Archive for August 11th, 2005

Consolidated Cindy@Crawford Contemplations

This is another one of those posts where I try to pull together some musings that have been scattered here and there in comments, in this case some thoughts on Cindy@Crawford, who I think is more of a threat to Bush than Plamegate could ever be.

To elaborate: Unless and until there are indictments or maybe even convictions in L’Affaire Plame, I don’t think it’s devastating, because there’s simply too much room to bandy about half-truths and technicalities and just generally obfuscate and murk things up. Oh, she wasn’t really covert. Oh, they didn’t really out her. Oh, they didn’t really know she was covert. Oh, it’s not really a crime, and anyway, the president didn’t know about it. And so on, and so on. Enough reality has seeped through to severely damage Bush’s poll numbers on honesty – which was supposed to be one of his advantages over those sleazy, morally relativist Democrats – but I don’t think it’s fatal, and I think it’s something that people will forget about when the next blonde girl runs away and gets eaten by a shark. It’ll stay in the back of their minds and they won’t trust Bush quite as unconditionally as they used to, but many of them will still trust him more than the Democrats, which is all he really needs.

On the other hand, Bush’s treatment of Cindy Sheehan damages him on multiple levels, and strikes to the very core of his carefully crafted character. Bush is supposed to be strong and resolute, but he’s afraid to “confront” the mother of a soldier who died in his war. He’s supposed to be a “compassionate conservative”, and a salt-of-the-earth man’s man who cares deeply about our troops, yet he allows his minions to tell the aforementioned mother to stay in the ditch, and threaten to arrest her. All of this exposes his cowardice, arrogance, and unaccountability in a way that the Democrats have never been able to make stick. And it does it in a way that’s almost impossible to spin or obfuscate. There are no legal technicalities here, no confusion to sow – everyone understands the situation, and everyone knows Bush is ducking and covering. So far, the talking points I’ve heard have been that Cindy flip-flopped from her initial reaction to meeting Bush, and that her dead son wouldn’t approve of what she’s doing(!), and both of those are weak and beside the point.

The only thing that would be better is if Bush actually gives in and talks to her… on camera. Remember his peevish reaction to European interviewers who were not properly deferential? Now imagine him snapping at a dead troop’s mother on national television. I suspect she would snap back, which would just make him even meaner. This could be the Dead Zone moment I’ve been waiting for, where he finally exposes his true colors for all to see.

Of course, as always, much depends on how much interest the media has in covering this story. There’s certainly a good chance that the corporate ownership will be more than willing to forgo a powerful and compelling story to protect their sugar daddy. Their ability to obsessively and breathlessly cover celebrity trials and missing white girls, even in the absence of any meaningful updates, should translate very well to this sort of long-term vigil situation.

I also wanted to make a comment about strategy: I know there’s an impulse to send as many people as possible down to Crawford for a show of solidarity, and to draw more media attention.

Don’t. Please.

Cindy doesn’t need more people to make her a more compelling story – she carries more weight as a lonely, solitary figure than she does at the center of a giant impromptu political rally. How much impact would those photos of her vigil have if she was surrounded by people waving signs and chanting slogans? More importantly, it makes her easier to frame and dismiss (and arrest) as the MoveOn-backed ringleader of an unruly, dangerous mob stalking the president. I don’t mind her having a support system of friends, and/or a posse of other war widows and bereaved mothers (just try arresting all of them, I dare you) – I just don’t want to see this turn into a Democrat-sponsored circus that makes Cindy look like a partisan tool. In other words, less really is more.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I did not mention that Viggo Mortensen stopped by “Camp Casey” today…

9 comments August 11th, 2005 at 05:26pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Cindy Sheehan,Favorites,Iraq,Libby/Plame,Media,Politics,Polls,Wankers,War

Pete Domenici, Terror-Fighting Patriotic American

Wow, I missed this one. Too bad we have a president who wants to save his veto power for stem cell research bills.

Despite widespread opposition – from the Bush administration, a majority of the Senate, leaders of the House Energy Committee, and nuclear regulators from the five preceding presidential administrations – Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico and chairman of the Energy Committee, included an amendment that guts restrictions on the export of highly enriched uranium, the same material used in the Hiroshima atomic bomb.

(snip)

The new law increases the likelihood of that nightmare scenario by allowing exports of bomb-grade uranium to foreign companies to rise to more than 100 pounds annually, thereby multiplying the odds that terrorists could steal enough for a bomb while the uranium is in transit to, or in storage at, foreign facilities.

(snip)

The ill-advised amendment actually failed the only vote ever
held specifically on it by either house of Congress, in the Senate on June 23, 2005, by 52-46. The House of Representatives had slipped the provision into the energy bill without a vote, but once its ramifications became clear, both the House Energy Committee’s chairman, Republican Joe Barton from Texas, and its ranking Democrat, John Dingell from Michigan, came to oppose it. They offered Senator Domenici a compromise to neuter the provision in deference to the Senate’s vote against it.

This is where Mr. Domenici abused his power as Senate committee chair. He successfully pushed all of the Republicans he appointed to the House-Senate conference on the bill to vote for his provision – against the expressed will of the Senate. He then rejected the House’s offer to eliminate the provision, thereby strong-arming the provision into law over the bipartisan opposition of executive and legislative branch officials.

So let us all take a moment to recognize Senator Domeneci’s heroic efforts in the Global War On Terror – it’s just too bad he’s not on our side of it.

August 11th, 2005 at 12:20pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Politics,Republicans,Terrorism,Wankers

Random Thoughts

I have the perfect slogan if Missouri wants to start an ad campaign to promote itself as corporate-friendly:

Missouri loves companies!

Would the female equivalent of mensch be womensch?

1 comment August 11th, 2005 at 12:12am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Favorites,Puns


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

August 2005
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *