Note to McCain: Fire Your Ad Guy

Ok, so I understand that the "elitist" line of attack utterly collapsed and that McCain needs something else to work with. I know that the McCain feels that Barack's experience seems like an appropriate thing to go after (even though it didn't work for Hillary in the primaries).

That being said, if you're going to spend the money for national ads, you might as well make sure that they are going to be serious. While my comments come with a liberal bias, I can say that this ad was an utter failure. My more conservative mother and I were cracking up at the horrible voice-over. My parents are certainly the type that these Israel ads appeal to (i.e. older Jews), and you don't want even those voters laughing at your apocalyptic ads.

If I were a Republican strategist, I'd be hoping that they didn't put too much money into this one. It reminds me too much of Rudy's failed noun/verb/9-11 strategy. Time to get back to the drawing board.

iThink...

Check it out...

Rudy's slipping in the polls? Iran's not evil? Quick, men! To the time machine!

Look what the cat dragged in:

Yes, Rudy Giuliani's latest ad is all about Iran--- but not the Iran you're thinking of, with the nuclear disarmament and protesting students and other such annoying complexities. (Completely true: that declassified NIE report sank a CNN special planned for the 12th called "CNN PRESENTS: We Were Warned -- Iran Goes Nuclear". Darn reality, always ruining a good story!) No, Giuliani wants to talk about the Big Evil Retro Iran of 1980, a presumably safer choice and certainly a more perfect foil for his macho Reagan fantasies -- emphasis on "fantasies". Giuliani really wants us to think that "Rambo" Reagan being in office for an hour caused Iranian terrorists to burst into tears and lay down their arms. It'd be poignant if it wasn't so fucking retarded.

The brilliant Phil Nugent explains the real facts and context very well. All I want to point out in addition is that this follows a pattern I've seen among Republicans for years: that for some presumably psychological reason, they have absolutely no idea what decade it is. The concept of historical context simply eludes these people. Just as they do not understand the difference between TV and real life, conservatives likewise do not grasp the difference between the past and the present; hence this totally earnest attempt to pretend it's still the age when gas cost $1.20 a gallon and Ron Reagan rode around on his horse. To a man, they see nothing wrong with this escapist drivel; I fully expect Mitt Romney to respond with an ad invoking the Miracle on Ice. (And Fred Thompson, who's been doing the Cold War thing for some time, will probably just keep pedaling backwards until he winds up raving about pinkos and the Apollo program. But then, it's Fred Thompson, so nobody will notice.)

---ON THE OTHER HAND, if Giuliani really wants to cast this election in terms of 1980 -- when, if you remember, the incumbent party was soundly defeated due to a clearly failing economy, a disastrous foreign policy and a widely mistrusted leadership -- I suppose I wouldn't really have a problem with that...

Thank You, Senator--

--for putting everything in perspective. While here on campus we're having endless erudite debates about efficacious protest, principles of active responsibility, and the moral/utilitarian nature of penal codes, John McCain is-- well...

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

This man is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." I knew he was a fossil, but jesus... When the actual war comes, does he get backup singers too? Will President McCain have his own music video? HOW DO THESE PEOPLE TREAT THIS STUFF SO LIGHTLY?

Now remind me why winning the 2008 election is not every progressive's #1 priority?

Roundup -- Now With Exclamation Points! (!)

Boy oh boy has it been a rolling start here on campus -- Spring Break was all well and good, but there's nothing to get that blood pumping like good old-fashioned grey Cambridge drizzle for fucking days on end! Woo-eee! I'm so excited I'm mixing up my ironic exclamations!

Seriously, great roundup for you tonight. First a note -- to your left is the Peace Dollar, issued in the 1920s and 30s. I got one from my late grandfather last week; it's the most remarkable piece of currency I've come across (and I say this coming from a country that routinely puts beavers on its money). There's something comforting in the knowledge that, at one point, our government had no qualms about printing such hippie-ish designs; hopefully, in the next few years, we'll be able to use this wonderful image less wistfully. (And I'm sure President Kucinich would be up for a reissue.)

Meanwhile though -- to arms!

--Josh Marshall thinks that photo of John McCain in Baghdad is a latter-day Dukakis tank moment -- except way more substantial and significant. As usual Marshall's quite right. (Here's a sentence we never thought we'd find ourselves saying about John McCain: "if only they'd nominated him first...")

--In case you still need convincing that the electability argument is bullshit, Sifu Tweety of Poor Man has your back. Read it all. Then for dessert read the next post down, The Editors' hilarious demolition of Jonah Goldberg:

...in my head, I have a brain. Using this “brain”, I am able to determine that the conservative movement - meaning the people who control the White House, who until recently controlled the Congress, their political operatives, seamlessly integrated with the media apparatchiks who “work” at places like National Review - is a lot more important than what some dude I never heard of said this one time, particularly when the only reason I know this dude exists is because you douchebags won’t shut the fuck up about him. Hence my lack of interest.

--Speaking of The Corner: I guess when conservatives say "support our troops," they mean "support our troops, not the British troops, those pansies." I wish I were making this up. And I still haven't quite parsed Derbyshire's whopping statement that "whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I expect Marines to."

--Of course perhaps I'm just expecting too much from these people. We are talking about men whose reaction to the Iran crisis is -- quoting verbatim from Fred Barnes -- "Hey, they could use American ships!" (Kondracke later added that we should "put the whammy on them." Honestly, FOX News could just replace all its commentators with eight-year-old Hulk Hogan fans, it'd be a lot cheaper.)

--I was struck by this graph, posted by Jerome a Paris in an excellent Kos diary. Note that the last time the top few had such a large share of national income was the late 1920s, roughly 1928. History concentrators: what happened to our economy right after that? Hmm...

--Speaking of crashes, Chris Matthews has gone off the deep end. (Well... *further* off the deep end.)

--I should have known it existed: grammar blogging. Sample quote: "the understood verb phrase inside the though-clause has to mean something that does not correspond to a syntactic constituent in the antecedent main clause." I barely understand 1/3 of this blog and yet I can't stop reading it. For instance -- and here's another sentence I never expected to write -- this discussion of gerunds is hilarious.

--Over at Slate, hidden behind a sensationalistic title about Grand Theft Auto, is a thought-provoking article about liberal activist culture and the need for individual empowerment. This one will require some digesting.

--Fred Thompson's campaign is over; if he even hints at running, executives from Bravo will have to personally assassinate him. This is America, TV comes first.

--Did you know that Lee Atwater destroyed funk and invented gansta rap? Me neither! (Apparently MC Rove is just part of a long Republican tradition.)

--OK, one more shameless link to mockery of conservative bloggers -- Michelle Malkin has been reduced to delusional fantasies about Frank Capra, and it's really just too easy. HuffPo's Chris Kelly does a great job though ("Stirring words. It's like Pat Benatar wrote Braveheart").

--Apparently our generation is called "millenials," and there's a whole group of people dedicated to getting us more involved in politics. This introduction to the issues involved is worth a read, particularly in the way it (correctly) characterizes our understanding of community and and the public. More detailed writing is at Future Majority, a blog dedicated to youth-voter issues. Look forward to more from these people.

AND that's all I got. Let me close with a wonderful quote from Richard Nixon, as revealed in Henry Kissinger's secret transcripts; his wisdom still rings true today.

"Goddamn newspapers—they're a bunch of sluts," Nixon said. In another taped conversation, two weeks later, he said, "I don't give a goddamn about repression, do you?" "No," Kissinger replied.

Our President, ladies and gentlemen! (Slow clap.)

This is an open thread.

Our Latest Enemy

"Armageddon is not a foreign policy."

--Madeleine Albright, on last night's Colbert Report

...SO you watch the news on these 15 British sailors taken captive by Iran, and I think the basic reaction everyone shares is essentially "oh, crap." Tensions being what they are, this is exactly the kind of Franz Ferdinand moment that winds up engulfing the entire world in a cataclysmic orgy of violence and turns most of the Middle East into sizzling glass. (Not that the United States would ever take part in such a thing, because our government is so wise and rational and restrained on military matters.)

But one thing keeps nagging at me. What does Iran possibly stand to gain from an action like this? Whether or not these Britons were actually in Iranian waters (and I'm inclined to think not -- the Royal Navy is not that incompetent, they had GPS for Chrissake), taking them captive is a surefire way to make yourselves look like aggressive hotheaded nutbars, and thus lose a lot of the semi-goodwill you've painstakingly built up with potential allies like China and Russia. If you're really going to start a war this is a stupid-ass way to do it; and if you're not going to, then it makes no sense at all.

How then do you explain the action? One deceptively simple answer comes to mind: Iran does not know what it's doing. Either their foreign policy is dreamed up by seventh-graders, or -- more likely IMO -- this was just an insane overreaction by a bunch of yokels who wanted to arrest somebody, and now the panicked government is afraid to admit it made a mistake. They're making up crap to save face. Did you see the remarks to BBC by Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki? His body language told you all you need to know. This dude--

--with a nervous fake smile, laughing and sweating, looking for all the world like a Persian Babbitt trying to sell us real estate. "We'll be releasing one of the hostages, uh, pretty soon, I think! Let's talk about something more pleasant, like trade policy!" Fucking Axis of Evil, these people, and this is the best they come up with?

No, I don't get a real vibe of aggression from Iran here. My impression: this is not a government with a malevolent plan to destroy the West; this is a government that can barely issue drivers' licenses. And yes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be a vicious, destructive anti-Semitic dickweed, but I think he has about as much real power as that homeless guy who says he's "mayor of the park." Bureaucracy, specifically incompetent bureaucracy, rules Iran.

Which makes the rumblings about military action from the right wing ("yay! a shiny new war!") that much more disturbing. Crazy president or no crazy president, this is a country that obviously needs help. And as the international community works to get these poor brave Britons back, we should bear in mind just who it is we're dealing with here; not a scheming mastermind but a schoolyard bully. The absolute worst thing we could do is overreact.

Military Has Created Plans to Attack Iran

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

Of course, this doesn't mean we will be attacking Iran, it's just a plan to attack Iran.

(Because we know how these kinds of plans never develop into anything...)

The 60 Minutes Interview

Yesterday President Bush sat down for a rare interview at Camp David with Scott Pelley, of 60 Minutes. I’m going to admit I did not watch because, well, Jack Bauer is back. (Spoiler Alert: Can you believe he bit a guy’s jugular? What can’t he do?). You can check out the entire interview at CBS News, but here are some excerpts. The interview was advertised by CBS as “candid” and “thoughtful.” Choose for yourself if you agree with that description.

---

BUSH: Listen, I've sat down with a lot of members of Congress, both parties, good decent people, who've said, "Start withdrawing now." I've thought about that, and my attitude is if we were to start withdrawing now, we'd have a crisis in our hands in Iraq. And not only in Iraq, but failure in Iraq will embolden the enemy. And the enemy is al-Qaeda and extremists. Failure in Iraq would empower Iran, which poses a significant threat to world peace. Failure in Iraq would provide safe haven, and the extremists still want to attack us. In other words, there's a lot of reasons that I know we must succeed. And so I thought long and hard about would withdrawal cause victory or cause success. And the answer is I don't believe so, and neither do a lot of experts. And so then I began to think, well, if failure's not an option and we've gotta succeed, how best to do so? And that's why I came up with the plan I did.

---

PELLEY: The Democrat leadership says, "We wanna support the troops who are on the ground. We just wanna redline the extra 20,000."

BUSH: Yeah. I will resist that. That would mean that they're not willing to support a plan that I believe will work and solve the situation. Listen, we've got people criticizing this plan before it's had a chance to work. And I, therefore, think they have an extra responsibility to show us a plan that will work. In other words, they're saying, "We're not even gonna fund this thing." And they're not gonna give it a chance.

PELLEY: There's no Democrat plan.

BUSH: It doesn't look like it to me. And maybe there will be one. Now, I've listened to a lot of good folks who are Democrats who have expressed their opinions. They're just as patriotic as I am. And the interesting is, Scott, a lot of people are saying, "Well, we can't afford to fail." In other words, people understand the consequences of failure. But what's deafening is those who say "we can't afford to fail and here's the plan that will cause us not to fail." Frankly, that's not their responsibility. It's my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed.

PELLEY: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?

BUSH: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we're going forward.

---

PELLEY: Your military officers say that Iranian agents today are killing American troops on the ground in Iraq. Is that an act of war on the part of Iran against the United States?

BUSH: I think what they're saying is, is that the Iranians are providing equipment that is killing Americans. Either way it's unacceptable. As I said in my speech the other night, we will take measures to protect ourselves. We will interrupt supplies. We will find people that if they are, in fact, in Iraq killing Americans, they'll be brought to justice.

PELLEY: Is that an act of war against the United States on the part of the Iranian government?

BUSH: I'm not a lawyer. So act of war is kind of a . . . I'm not exactly sure how you define that. Let me just say it's unacceptable.

PELLEY: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?

BUSH: I'd say, first of all, to him, "You've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you've made your country the pariah of the world. You've threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You've said you want a nuclear weapon. You've defied international accord. And you're slowly but surely isolating yourself." And secondly, that "it's in your interest to have a unified nation on your border. It's in your interest that there be a flourishing democracy." And thirdly, you know, "If we catch your people inside the country harming US citizens or Iraqi citizens, you know, we will deal with them."

It's Not About Us - It's About Them

Nancy Pelosi's eventual choice for House Intel chair doesn't know if al-qaeda is shiia or sunni. (hin: sunni.)

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_Dem_House_Intel_chief_cant_1210.ht...

This is part of a larger and incredibly disturbing trend. Americans see the conflict in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and Ccentral Asia through the lense of our own society, concerns, ideologies, and interests. But that's not how Iraqis see it. They have their own set of values. And for us to navigate our way to any non-disastrous result in Iraq, we need to realize that.

Read this whole primer by Simon Rosenberg, A+ Democratic commentator.

http://ndnblog.org/?q=node/530 

Ahmadinejad's Letter to America

This is actually my first post to the blog, so be nice... I tried to send this out over demstalk, but the fas server is down, so here it will go.

AP is reporting that Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran has written a lengthy letter to Americans that will be released in New York, but it seems to be on his blog (www.ahmadinejad.ir) already. You can find it there in whole, but here are some interesting excerpts -- I've bolded a few sentences that I found particularly interesting:

"You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it. Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards humanity by the US administration? Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people."

"You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations."

"Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death. I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it."

"Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people."

"Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness."

"What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world. What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors? I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone."

"I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US: The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations. Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history."

"I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success."

What does everyone think of this? When I first read it, I was pleasantly surprised that Ahmadinejad still differentiates between our policymakers in Washington and the American people. Admittedly I know very little about his perception of America, but after reading this, it seems that he recognizes that we're unfortunately in the wrong hands. I don't know or think that Democratic partial rule will go so far as to return some contested land to Palestinians, but maybe the midterm elections will usher in more willingness on his part and on Bush's part to pursue a more diplomatic course. Any other thoughts?

What To Do In Iraq and Iran

While Andrew’s post (which is below mine on the blog) was very well thought out and undeniably hilarious (something which I will not attempt), I think he is fundamentally wrong about what we should do in the Middle East. His plan is wrong not just for the Democratic Party but for America.

I think we need to take a tough stance against Iran not because we as Democrats need to overcompensate on national security but because they are a dictatorship which has threatened its neighbors and has sponsored terrorism, endangering our country. Furthermore, they do not respect human rights and their leaders are resistant to democratic change.

I am going to explain why a tough stance will not lead to the crazy scenario Andrew laid out. But first I just wanted to make it clear that while I agree the United States should not remove any options from the table (in the event Iran started shooting missiles, especially nuclear ones, at its neighbors), I do not think invading Iran is an acceptable route if anything short of military aggression by Iran takes place.

Now, I will explain why Andrew's hilarious albeit illogical premise is wrong and why doing what I (and the Democratic Party) urges would not lead to an Iranian dominated Middle East.

Read more »

iCut and iRan

I have a confession to make. I don't like the iPod. My cousin gave me her old Nano when she got a newer one, and I promptly gave it my mom. It's not that it's poorly designed; it's mostly because it feels like one ginormous load of iHype. You can easily find an equivalent product that has a longer battery life, is less breakable, has more functionality, and is a fraction of the cost (until recently anyway). The drawback? They're fugly.

Occasionally, a friend of mine will have an iPod break or the battery life drop to five minutes or the case get scratched up beyond repair. And they'll curse out Apple for a minute, but then Apple comes out with something even thinner and sexier and they fall for it all over again. Not least because compared to the myriad of competitors, the iPod just seems like the safe simple (and sexy) choice.

And that's exactly like going to war with Iran.

More on the flip.

Read more »

Ji-Harvard

"OHH FUCK NO NO THEY'RE GONNA SHOOT ME NO NO DON'T PUT ME IN THERE NO" is what the crazy guy in the Metallica T-shirt screamed, as at least seven or eight police officers wrestled him onto a bench outside the Charles Hotel and hauled him feet-first into a waiting Cambridge PD wagon. "AAAAAAAA FUCK!"

Behind him, a man with unwashed long hair chanted "Down with Christians, Down with Jews" repeatedly, as the photographers and cameramen swarmed. The WRKO reporter standing beside me asked if I'd seen what started it, and I gave him the same answer as everybody else: "no, although I noticed that guy earlier because he was wearing chains on his shirt." Such great insight on our part.

And that was pretty much the highlight of today's protest. Whatever President Khatami said inside the Forum -- I didn't go in, and I don't really care -- the nature of the protest outside paints a much grimmer picture for the Iranian question. Thoughts and experiences after the jump (click "read more").

Read more »

Hello, Iran!

Hello, Iran!

(According to our traffic stats, we had two hits from Tehran.)

Also, we're all over the news since Eric got into an AP story which was picked up everywhere:

"His speech is on ethics and violence. It would be very bizarre if he came here to speak on ethics and violence and did not acknowledge and discuss his own record in Iran," said Eric Lesser, 21, president of Harvard College Democrats, which teamed with their Republican peers for the protest. "Students were arrested and thrown in prison for speaking their mind in the same way we're doing right now."

Live-blogging Khatami at Harvard

I'm here, with Jill, on the ground floor of the Institute of Politics. We're supposedly 3 minutes away from Khatami's speech, which I'll be live-blogging in comments below. This is probably a good time to plug the statement that the Harvard College Democrats released. Also, this is a good time to mention that the opinions below are solely those of the author(s) and not of the Harvard Dems. And away we go....