was a great supporter of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Reagan traded arms for hostages, making a deal with that other member of the "axis of evil."

He cut and ran from Lebanon.

And whatever the credit he should get for "winning" the Cold War, the only "Communist" country he ever invaded was Grenada. By the Reagan model, maybe Dubya should have invaded, uh, is there anything smaller than Bahrain?

So just how is Reagan supposed to be a model for Dubya?

four more wars

thank you for your comments but another point i want to make about bad history is its convergence with forgetting - with not remembering

a simple point made here in relation to polls (though i think they are a ludicrous form of self definition) of clinton & reagan - that clintons percentage is significantly bigger. but it is done with everything of importance

history is torn out of all context until it literally becomes unreadable & we have to have magisterial historians like raul hilberg & robert paxton to pull us back into reality.

paxton is an important example because here in france until his work - there was an inability - at the level of scholarship - to confront the dirty facts of history as they were enunciated under petain

one historian (american) with a mighty work made the whole stack of cards collapse & created in a sense - french historians with a greater sense of responsibility to the task

hilberg also with his magisterial work on the holocaust - telling us history is now - know the details - do not forget - these are not fictions - the lessons must be learnt well

unfortunately, towering works like these & there are others are drowned in the revisionism that serve the political policies of corrupt governments

again, i do not think it is accidental - the voice of resistance to that revisionismm has been well & truly fucked at the universities - mostly by marginalisation & privatisation but a great deal by neglect

i don't know if people here can remember that the 60's was an important time in terms that inter disciplinary scholarship had an important place in widening & sharing knowledge, even architecturally universities at that time had agoras where there was a mixing of disciplines -

i think that had a great deal of importance in creating a solid rigorous left.

by the 80's that interdisciplinary strand in scholarship had been eliminated because it is clear the state did not want the connections made between sociology & biology for example & the specious specialisation (careerism aussi) destroyed what was an unforced communality.

at best it was a communality of wonder - of remembering

still steel

Mushinronsha,

Ah,yes - that Ministry of Truth. How silly of me to overlook it.

That's it. I'm going to see if Brokaw has anything to report other than on the greatest leader of all time in any country in the world. Maybe I can sober up a bit before returning to the Whiskey Bar.

Here, Bartender, buy a round for the rest of these folks (as she throws money on the bar and leaves).

Three words sum up the Reagan Legacy:
Trickle. Down. Economics.

Max Cleland got a big laugh at the Virginia Democratic convention Saturday with a line I first heard in the 1980s. It's still good:
"The only thing working people have gotten from trickle-down economics is trickled on."

Right now, he has to meet only one standard for me - that he beat Bush in November.

I think this constant lowering of standards hurts us every bit as much as Bush. It is what allows Bush in the first place- to think he's the problem rather than the latest (and admittedly, most destructive to date) symptom of a larger problem. Electing Kerry is like putting a band-aid on a slit wrist. Better than nothing? OK. But my god, man, you're still going to die.

He may not be the perfect candidate or run the perfect campaign but he's better than the alternative

When, oh when, are we going to stop believeing there is only ever one alternative? That is self-defeating in the extreme.

If you want to hold Kerry to a high level of purity as a candidate, be my guest because it's your right as a citizen. But if enough of you do that

you who? You citizens, who are expressing our aforementioned right? But... it's our right! It is, I would argue, our responsibility.

If Kerry does win, then I'll hold him to a very high level of purity as a president

By then, it is too late. You have to hold it over his head while he's still got something to loose.

Chris

Remember that Reagan supported Ssddam Hussein throughout the 80s in a variety of ways.

Whatever, etc. None of this can be entered into the discourse of his legacy.

The myth is unassailable. This fact benefits no one but Bush. And yes, this lasts at least long enough to smite the ambition of Clinton to formulate his own epitaph.

@slopthrop/Big Mike

necrophiliophagious coprohagiographimania. say it six time fast!

This week's social construction of Reagan proves the political right controls the purchase of the real.

Ummm . . . not quite. The necro-pageant of St Ronnie the Gipper is a clear demonstration of how the right creates a dominant public narrative.

But the Real -- has intruded on their splendid little narrative (this week's necro-fest excepted) -- and it is Reality that is dragging down Bush, who is dragging down the GOP.

The GOP's success is due to their ability to spin an advantageous narrative, that obscures the harsh light of the Truth.

But the Truth has come roaring back -- with a vengeance.

The performance of Ashcroft today was nasty, a nasty little shock. A shock not because of him (he's invariably awful) but because of the ineffectual reactions his questioners. Leahy and Biden were okay. But someone needs to go after the guy, nail him.

The kindest way to eulogize Reagan is to compare him to W.

@ Slopthrop

Wingnut panegyric = crapous and corpulent coprophagia

The last word means eating excrement. Such an apt description for these hideous assassins of truth.

Comparing Reagan and Dubya, what about horses? Reagan looked good on horses and comfortable handling them.

Just what is it with Dubya and horses, anyway?

Mountain bikes aren't really a "red state" equivalent.

Your point is as usual extremeley well taken: This RNC- orchestrated foolishness about Reagan will be forgotten by most folks in a week - plus.

Dear Leader gets no bounce out of this one at all.

Ministry of Truth

Maybe you mean the Ministry of Public Enlightenment
(google it if you haven't heard of it)

Bean:
But someone needs to go after the guy, nail him

Not just him. The whole lot.

Maybe it's time for me to make some more calls to my so-called representatives about it. I always demand to know their positions on these things. The aids have to go look them up, figure them out, usually they don't have any. (Especially Hillary Clinton. Makes me furious.) In DC they seem to live in a bigger bubble than any of us civilians.

Gauleiter Bremer bans Moqtada al-Sadr from Iraqi "elections" (via Antiwar.com).

Lol!

Also, the brilliant Steve Bell does it again. Check out the propulsion on the horse. Bell does the best Chimp, hands down.

Reagan's head on a dime: $ .10
Reagan's head on a ten dollar bill: $10.00
Reagan's head on Mt. Rushmore: $150 million
Reagan's head on a stake: priceless

maybe it's time to make some more calls to my so-called representatives

Might as well help others to do the same

Capitol Switchboard:

1 202 224 3121

I think the Ashcroft issue is a good one to press the Dems on. Include the leadership. Number above will get you an operator that will connect you to anyone in the House or Senate you ask for.

I think Reagan's head would go best on a -$10.00 bill.

or maybe a -$3,000,000,000 dollar bill, since that's the bill he stuck us with.

RIP? I sure hope not. "Will the earth accept his corpse?" says Jeffery St. Clair

They're about to dump pennies, sez the NYTimes. What about a Reagan penny? What would be on the obverse?

Mark Kleiman links to this little article on the "Zen of Bushism" -- FYI:

http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/

Electing Kerry is like putting a band-aid on a slit wrist. Better than nothing? OK. But my god, man, you're still going to die.

I don't accept your analogy but,if you feel that way, vote for Nader (or one of the candidates from the other parties).

When, oh when, are we going to stop believeing there is only ever one alternative? That is self-defeating in the extreme.

Kerry isn't the only alternative. Nader's running - vote for him, or the Peace and Freedom candidate or the Green candidate, etc. You've got lots of choices.

you who? You citizens, who are expressing our aforementioned right? But... it's our right! It is, I would argue, our responsibility.

If you're going to vote, I'd say you have a responsibility to vote whoever you think is the best candidate.

By then, it is too late. You have to hold it over his head while he's still got something to loose.

Yeah, right. I've noticed how everyone has given up on beating Bush on the head.

Over at Gadflyer.com, Paul Waldman has posted (6/7) the actual figures, Nixon through Bush 2, of government spending as a percentage of GDP. Need ammunition? WMD's are waiting there for you!

Is it just me, or does anyone else consider the death of Reagan to be a good omen?

ae, you left out three zeros...$3,000,000,000,000

Sassybelle:
Damn you all. I took the day off to catch up on paperwork and instead I've been sitting here drinking in this bar all day. Stop it already! Every time I get up to go to my other desk, one of you offers me another drink. I'm a total addict.

Girl, I feel your pain.

Hurts so good, doesn't it? ;-)

Richard Cranium:
Sheeeeeeyat. I'm 50. I'd NEVER envision myself in a combat theatre. My GI Joe days are long behind me.

My most earnest wishes (which, if I were religious, I'd make a prayer): that your combat exposure is entirely over and done, a thing of the past. That you will not, within the next few years, find yourself obliged to take up arms. That there will not be an occasion when the only alternative is to look at a fellow citizen over the sights of a rifle.

And I wish that for all of us here.

I'm so tired of being worried about what the fascists are going to do, and when they're going to do it... Hopefully, the great indolent Marginal Majority is getting similarly tired of some of the rightwing attitudes and activities.

Isn't it a little early for a Dead Cat Bounce?

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- Former President Bush is planning to go ahead with an 80th birthday parachute jump this weekend following the week of mourning for former President Reagan.

Let's none forget that we must keep a wary and watchful eye behind the curtain this week.

Notice how Chalabi fell out of the news as well as out of favor? Notice how we didn't hear any detail at all concerning Bush/Cheney putting private attorneys on retainer? Valerie Plame investigation? No? Florida voting fiasco of 2000 can't hold a candle to VoteFraud Redux 2004. Didn't hear about it? Where's Powell been? Off the reservation, obviously. Nary a word about Sibel Edmunds' hearing on June 14 in DC(not that we would normally hear about this one, right Uncle $cam?). Yet I bet we all know more than we cared about J-Lo's personal life. The media is redundantly pathetic, we know this, which makes it all the more difficult to stay on top of things. I'm fully preparing for the inevitable hijinks during Reagan-fest this week. I wonder what they'll attempt to slip past the public? What we are seeing regarding the torture memos coming to light are what this administration does in the dark, without scrutiny. Imagine the full breadth of this. These memos are leaks. We were not supposed to know about them. Imagine what exists within, hidden from the light of day, things not yet leaked...

Perhaps his last rites should be read in Latin.

otay ayday Iay omecay otay urybay easercay. otnay otay aisepray imhay....etc-ay.

Route66,
lol
Love it, but remember : for everything else there is deficits.

Billmon, great post.

I think you'd really appreciate the themes in this book, which deals largely with narcissism and power:

Shame and Humiliation: Presidential Decision-Making in Vietnam.

Have a look if you can find it.

Cheers. Perhaps in exchange you could pour me a neat Lagavulin and not mention the bill.

My only point, at the beginning of this thread, was that Kerry's joining the chorus of Reagan hagiographers wasn't endearing him to a not-insignificant portion of lefty voters- that it was a crap strategy, and that it was a new addition to the growing list of thing he's doing, or not doing more to the point, which will push those voters into the Nader camp. That's all.

Believe me, I'm well aware that I can vote for whichever candidate I want to- even Yoda.

As for whether the slit-wrist analogy is, um, overstating it or not, I'm happy to agree to disagree. But Kerry's got a lot of the same donors, and interests, in his pocket as Bush does. So, while I don't deny he's likely to keep us from sliding into some kind of (overt) neo-fascist corporate oligarchy as fast as Bush, I'm sure not convinced he represents a huge shift away. Enough, perhaps, to be worth voting for- who am I to second-guess Noam? But I would still claim it's better to hold him to things now than to vote for him simply because he's not Bush. He should't get a free pass for that.

ae, you left out three zeros...$3,000,000,000,000

my goodness, so I did!

it's looking more like they put that twit to sleep. would anybody put it past these reptiles?

who won the cold war? in my view it was Gordon Moore and Steve Jobs and the Beatles

Reagan's legacy: Hekmatyar and UBL

Here's thoughts from the campaign desk http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000617.asp

"But that'll only get you through one day (stories of Reagan's death) at most. So here's a suggestion from Campaign Desk: Why not use the time to take a step back and focus on some of the potential stories that seem to get overlooked because of the daily imperative to file at all costs?

The one angle not covered in the otherwise excellent piece is the rampant exploitation by the Republican Noise Machine of the short news cycle.

Just a thought

thanks

Bloomburg take on the ashcroft testimony,

U.S.'s Ashcroft Won't Release or Discuss Torture Memo (Update3)

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, testifying before a congressional committee, refused to release or discuss memoranda that news reports say offered justification for torturing suspected terrorists. Two Democratic senators said Ashcroft's stance may constitute contempt of Congress, a federal crime.

somebody needs to twist hatch's arm to start the proceedings against asshat (ashcroft) Bring out the old news tapes, because if I'm not mistaken he himself divulged some classified info in the not to distant past. He's just now starting to make a re-emergence into the light.

Probably I'm slipping into early Alzheimer's myself, but can somebody tell me when Congress declared war?

If it did, it's probably classified information by now. You know, just like in WW2.

Me and the guys are just getting on with it, doing this new "fourth generation" stuff - none too clear if that covers wars against nouns (drugs, terror) - is that "fifth generation" stuff maybe?

All I know is that we have really sore hooves. Again.

All I know is that we have really sore hooves. Again.

Well, score one for the Gipper. So to speak.

"GOP high command"

Shouldn't "high command" be capitalized? GHC, or the German High Command, was always capitalized in my WWII readers.

Speaking of readers by buddy received as a gift last night "The I Hate Bush Reader" - should be required text for all elementary school students.

I half remember hearing about the proposed Reagan memorials on Saturday (turned off the tv after that) but one of the talking heads said that Congress passed a bill that doesn't allow anything else to be added to the National Mall.

Did anyone else hear that? Did a quick google, but didn't find anything. I'll keep looking.

@J

I see this as real evidence of the Bunker Mentality

You'd think that is the case, sure, if only they occasionally demonstrated they have their shit together. Watching Ashcroft squirm like he was sitting on a flaming dildo convinced me he was simply unprepared.

Is that arrogance or stupidity?

slothrop:

Watching Ashcroft squirm like he was sitting on a flaming dildo convinced me he was simply unprepared.

Is that arrogance or stupidity?

Does anybody know where I can see a clip of this? Online, maybe?

I think all along they've demonstrated both arrogance and the stupidity that usually goes along with it. (Look at their preparations for Iraq.) It's just that 9/11 and the WoT has excused everything. And the Dems have gone along, at least partly from arm twisting by the usual.

They're only just beginning to get the hard questions put to them, I think.

semper ubi: How soon before they start clamoring for a Reagan Memorial (Lincoln-style) to be built on the Mall, or have they begun already?

They've no need. Unless they try to replace FDR on the US Dime. Like Nixon before him, Ronnie got a silly California city to pay for it all, or whatever the feds wouldn't pick up. Simi Valley, California is now on the map for something more than redneck cops, palm trees and dust. I'm a Left Coast Woman. I know these things. Of course I live closer to the Nixon Shrine behind the Orange Curtain in Yorba Linda, but hey... they know how to immortalize mass murderers in California, home of the largest prison industrial complex on the Happy Planet. Grrrr...

OT: The torture memo, or at least a 56-page chunk of it, is now available online.

@J-Does anybody know where I can see a clip of this? Online, maybe?

C-Span rules!

Not to mention the Archie Bunker Mentality also prominently displayed by many members of the current administration....

Well, the whole media is not put to sleep, apparently, by the Reagan coverage:

Memo Says Bush Not Restricted by Torture Bans

Thank you Janie! Am going to watch it now.

J asked way upthread: Probably I'm slipping into early Alzheimer's myself, but can somebody tell me when Congress declared war? Recently?

Nope. Not since Dubya-Dubya-Eye-Eye (otherwise known as WWII, The Good War) They've regularly shirked their constitutionally mandated responsibilities since then to let the "rulers" run their private little "police actions" using the US military for fodder. Nice, eh? I'm not sure who's voting for those folks, but we've got to find him, stop him and "wrassle" him to the ground real soon now.

Reagan's head on a dime: $ .10
Reagan's head on a ten dollar bill: $10.00
Reagan's head on Mt. Rushmore: $150 million
Reagan's head on a stake: priceless

Substitute BUSH on the last one: PRICELESS TO THE NTH

I'm a true medievalist.

WALLACE

LOL Kate!

I'm having trouble downloading the clip from C-Span (probably too many people at once trying to do so), but it's on C-SPAN2 on television right now.

I'm glad Kerry isn't giving the Repug spinners much to shoot at and twist right now. It's far enough away from November to get his ducks in a row including choosing his running mate. Let the incumbent blow his load prematurely like he does everything else including dragging the country into a war of atrocity. The voters don't pay much attention til the last few weeks anyway.

For whatever reason,... He decided not to campaign this week. I would like to think it is out of respect not only for a former first family but to all of us as well.

Do you think GWB is man enough to piss in the shower?

Watching C-SPAN2. Quick take: It's neither arrogance nor stupidity. (this time) He seems to be squirming because he knows he's in trouble. (Leahy's questioning right now, and he's taken a specific bit between his teeth and won't let go.) I'm gonna call Leahy office with support too. They like to hear that once in awhile.

It seems the AG really is trying to protect Bush personally, as if he's his personal atty.

Wallace...

Or from another era: "on a pike".

"By the risin' o' the moon
By the risin' o' the moon
For the pikes must be together
By the risin' o' the moon."

;-)

many of the posters here have suggested that the current excessive coverage of reagan's death is a display of "necrophilia" or "corpsophilia." I have noticed that others have referred to the coverage as analagous to the consumption and/or production of excrement. And I have noticed that at least one poster has requested that more such terminology be used. so let me heartily recommend to your attention an excellent blog entitled "american coprophagia," at amcop.blogspot.com. Please scroll down and read the post under the heading "evil," which gives a translation/paraphrase of reagan's second inaugural address.

Reagan's head on a dime: $ .10
Reagan's head on a ten dollar bill: $10.00
Reagan's head on Mt. Rushmore: $150 million
Reagan's head on a stake: priceless

I like that - nice one. Reagan's head on a stake - sort of as a warning to other moronic, fascist B movies actors thinking of running for President.

I feel those still residing in the land of the formerly free who must endure the media orgy over Reagan's diseased corpse and foul legacy. Those outside the golden shores are relatively free from the nonsense and look upon it with unsurprised bewilderment.

Only 72 hours to go and then the nonsense should die down ... until of course Reagan rises from the grave three days and three nights later ...

Dame Kate

You are a most poetic Muse!

WALLACE

Can it be????

.... that it's Bush personally who's the origin of the Valerie Plame leak (or at least its implementation)?

.... that it's Bush personally who's responsible for authorizing torture programs and claiming his orders override the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, etc.?

What did he know and when did he know it???

This reminds me of the SNL skit about Reagan the public doofus/private mastermind.

One more thing: Ashcroft seems to have come with all kinds of so-called preparation, lame as it is, to claim precedent for privilege. But oh my oh my!

Wallace,

As my dear husband says when he's done something naughty:

"I can't help it!" ;-)

@J / all-
Thanks for the CSpan2 tip. (short ashcroft: "there seems to be a reason why I don't have to tell you guys anything, and I don't have to tell you what it is.")

Speaking of Ashcroft & legal gymnastics, Newsweek's got the full text of the March 2003 Pentagon torture memo. It's way over my non-legal-scholar head, but I think this might be the kinda candy some of you smarties might like.

Since Ashcroft is the US Attorney General, doesn't that mean he works for the US? In other words, there is no privilege between he and Bush, since he's NOT Bush's attorney. Same rules apply to White House counsel. They do not work for the President, they represent the government.

Wasn't there an episode of the West Wing that covered this? Or did I watch too much tv during the Clinton years?

I'm watching C-Span now and really liking Biden. He was in top form today.

Remember how the hostages were freed from Iran on Reagan's inauguration day? I recall hearing some noise about George H.W. Bush (maybe because of his ties to the CIA) being Reagan's go-between with the Iranians to work a deal that we would free the Iranian money frozen in American banks if Khomeini would agree to hold the hostages until after the election. Does anybody have any information about that? Was there anything to this?

Sassybelle, yes it's true. Here's a little reading for you lots of stuff to choose from.

Boy, is Biden P.O.'d!

Since Ashcroft is the US Attorney General, doesn't that mean he works for the US? In other words, there is no privilege between he and Bush, since he's NOT Bush's attorney. Same rules apply to White House counsel. They do not work for the President, they represent the government.

They're supposed to work for us. (hollow laughter)

try googling "reagan bush october surprise"

and in the coming weeks I'm sure we'll probably get another bunch of stuff coming out about that as well as the Iran-Contra affair as most of the players in that have been brought back for a second act in this administration.

BTW, ever wonder why GW changed the presidential records release until AFTER we'd all be dead? It also went back and covered the records of all living ex-presidents.

msnbc ran a clip of Joe Biden, he looked like his head was going to explode as he chastised Ashcroft...the anger is palpable, just not sure what the Dems can do about this except drip drip dripping on these arrogant SOB's...

Thanks Billmon for this forum, it's getting more important each day, each hour as November gets closer...

Note to bar patrons -- we need more necro-based catch phrases.

many of the posters here have suggested that the current excessive coverage of reagan's death is a display of "necrophilia" or "corpsophilia."

After all the death and destruction caused by our government this year, and now this creepily gaudy display of Reagan's corpse, I think we should go the whole hog and rename Washington DC 'Necropolis'.

The NewsHour was very satisfying tonight. Quite the change from most installments.

They had a great excerpt of Ashcroft on the rack, before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Hatch was not a happy camper. The Democratic Senators pressed hard, and the AG turned and twisted like a pinned rattlesnake.

Afterwards, they interviewed the WSJ journalist. And therein was the kicker -- the Democratic Senators were trying to get Ashcroft to say whether or not Preznit Bush had signed a memorandum authorizing any of the things outlined in the legal briefs. If he did -- and Ashcroft's evasions point us in that direction -- then we have something that would rise to, um . . . high crimes and misdemeanors.

The point being -- the legal memos mean nothing, in and of themselves. If Bush signed off on any of them, then he has put himself on the line -- as responsible for all of the evil that hatched out at Abu Gharib. Where will it go? Who knows? But as the noose begins to tighten, all I can say is -- stay tuned . . .

The NewsHour then went to a discussion of Alzheimers. Some progress in diagnosis, treatment of symptoms, and understanding of the process -- no real breakthroughs on treatments of cause. Stem cells might be helpful, but the Smirk-o-Matic stands in the way. For now.

Shields and Brooks discussed the Reagan Legacy. I was impressed. Other than Brooksie being his smarmy self, it was a treacle free discussion.

The one thing I got out of was prompted by something that Mark Shields said -- that Reagan's great gift was his self confidence, and force of personality. His advisors said we couldn't deal with the Soviets, and he overruled them -- and personally negotiated with Mikhael Gorbachev.

In that way, Reagan was very much like Franklin Roosevelt. Both were enormously optimistic, and both were supremely self confident. The difference being, FDR used his powers of persuasion to benefit ALL Americans; RWR used his comfort the comfortable, and punish the afflicted.

Both men were great communicators -- one worked for the good of all, and the other . . .

One last thought -- Brooksie mentioned that both Reagan and Junior were brush clearin' preznits, who liked to stay away from Washington, and stayed away from that intellectual stuff that made their heads hurt.

The Brush Clearing comment was a light bulb moment. From Day One, Karl Rove has groomed Smirk to put on airs of Reagan swagger. But whether you like him or not, Reagan was the real deal -- George AWOL Bush will never be anything more than poseur cowboy, a pissed-off dry-drunk sociopath, who has been bailed out so often by his family's benefactors that he thinks he's entitled to rule the world.

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- Former President Bush is planning to go ahead with an 80th birthday parachute jump this weekend following the week of mourning for former President Reagan.

Sukabi, I'm hoping his chute doesn't open. Payback for his participation in the contra affairs. Maybe that's mean, but fuck it.

On Asscrack- I'm watching it on Cspan2 right now. Pete Sessions is a whore, so is Cornyn. Biden is my hero for today. I've never seen him get angry before- I thought he was going to fly over the dias and throttle asscrack. I'm terribly disappointed that he didn't.

Now Finestein is questioning him- he's babbling about what the meaning of torture is and who defines it.

Again, someone needs to clap this asshole in irons for contempt of congress. Then they should dump a bucket of calico cats on his fundie head and see how he likes pressure.

I frightened my cat screaming at the TV- now I think I need ice cream. Goddamn these people.

Hey Billmon--

Amb. Wilson's lecture can be seen here in its entirety, so ya dont have to wait. (Yr mention comes right at the very end of the Q&A period.)

"Bob Novak : Eat Your Heart Out".

Speaking of media coverage, I came home from work and watched CBC and BBC news. What a pleasant change from the crap shoveled out by our SCLM.

To answer Janie's question, yes, both the attorney general and the white house counsel work for the government. The WH counsel specifically represents the office of the presidency. If the preznit is indicted or investigated, he has to retain outside counsel because attorney-client privilege don't apply.

Fuck, now that cretin Sen. Craig, R-Idaho is talking. Ack. Idaho is at WAR!! good to know.

George AWOL Bush will never be anything more than poseur cowboy, a pissed-off dry-drunk sociopath...

Anybody seen Laura lately? I ask out of curiosity. When the 2000 campaign was on she did an interview with one of the morning talk news shows (I can't remember which one), anyway the impression that I got from the interview was that she was the classic battered wife. Some of the things that came out of her mouth stunned me. She admitted that she doesn't question George or criticize him because he has a temper, and once drove the car into the garage wall when he didn't like her assesment of one of his speeches.

So doesn't this mean that if anybody is even accused of having anything to do with Al Qaida -- forget accused, just labeled on a whim, no reason necessary -- they no longer have any constitutional rights? I think that's what Ashcroft is saying.

to ae

I understand your frustration at Kerry pulling his ads but do you really see a reasonable alternative during the week long Reagan love fest?

She admitted that she doesn't question George or criticize him because he has a temper, and once drove the car into the garage wall when he didn't like her assesment of one of his speeches.

I love the mental visual of that incident. Can't you just see him clenching his teeth, and smacking down on the gas pedal? LOL. He's such an asshole.

Completely OT:

The BBC missed a great opportunity in the give this article its title. So here is my suggestion:
Mistake to Marry Chapin-Charpentier?
....The Green mayor who married the men faces suspension

Two French men married at the weekend in the country's first gay wedding are facing a state legal bid to bring them to court and annul the marriage.

Stephane Chapin and Bertrand Charpentier exchanged vows on Saturday in Begles, a town near Bordeaux.

So doesn't this mean that if anybody is even accused of having anything to do with Al Qaida -- forget accused, just labeled on a whim, no reason necessary -- they no longer have any constitutional rights? I think that's what Ashcroft is saying.

Hey, it's worse, anyone that might have bad thoughts or be suspected of anything vaguely unamerican doesn't get any rights. It's like a perverse version of Minority Report without the cool graphics and the neat cars.

Bah, should have read "an opportunity to this article a really great title."

four legs good, I'm wondering if their timing is so fucked up that his chute won't be rigged. Ford has got to be sweating about now.

he's babbling about what the meaning of torture is and who defines it.

when do you think that Biden, Leahy, Feinstein will grab one of the fuckers and shackel them in a "stress position" and start the questioning? all the while asking "Is it torture yet?"

Fuck me, I screwed up my correction! I will shut up now.

I really hope some senator's take your suggestion Sukabi. All they have to do is ask Rumsfeld if he would be willing to answer their question will in a stress position, since it is not really torture and since he is such a tough guy and all.

She admitted that she doesn't question George or criticize him because he has a temper, and once drove the car into the garage wall when he didn't like her assesment of one of his speeches.

Well, sheds new light on high school days back in Midland. Perhaps she knows more about escalating road rage than she should.

The more I think about it the more angry it makes me. The way Reagan decided to ignore HIV/AIDS. Personally I think the disease may have been able to have been nipped in the bud. Or at least kept to a relatively small population. At least Reagan or his administreation could have tried.

just out in The Guardian tonight:

Bush ignored Pentagon lawyers over tactics in war on terror

No consultation on detention without charge

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday June 9, 2004
The Guardian

The Bush administration routinely bypassed or overruled Pentagon experts on international law and the Geneva convention to construct a sweeping legal justification for harsh tactics in the war on terror, the Guardian has learnt.
In one instance, President George Bush's military order of November 13 2001, which denies prisoner-of-war status to captives from Afghanistan and allows their detention without charge or access to a lawyer at Guantánamo, was issued without any consultations with Pentagon lawyers, a former Pentagon official said.

The revelation follows reports in the US press this week of a Pentagon memo that argued that Mr Bush was not bound by laws against torture, and that interrogators who torture detainees at Guantánamo cannot be prosecuted.

The military order issued by Mr Bush in November 2001 was the first such directive since the second world war, and the administration's failure to seek the Pentagon's advice on what would emerge as the entire system of detention at Guantánamo surprised Pentagon officials.

"That came like a bolt from the blue," the official said. "Neither I nor anyone I knew had any insight, any advance knowledge, or any opportunity to comment on the president's military order."

The Pentagon general counsel, William James Haynes, was also left out of the loop, another official said

more

Not sure the President has ever beaten her

ahhhh, but domestic violence comes in many forms and the psychological can be more damaging than the physical.

I think the car into the garage wall happened when he was running for congress in the mid or late 70's in Midland.

Stoy-LMAO at that headline!

4LG-Thanks for confirming that for me. Clinton had to hire his own lawyer during that mess, which sent the righties into a tizzy. Funny, they aren't doing that about Shrub and Dick Halliburton. I'm sure there's a good reason for that. *cough, cough*
And share some ice cream with your cat. It might smooth over the screaming at the tv incident. :)

sukabi: you are right, point taken ...

route 66:

In one instance, President George Bush's military order of November 13 2001, which denies prisoner-of-war status to captives from Afghanistan and allows their detention without charge or access to a lawyer at Guantánamo, was issued without any consultations with Pentagon lawyers, a former Pentagon official said.

The revelation follows reports in the US press this week of a Pentagon memo that argued that Mr Bush was not bound by laws against torture, and that interrogators who torture detainees at Guantánamo cannot be prosecuted.

Thanks, route 66. Well, okay, this is starting to make more sense out of Ashcroft's testimony. Maybe Ashcroft didn't even get consulted, and they're squirming to cover. Is that possible?

Sassybelle, I see Sukabi has already clued you in on what I think was called "the October surprise". Ronnie and company finagled the release of the hostages and stalled what Carter had attempted.

We see, of course, here that "history" as it is taught and broadcast does not include those important little details.

Ronnie, et al., went on to do other shady trading of favors throughout the next eight years. It's there if you are a clever boolean searcher. ;-)

paraphrasing Schumer: "there are very few people who would say that torture should never ever be used particularly if lives were at stake"

I'm sorry, is this part of the AIPAC talking points handbook? I find it a little shocking.

"The public would understand???"

Sukabi, Laura Bush seems to be quite afraid of her foul tempered husband. I understand she drinks heavily as well.

I know I would.

coheninjapan,

well... I do understand the decision to stop stumping in terms of strategy- the Bush campaign's decision to do so sort of forced his hand, though I read also in an article (sorry no link; can't find it on-the-fly here) that there was at least some degree of debate within his campaign circle on that.

What I guess I find more irksome, though is lines like:
"He had a way of making people feel as if the next day would be better," Kerry said atCNN.com

and

"Even when he (Reagan) was breaking Democrats' hearts, he did so with a smile and in the spirit of honest and open debate. as reported widely.

Both lines are absurd, coming from a guy who has also said (and you can be sure the RNC is onto this, too) things like "My life history is I fought Reagan, fought Nixon, fought the war in Vietnam, fought their struggle against civil rights. I fought for civil rights, and I fought against their tax cuts for the wealthy" as he did as recently as last year.

Would you like a side of flip-flop with that, Mr Kerry?

I realize he is a candidate and not a pundit, so he can't go out and say things like (egad!) The Hitch did. Or Morrissey. Or the crew around here, come to think of it. But he could of kept his trap shut at least. Or stuck with trite things like "Nobody should suffer from Alzheimers... which is why I am commited to stem-cell reserach like Nancy Reagan." That would have been a tad more toothsome than suspending major (i.e. some-but-not-all) campaigning.

Four Legs Good: I frightened my cat screaming at the TV- now I think I need ice cream. Goddamn these people.

Our kitties are very sensitive. Mine hate it went I rant out loud, which I do frequently. I always have to go pet them afterward and tell them as I always do that "it's okay."

Ice cream is good. ;-)

The man may not have been that bright, but he sure had an active fantasy life.

-Finally something I can identify with from someone in the Republican party!

..and on a TOTALLY different note... Ashcroft is on C-Span 2 right now. Kinda gives me the creeps to mention fantasy and Ashcroft in the same comment.

Sukabi,

Thank you. Now I know I don't inhabit the same fantasy world that some people do this week.

Wait a minute, wait a minute! Ashcroft is more or less saying that releasing these memos would tell others what kinds of torture we think is okay to engage in???

æ - The press cut the quotes short the full quotes are below:

"He had a way of making people feel as if the next day would be better, because most people believe it can't get much fucking worse."

and

"Even when he (Reagan) was breaking Democrats' hearts, he did so with a smile, because he's an evil bastard, and in the spirit of honest and open debate he read his script well."

see they just didn't report the whole story. Damn SCLM.

OT: Florida elections division chief quits amid controvery on voter rolls
http://tinyurl.com/2bpqb

Kudos to Sen. Nelson for taking this courageous and important stand.

sukabi-

ha! LOL, and if only Kerry had cojones like that!

'scuze my ignorance, though, but what is SCLM?

ae,

I don't know. I think Kerry is going the right thing - anything he tries to do will get buried in this week's Reagan worship - I am mean solid Democrats are succumbing to the media's saturation coverage. Kerry is right to stay on the sidelines, perhaps spend the time working the phones or short unpublicized private meetings with contributors - important stuff and there are only so many hours in the day when you are campaigning. I hope he using this unscheduled break wisely.

As for Morrissey, well, what Morrissey said was actually very sweet and should provide comfort to the Reagan family. Moz was saying that someone less valuable should have gone in Ronnie's place ... ;) its a nice sentiment.

Ron Jr. is right, of course. The other night I was putting Reagan and GWB side by side for comparison purposes, and what is immediately grasped by this little exercise is that the latter is, as Ayn Rand would say, an individual of towering smallness. And a nasty motherf***er besides.

Phil Hartman doing Frank Sinatra: "I've got chunks of guys like you in my stool." Perhaps Ron saw the SNL skit.

æ - SCLM = So Called Liberal Media

Then they should dump a bucket of calico cats on his fundie head and see how he likes pressure.

dear lord, in my next life along w/ aretha"s voice can i plllease come up w/ these lines.

but I imagine she has some stories to tell about when he was (?) boozing it up and do copious lines of coke. What did WhistleAss say at thh '92 (?) Convention when asked what he and his father talk about? "Pussy". I bet he banged around a lot when he was on the bottle.

i've pondered these thoughts before, the librarian and the cokehead, coming home at night and relentlessly pounding away at her. wonder if she had anything to do w/his "transformation"? saw her on the tube @d-day talking about how her father spent 200 days there, releasing people from the camps. 200 days? huh. hum. well her lips are sealed but i've given her some thought. the kind of girl to marry that partying brainless druggie and now he's a fundie. and she's pro abortion. odd. a librarian.think i'll pour another

Since Ashcroft is the US Attorney General, doesn't that mean he works for the US? In other words, there is no privilege between he and Bush, since he's NOT Bush's attorney. Same rules apply to White House counsel. They do not work for the President, they represent the government.

This was settled during the Republicans' hunting of Bill Clinton during the Monica debacle. Whatever Bill said to a government lawyer wasn't privileged because the lawyer represented the U.S., not the President. Of course, IOKIYAR, so I expect that the rules have now changed.

I turned off the tv, or changed it to Cartoon Network as soon as the announcement came through that Reagan had died.

It's not simply that I dislike Reagan.

He was probably a very charming person, but I support a president because he (or she, when pigs fly in this "modern" country) makes policy choices that seem to be just and try to lead this nation toward greater democracy and human rights (which is what our Constitution sort of comes down to, doesn't it? A declaration of human rights?)

What I do not understand about people in this country (and I know it's not just this one, but this is the one in which I live) is why they feel the need to have a hero, and why they try to make a bureaucrat into a hero.

I want a bureaucrat who does a good job creating good government. I don't want to have to think about politics all the time, and since the selection of 2000, I am a much less happier person because of the attention I've felt compelled to pay to politics because of my outrage.

So I want a president who guides and works with Congress to create good government. No torture, please. No wars of agression. No socialism for the rich and feudalism for the rest of us. A living wage so that people can grill out on the weekends, and swim in a lake and sit in a glider and read a book.

Hero worship of politicians seems especially disgusting to me, and I really, really cannot understand why some Americans seem to want and need a hero so badly.

It seems infantile to me.

and stoy, don't ever shut up. you're too much fun

didn't they make clinton get different lawyers? couldn't spend govts cash to rescue him or some such?

Pat: as Ayn Rand would say, an individual of towering smallness. And a nasty motherf***er besides.

I'm not a Rand-ite, but I'm married to someone who was once upon a time. Despite the fact that I think she sold a lot of snake oil while she was alive , I very much love the phrase:

an individual of towering smallness...

Thanks for posting it. ;-)

sukabi-

æ - SCLM = So Called Liberal Media

doh! of course...

speaking of which, is there a TV in this here bar? I think The Daily Show is on....

catch ya!

Laura's life:

Car accident - half way down the page, titled No breaks for Mrs. Bush with links to the original articles.

As for whether the slit-wrist analogy is, um, overstating it or not, I'm happy to agree to disagree. But Kerry's got a lot of the same donors, and interests, in his pocket as Bush does. So, while I don't deny he's likely to keep us from sliding into some kind of (overt) neo-fascist corporate oligarchy as fast as Bush, I'm sure not convinced he represents a huge shift away. Enough, perhaps, to be worth voting for- who am I to second-guess Noam? But I would still claim it's better to hold him to things now than to vote for him simply because he's not Bush. He should't get a free pass for that.

Yes, ae, I agree with you that Kerry doesn't represent a huge shift from Bush. But it isn't just Kerry, it's the entire freakin' Democratic party. Kerry isn't the candidate I would have put up (didn't vote for him in my state's primary) but the Democrats in the early primaries/caucuses picked him. You're not going to hold him to anything unless you're one of the big freakin' contributors to his campaign.

Nader is much closer to my own political views than Kerry is but I ain't gonna vote for him - that's why we now have Commander Codpiece in office now. So, I've got 3 choices: 1) don't play in the game (sit out the election); 2) play a losing hand (vote for Nader and put Shrub back in office) or 3) vote for Kerry and hope for the best. Oh, voting for Shrubie is also an option but I'd rather slit my wrists first. Sounds like you'd be pleased if I did.

OK, so I'm not terribly pleased with the Democratic party either since they don't (IMHO) represent the little guy anymore. They are as deeply in thrall to the political donor class as the Rethugs are. But what's my option - start another political party? Even billionaire Ross Perot couldn't make that happen. So I play the hand that was dealt, as best as I can. If you can pound Kerry into the kind of candidate you want, please have at it. Good luck!

Way OT
I watched some of Ashcroft/SenJudComm on C-SPAN, will finish it tomorrow. Ugly business.
Right now I'm going to read the Clarke profile in the new Vanity Fair. Then I'll go to sleep, again with gratitude that I'm no poorer than I already am yet, and that there are no tanks on my street yet, and that I'll probably wake up tomorrow since I haven't been celebrating a wedding in the desert.
I hope you win a tubful of awards, Billmon: you're a national treasure, and many of your posters are delicious.

FauxReal - I very much liked what you wrote - may you find a warm lake and a hot grill this weekend while there is still time, because, as Hunter Thompson writes, "Big Darkness, soon come."

vanity fair is fearless, but the first thing i do is rip out all the ads to get thru it.

kerry's playing the middle. if you have to pick a number between 1 and 10 you pick the border of your opponemts choice. period. doesn't mean that's what he'll do. he's a player and he aims to win . he's taking the most SURE route. remember how bushie was gonna be compassionate. meant nothing. vote for him. he's slick. he;ll come thru. he's VERY LIBERAL. we don't have any other options here.

Kate_Storm,

Thank you all the same. I appreciate the info.

Okay, here's something I've been struggling with for a while. I listen to the conservatives, especially those driven by the religious right, and I ask myself how they could be so wrong-headed about things. How can they possibly look at the same situation and come away with a perspective so different from mine? I question myself and wonder if I'm blind to something they see that I don't.

A couple of weeks ago I was drinking coffee one morning on her patio with a long-time friend who is a Republican and very religious. We never agree on anything. As she described her opinion about how something should be handled, I replied that she sounded like a good liberal. She was as shocked to be described as such, as much as I was shocked that she had the perspective she did. I reminded her that Jesus was a political agitator which brought her up short, but then she agreed. It hit me that perhaps if we talked to each other more often rather than screaming past each other, we might discover our positions aren't so dissimilar.

Anyway, do you ever question whether you are missing something? I just feel so strongly about issues like Bush's tax policy, his rollback of environmental regulations, the corporate take-over of govt at his invitation, the war in Iraq, his deception, and on and on. I feel so passionately about these things that I wonder if I'm not capable of seeing them in a different light. I think to myself that any sane person would see it this way.

I think my main point is that I don't want to be so convinced I'm right that I am blind to the possibility that I'm not. It is like having an argument with a lover. When you are absolutely convinced you are right, that's the point at which you need to step back and try to hear your lover's understanding of the problem. I don't want to have a closed mind, but I just can't get to where the conservatives are on these issues.

Can anybody understand what I'm saying here? I don't feel like I'm explaining this very well.

Kate Storm, your verse of Juvenal's above is awesome. This blog truly crackles with soul.

In 2000 I was watching the daily tracking polls pretty closely, and Gore had clearly moved into the lead before the first debate - the last few days before the debate he was maintaining a 7% lead. The polls immediately after the debate indicated that a healthy majority thought Gore won the debate, but the tracking polls immediately started showing Bush even or slightly in the lead.

My point: Americans cared more about "nice" than "right". I want Kerry to win, and if that means treating the other side with kid gloves then so be it. Anyone on the left who throws Kerry over the side because he isn't being tough enough is part of the problem.

sassybelle, you are right. have no doubts. don't feel guilt about your convictions. step back and look all you want but within you is the answer. you're here. we are with you darlin'.

Thanks, Syd. I'm a lightweight here in da bar, but I keep coming back for the good brew and Billmon hasn't tossed me out yet.

btw, I did that thing with Dark Side of the Moon and The Wizard of Oz.

Did you really plan that? ;)

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Why ship Reagan back to California after the Washington showing?
Why not leave him in the Capitol Rotunda and change the building's name to the Reagan Memorial?
Congress hasn't used the building for anything in recent years and if the President has an inherent authority to set aside all laws anyway, why should we bother writing them?

Sassybelle: I agree - people are people, and mostly we want the same things. The election isn't going to do anything but make the polarization worse, so it's going to take millions of one-on-one interactions to fix our problems.

It feels good to vent on how incompetent Bush is, but it doesn't do anything to help Bush supporters see the light. They like the guy... I don't understand it anymore than I understand why my sister likes her husband, but that's the way it is.

I'm not willing to let the other side turn me into something I'm not, and I'm not a mean person.

you are soooo not a lightweight here fauxreal. you are one of the limelights

CLOTHES MAKE THE MAN:
"General Clark (who graduated at the top of his West Point class) can wear this: [sweatshirt w/college in white letters]

"But George W. Bush can't.

"Why?

"Because George W. Bush is an underachieving frat boy drunk. So it wouldn't be funny.

"And because he's not afraid of horses like the phony Cowboy Dubya...[photo of Clark talking to soldiers while on his horse]

...General Clark could wear cowboy boots and a hat when he campaigns out west without looking like a ridiculous poseur."
-- The Horse, Media Whores Online, 1/12/04
[found waaaaay down the page at http://www.americanpolitics.com/2004quotes.html]

I couldn't go to bed, it's that addictive bar crowd. I just eat the snacks now, though, but still...

Something is wrong with that Dubya guy if he's afraid of horses. Ask him, Cutter Bill, you can talk better than him anyhow. Or just keep him pinned against the wall for us.

"...in the blood of the ham," I think.

I think my main point is that I don't want to be so convinced I'm right that I am blind to the possibility that I'm not. It is like having an argument with a lover. When you are absolutely convinced you are right, that's the point at which you need to step back and try to hear your lover's understanding of the problem. I don't want to have a closed mind, but I just can't get to where the conservatives are on these issues.

Sassybelle, I understand what you mean. I think it's important to be right on the major principles you live your life by. That doesn't mean that you have to be right on all the minor details. We should all keep our minds open to new information and new perspectives so that our views on the details don't get locked into place.

I believe it's rare that we change our basic principles because of new information but we ought to examining our grasp of the details. At least that's my quick n' dirty observation of your quandry. Maybe someone more learned and articulate than I am can chime in with a laser-like quote or bit of verse to illustrate or dispute my observation.

Fauxreal,

A light bulb went on for me when I read your post. I've been obsessive about reading newspapers and following news programs since 2000 and I didn't even realize why until now. You're absolutely right, it's because I don't trust this administration and feel I have to be ever viligant.

What you ask for isn't much, is it? And yet, because of human nature, it doesn't work out that way. Maybe it's because I've never had power that I don't crave it, but it seems to be a profoundly intoxicating thing for some.

I listen to the conservatives, especially those driven by the religious right, and I ask myself how they could be so wrong-headed about things.

My theory is that fundamentalism kills brain cells.

Why does Dubya fear horses? because horses know an asshole when they see one. I'm pretty sure birds try to shit on his head when they see him too.

Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh types ever shutting up had Hillary killed her 17-year old boyfriend by running a stop sign, and having an altered and incomplete police report to boot?

The pig would oink about it every day for decades.

How many of you knew Laura Bush killed her boyfriend when the car she was driving rammed into her boyfriend's car immediately after she ran a stop sign, and that the police report was altered and incomplete?

Ever hear a media person yakkayakkayakka about it day after day, year after year?

I'm not saying she did it intentionally (I don't think she did), but no way would Hillary get the gigantic beak on this that Laura Bush has.

4Legs, you just gave me the idea of Smarty Jones trampling Dubya.

So I want a president who guides and works with Congress to create good government.

that in itself IS a hero. yeh i just want to hang in my garden all day. but i can't because i worry about children in iraq. public service is all consuming and people who make that choice and take it seriously w/heart and brains..I WANT A HERO why the fuck not? you only have one life to live and the person who has the sheer talent to be the leader of this friggin mess and do a good job, well in my book that's a hero.

Why ship Reagan back to California after the Washington showing? Why not leave him in the Capitol Rotunda and change the building's name to the Reagan Memorial? Congress hasn't used the building for anything in recent years and if the President has an inherent authority to set aside all laws anyway, why should we bother writing them?
Posted by: JMR

LMAO. I love this bar. Of course I may go broke drinking here, but worse things have happened.

Thanks to Annie, Gary and Mushinronsha for your feedback.

4Legs, you just gave me the idea of Smarty Jones trampling Dubya.

I'm sure that Smarty would be up for it. If he's busy maybe we could enlist the Budweiser Clydesdales.

Sassybelle --

You are on to something -- but while the question of being right or wrong is important, it's not the central issue.

The key is in what people believe, and how it relates to the political narrative. For the average voter, the liberal and conservative frames of reference are more iconic than issue oriented.

When asked how they feel about issues, a majority of Americans support the liberal or progressive position. But when it comes to self identification, more people call themselves conservative than liberal. (Although there has been a significant shift towards the liberal in the past month.)

What's going on is this: the right wing media creates a stereotype of liberalism -- then it mocks, denegrates, and knocks down the straw man that it created.

In 1945, LIFE Magazine had an essay titled, "Well, I'm a Liberal too, but . . ." At the time, the vast majority of Americans self identified as Liberals, even if they agreed with conservative positions on the issues. Even Eisenhower called himself a liberal.

The essence of the right wing asecendency is their masterful use of language. They have message discipline; they frame the debate; and they demonize the opposition -- while Democrats persue an every-candidate-for-themselves strategy.

The good news is -- the Democrats are finally getting their act together, and the long term demographic trends favor us. The bad news is -- we are so far behind the curve, it is pathetic.

SO -- to return to your original inkling:

perhaps if we talked to each other more often rather than screaming past each other, we might discover our positions aren't so dissimilar.

Absolutely correct -- find the points of agreement, and then break down the mindset and stereotypes that preclude agreement.

In other words -- reframe the debate, one self described "conservative" voter at a time.

Hey 4LG - regarding fundamentalists and brain cells - as an old Syrian poet once said:
There are two types of people in the world:
Those with religion and no brains
Those with brains and no religion
Apologies to the non-fundy believers of any stripe in the bar...

@annie

Friendship, his way

Philip Stephens, associate editor of the Financial Times and author of a sympathetic biography of Blair, said that Cherie Blair, a noted lawyer, once confronted Bush as the two couples dined together about his frequent use of the death penalty as Texas governor. At the same meal, Stephens said, Laura Bush confided that she disagreed with the president's opposition to abortion.

Does someone care to dissect the rest of this article?

Glenn Kessler's quips, such as: "Blair writes long letters to Bush -- it is unclear whether Bush writes long letters back" and "The fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin treasures a cross given by his mother -- and had it blessed in Israel -- convinced Bush he could deal with the former KGB operative" seem out of place...

ck: "Well, I'm a Liberal too, but . . ." At the time, the vast majority of Americans self identified as Liberals, even if they agreed with conservative positions on the issues. Even Eisenhower called himself a liberal.
CNNN (a fantastic Australian pisstake of CNN) had a message on their ticker bar that runs across the bottom of their screen: NEWSFLASH - Racist begins sentence with "I'm not a racist but..."

annie- that's a good and true point about the difficulty of the job. maybe it's more to the point for me to know that I've never voted "for" a candidate. I've always voted against.

I was gonna say because, I suppose I'm more liberal than most Americans, but then I remember polls that note that the majority of Americanswant the same things from govt that I do, including a reasonable social safety net in the face of disaster, decent and affordable health care, a liveable ratio between cost of living and wages, a commitment to all the children of this nation for a tolerable life.

But you don't hear people call govt officials heroes because they made sure that people came before profits.

...and as far as creating good govt in foreign policy goes..it seems like we are constantly trying to play catch up for the byzantine choices made because of a confrontational rather than conciliatory approach to conflicts.

even now I constantly hear that terrorists only respect brute force. how many terrorists does brute force create, I wonder?

Harold Meyerson (the best writer for the WaPo) has an excellent retrospective on Reagan's legacy. Like Billmon, Meyerson is always spot on in his analyses. Here's a taste of what he had to say:

Today's [Republican] party narrowly clings to power in every branch of government, but it refuses to govern with, or listen to, anyone outside its ever-smaller tent. The post-Reagan Republicans have now shrunk to the party of culture war as well as class war -- to the nation's general woe.

Here's the link:
Class Warrior

Mushinronsha-

Nader is much closer to my own political views than Kerry is but I ain't gonna vote for him - that's why we now have Commander Codpiece in office now.

err, no. There were myriad reasons- I'll accept Nader as being among them, but to lay the entirety of the blame at his feet is specious. James Baker had a hand, the Supreme Court had a hand, Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush had a hand, and a whole boatload of Democrats who voted for Bush (in Florida and elsewhere) deserve derision on that one, too. I refuse, absolutely, to accept the idea that Nader alone should shoulder the blame for that. And given your statement above, I should think you would, too.

Oh, voting for Shrubie is also an option but I'd rather slit my wrists first. Sounds like you'd be pleased if I did.

That's very uncharitable, and I most certainly would not. I may have come on too stong, if so I apologize- but I like to think we're all friends in this bar. Perhaps I've had one or two too many.

If you can pound Kerry into the kind of candidate you want, please have at it.

I'm not sure I can either, but I do think Nader's campaign is a good thing to support on that premise. The higher his numbers, the hotter the fire under Kerry's ass. Supporting his campaign doesn't imply voting for him in the end. As well, he can throw his delegates to Kerry. We'll see. There are alternatives, as we agree on.

But I don't think we need to merely play the hand we're dealt. The Republicans sure don't. If they can cheat, we can too.

(above post re. Kerry, Nader not meant to be anon, sorry)

Johnny Zuchini

While I agree that Hillary would have caught hell for a vehicular manslaughter wrap, which is really what we are talking about, by the vast right-wing conspiracy, and this would be wrong, but don't you think that Hilary and Laura have much different roles as first lady and thus should face different levels of scrutiny? As far as I am concerned, Laura's doesn't deserve much scrutiny at all, because unlike Hilary, she doesn't engage in policy formation in the manner of a policy advisor. Laura is decoration - Hillary was a player and thus deserved much greater scrutiny.

The scrutiny of course just all happened to be BS in the case of Hillary.

ck,

A very thoughtful post. "The essence of the right wing asecendency is their masterful use of language." You nailed it there. I am aware of this every time I hear one of their ilk talk. I feel manipulated, I want to jump in their face about how they are framing the issues, but I'm not articulate enough to write about it. That's what I meant the other day about Billmon's talent for discernment AND translating that discernment into words. I can do the first part, but not the second.

Four Legs Good,

"My theory is that fundamentalism kills brain cells."

Good theory.

I continue to marvel that their Kristianity and my Christianity never arrive at the same place on any issue. My whole notion of Christianity revolves around social and economic justice and the golden rule. It does not revolve around making decisions for other people about whether or not they chose to procreate, or in what positions they may choose to procreate, and it is certainly not about inflaming the Middle East to bring on a nuclear Armaggedon. I love my gay friends just like I do my straight friends. I'm not into religious dogma because I frankly don't see the point in it.

A brief note on reframing.

A Frame or Frame of Reference is how we see the world. It might also be called the filter that colors our interpretation of the world.

For the religious, the frame of reference is seeing the hand of God in everything.

For the corporate free marketeer, it's government intrusion through over regulation.

For liberals, it's government levelling the playing field for all people; protecting the weakest among us; and regulating the free market to protect it from it's own excesses.

An example of a re-frame --

This spring, the GOP wing nuts tried to push through an Academic Bill of Rights here in Colorado.

That phrase -- Academic Bill of Rights -- is a frame. The word 'academic' evokes certain thoughts and feelings, as does the phrase 'bill of rights'. Working together, it's a very effective frame.

I suggested a counter strategy; a re-frame --

Instead of Academic Bill of Rights, call it for what it is -- A Right Wing Bill of Goods.

This re-frame works on several levels -- first, it honestly indentifies what the wing nuts are doing. Their Academic Bill of Rights is nothing of the sort; it's nothing more than a right wing power grab, and anytime you can score points by telling the truth, do it. That works here.

Second -- the rhythms of A Right Wing Bill of Goods mirrors the words and rhythms of Academic Bill of Rights. It turns the wing nuts words against them -- which is one of the most potent ways to neutralize your opponents arguments.

Syd-

I am mean solid Democrats are succumbing to the media's saturation coverage.

a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party, though true. I still say Kerry could have at least made a wee quip about stem cell research. But I have come to expect dissapointment from him, so whatever, I guess.

what Morrissey said was actually very sweet and should provide comfort to the Reagan family

indeed. I'm sure they'll be playing a lot of Smiths at the funeral. Perhaps "Ask," since his entire foreign policy was predicated on

"If it's not love, then it's the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb
the bomb that will bring us together"

They tried to push that so called 'Academic Bill of Rights' at UCLA--needless to say, nobody was going for it.

Cherie Blair's a human-rights barrister. (A well-paid one, too: she earns a shitload more than her husband, and there are rumours that Tony will quit in order to allow Cherie to advance to the bench.)

And I wonder if that story about Bush procuring an illegal abortion will ever resurface...

But Digby's Hullaballoo has the best dissection of that WaPo piece on how Chimpy treats international leaders as if the world stage were a high school.

ck-

I very much like your analysis, and your linguistic savvy as well.

The thing is, they have a higher soapbox than we do. In addition to an astute re-framing, we need some megaphones. Alas, we do have an excellent echo chamber...

Why does Dubya fear horses? because horses know an asshole when they see one. I'm pretty sure birds try to shit on his head when they see him too.

That's true. Horses don't have any respect for a coward, either

Sassybelle --

I continue to marvel that their Kristianity and my Christianity never arrive at the same place on any issue.

This is because you and they have different religious frames of reference.

For you, the Gospels and teachings of Jesus are what matter.

For the fundies, it's the Old Testament Ten Commandment God of Wrath and Punishment.

Very different belief systems -- but each of them reflects what the believer believes is true.

This is a metaphysical concept, but it's the essence of the misunderstanding --

Truth is not absolute. For any individual, the power of any given 'truth' is dependent on how much faith and belief that individual invests in that 'truth'.

As in the movie 'Rashomon' -- three people see the same event from three different points of view (POV) -- and each of them sees and experiences a very different 'truth' about the event.

One more thing then I'll shut up.

The thing I believe most exasperates me about my conservative friends is I have the sense they don't THINK. They just lap up without questioning whatever is spoon fed to them by the party faithful. I hate saying this because it sounds so elitist, but I get pissed that I wear myself out thinking about all this stuff sometimes, and they just plather on with the same talking points I've heard over and over.

Possum,

If you're around tonight, I meant to tell you the other day that I'm glad you're drinking with us at the bar. Not every intelligent person is a formally educated one. I respect the fact that you are a bibliophile.

oops, make that "blather on"

I refuse, absolutely, to accept the idea that Nader alone should shoulder the blame for that. And given your statement above, I should think you would, too.

Of course,ae, Nader was not totally to blame for Shrub's ascendency to the throne he now occupies. One first has to blame the millions who voted for him, many of whom were probably mis-led by his campaign promises. Nader just made it close enough in Florida to throw the election into the SCOTUS. Had Nader not run, Gore would probably sitting on the throne but we'll never know, will we? But the point is that I cannot control the votes of all those other citizens - I can only control my own vote.

That's very uncharitable, and I most certainly would not. I may have come on too stong, if so I apologize- but I like to think we're all friends in this bar. Perhaps I've had one or two too many.

I also overreacted. Please foregive me.

I'm not sure I can either, but I do think Nader's campaign is a good thing to support on that premise. The higher his numbers, the hotter the fire under Kerry's ass. Supporting his campaign doesn't imply voting for him in the end. As well, he can throw his delegates to Kerry. We'll see. There are alternatives, as we agree on.

I support Nader's ideas, if not his campaign. But, at this juncture, I'm sure Kerry is more worried about Bush's campaign than Nader's. I'm hoping Kerry is campaigning to the right to catch the independents' votes but will govern to the left if elected. It's happened before. Campaigning to the left will probably result in "crash and burn." Sorry but that's just the state of American politics today. Maybe we'll get lucky someday and the tide of American opinion will turn against the conservatives and towards the liberals.

If they can cheat, we can too.

Hell, I'm willing to cheat if I have to. I have only one vote but I'd be pleased to vote multiple times if I can get away with it. Richard Daley in Chicago used to get votes from dead people in his mayoral elections. Shall we give it a try?

Okay, I lied because here I am again.

I just had to tell CK that your last two posts make so much sense. You sure have a talent for reframing. The frame of reference concept helps me understand how the corporate free marketeer sees government intrusion through over-regulation, when I see it as necessary to guard against excess and protect the rest of us. Thanks for so much of your time tonight.

Goodnight all.

Sassybelle --

I'm about worded out too -- but one last thought for now.

The thing I believe most exasperates me about my conservative friends is I have the sense they don't THINK.

The problem is the emotional investment people have in their opinions. Their brains follow their guts.

Very few thoughts are of the mind alone -- there is an emotional context that leads an individual to what they believe.

Reagan's "welfare queens" is a good example. Many people had a negative response to poor folk on welfare; the right wing framed the issue with emotional hot buttons; and they succeeded in making the word "welfare" a pejorative. Same with Liberal.

This stuff is tough to overcome -- but understanding it is the first step.

There has to be a better way than having the holy rollers taking over and babbling in tongues.

Sassybelle

re Kristians, I think that Prince of Curmudgeons, Ambrose Bierce, had that bunch pretty well nailed in this definition from The Devil's Dictionary:

CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

ck

Wonderful stuff, as always. Loved the verbal ju-jitsu.

ae

I'm with you on this one, re the Dems and Reagan. Is it really so hard to come up with a polite way to say "He was a likeable guy, but his policies sucked"?

Yes, the media spectacle will be over in a week and we can move on to the usual disasters, but the Dems could have earned a little respect if they'd been more honest. They certainly aren't going to peel off any Bush Brownshirt votes with this treacley mush, so why not behave like principles mattered?

Just when I thought things were slowing down in the bloggosphere, I can't even think of all the things there are to think about.

1. Excellent dissertation on the Reagan infatuation, Billmon. I love it when you get pissed. Your voice speaks for many of us. Funny, too. Millions of words of the highest BS about Reagan all over the media, when he was all about celebrity and there's not much more to say about it. Think how grim things would look right now if Schwartzadumkoff could run for president. They'd be calling him Great Communicator, the Sequel. The Dems would be forced to turn to...hmmm, Jeff Bridges would be good. He has that laid back, good-guy persona that R.R. had. Jeff may not know anything about running a country, but what does it matter? We want stars!

2. I knew it. I knew it. The Dems reacted too quickly to the Monica mess. We really need that special council law. How do we force an investigation of the justice department now? If anyone thinks we don't need one they didn't watch the News Hour Tuesday. Wow, was that a great show! I have never seen such a transparent non-denial denial as that by Ashcroft. I have never seen the senators so obviously steamed. Squirm you worm! Fantastic theater!

3. Where did the WSJ get that memo anyhow? Is there a big story like Daniel Ellsberg waiting to be told? If the right-wing Journal can come up with a scoop that casts their precious in so bad a light, well it restores my faith in the media a little bit. Or is there something more sinister going on? The Journal could have completely other reasons which we won't learn until their records are unsealed fifty years from now. Interesting times we live in. Interesting times!

Mushinronsha-

c'mon...
Had Nader not run, Gore would probably sitting on the throne but we'll never know, will we?

We do know that more Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than for Nader- why not bitch them out? Nader's presence in the election cannot explain that fact. I don't think we can rank-order the blame. Some good analysis can be found here and here, but I sense you don't care to be persuaded on this one. Regardless...

But, at this juncture, I'm sure Kerry is more worried about Bush's campaign than Nader's.

yep, probably so. But he could have some of those what- 4%? 6%? -whatever it is right now behind Nader. He wouldn't have to become a flaming progressive, either- good thing, since he's not nor could ever be. I don't think 'independants' are all, or even mainly, centrists- but I could be wrong. I know I'm not, anyway.

I'm hoping Kerry is campaigning to the right to catch the independents' votes but will govern to the left if elected.

Yeah, like Clinton did?

Richard Daley in Chicago used to get votes from dead people in his mayoral elections. Shall we give it a try

ha ha... I just moved to Chicago (from Tucson) three weeks ago... if I pick up any tips, I'll pass 'em on.

But yeah- how about if some Democratic governer's Sec of State somehow drops a bunch of, oh, say, fundies from the roles, mysteriously? That'd work for me!

yawn... cut me off, Barkeep. No, s'ok- I'm walking home. cheers!

Mushinronsha, I'm happy to see someone else thinks Meyerson is swell. The second worst thing that ever happened to the LA Weekly was when he stopped working there.

ae,

We do know that more Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than for Nader- why not bitch them out? Nader's presence in the election cannot explain that fact. I don't think we can rank-order the blame. Some good analysis can be found here and here, but I sense you don't care to be persuaded on this one. Regardless...

I did bitch them out (those who voted for Bush) if you'd care to go back and read my comments. Yes, I suppose I'm as stubborn on insisting that Nader had an impact on the election outcome as you are on insisting he didn't.

yep, probably so. But he could have some of those what- 4%? 6%? -whatever it is right now behind Nader.

Probably not but I can see why it's convenient to your argument to say so.

Yeah, like Clinton did?

Oh please, let's not get into that discussion. I have better things to do with my time.

But yeah- how about if some Democratic governer's Sec of State somehow drops a bunch of, oh, say, fundies from the roles, mysteriously? That'd work for me!

Me too!

Mushinronsha, I'm happy to see someone else thinks Meyerson is swell. The second worst thing that ever happened to the LA Weekly was when he stopped working there.

Yes, Meteor Blades, Meyerson is consistenly good. He's not enough to outweigh all the nitwit scribblers for the Post but I'm happy that his voice gets heard on a national level. I wish there were more journalists like him.

What best describes the necro-orgy of wing nut revisionism?
ck

Ummm, how about "hagiopathy" for a start?

Do you think GWB is man enough to piss in the shower?
wren

Dunno, wouldn't that involve pissing while standing? I definitely got him pegged for a "setter."

ae & mushinronsha-

not to butt my way in to the ongoing debate (which I'm always glad to see happening, personally, when it's respectful) but I just wanted to comment on an option in this election that you're both ignoring, and that I see as central-

I can accept that Kerry is the nominee. I can accept that he's not anywhere near my ideal candidate OR president. I will vote for him regardless (only reconsidering if, say, horns sprouted from his head- in which case, he might well still be an improvement over bush).

BUT I am resolved to spend the time that he is in office working my ASS off trying to help real progressives anywhere that I can, because in my view the left of this party is only going to gain power from the BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP. By which I mean that you and I and everyone else who's tired of politics the way they are need to get to work to change it, accepting, perhaps, that it'll be a while to build the local infrastructure and support to really make it happen on a larger, say, presidential level.

Sure, the country is headed far from where it should be. But before you can get somewhere different, you have to make the simple step of changing directions.

Sorry, don't mean to preach, these are just the things that ended the mental debate for me.

Good points and agree, James of D.C.

Won't be watching or listening to any of the media asses and all the butt kissing going on re Bonzo, the chimpster and their three ring circus.

Addes to that, am ticked off about the millions being spent for all the govt. vacation days declared! Should be days off with no pay if anything (and more days without pay from now on.

Alex

BUT I am resolved to spend the time that he is in office working my ASS off trying to help real progressives anywhere that I can, because in my view the left of this party is only going to gain power from the BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP. By which I mean that you and I and everyone else who's tired of politics the way they are need to get to work to change it, accepting, perhaps, that it'll be a while to build the local infrastructure and support to really make it happen on a larger, say, presidential level.

Spit, I agree totally with everything you said. As uninspiring as Kerry is, he is probably the only hope we have of staving off the end of the republic (which what I predict if Bush wins another term). He's far from my ideal candidate and the Democratic party is far from my ideal party. The US has strayed so far from its ideals and principles that it's going to take a heroic effort and considerable time to get it back on track. I'm quite willing to throw myself into that effort.

There's a lot of work to be done. Domestically, I'd like to see Kerry (if elected) and the Democrats (if they re-gain control of Congress) to tackle the inequitable tax structure which lets the super rich get out of paying their fair share of supporting the nation that allowed them to get rich.

The tax burden is now falling heavily on the poor and the middle class and this can't last too much longer. Eventually, the goose laying the golden eggs is going to die if things don't change and our nation will become an economic basket case. But this is by no means the only problem that needs to addressed. The list of issues to be tackled is long and I'm sure readers can add many worthy causes which need attention. At the moment, I'm most concerned about survival of our democracy and will strive for perfecting the nation if it's given a chance for redemption in November.

Random thoughts: Instinct more than analysis informs me (as the Kristians would say) that The Smirking Chimp won't benefit for more than a matter of hours from Reagan's death. Even if many mainstream media outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC and many major daily newspapers) are laying the coverage on a bit too thick, I get the sense it's almost as if they're hedging their bets -- what editor wants to be accused later, should the nazis win, of not being loyal enough?

But, the glow Rove hopes will light their little neocon Bunker is only a short candle stub. Meanwhile, the allies are at the Rhine, the Russians are ready to cross the Oder, and Blondi is expecting puppies. (Or, I certainly hope to whatever deity you choose to worship that this is the case. Unfortunately, the Chimp and his Stepford Eva won't give us the same manner of exit as one of his historical predecessors; well, we can dream...)

I've always been moderately stupefied that Kerry and his campaign haven't faced Bush and the neo(con)-nazis with a more aggressive posture. The truth, a very potent weapon, is out there. Even if Kerry's people simply recycled analysis from (now) most mainstream media outlets, they'd never run out of press release material.

I'm not sure if this reluctance is strategy or timorousness. Naturally, I'd like to see a more aggressive stance on Kerry's part because I feel Bush and the rest of the Kristian nazi party should (metaphorically speaking) be publicly gutted and exposed for what he, and they, are.

Perhaps we'll that wish during the Debates -- though I'm sure The Chimp is wearing an earpiece, with Standartenfuherer Karl at an offstage microphone...

We won the Vietnam War. Reagan and Bush are prime examples of liberal thinking. Clinton was a conservative.

Before my above comment is dismissed, please read the entire text of "Town Hall Meeting of the World" May 15, 1967 episode featuring Ronald Reagan and Robert Kennedy.
Please pay special attention to Brads comment. Would like all participants in this site to evaluate their comments in light of his statement.
Thank you.