Change vs. Broder

David Broder just can't be bothered with reality. Barack Obama's greatest obstacle isn't McCain; it's appalling "journalism" like Broder's. Broder's Sunday column, "Change vs. Change" is a short piece easy to read in its entirety, but here are some key excerpts (emphasis added):

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Change is coming, change you can count on.

That is the simple, central message from the two presidential nominating conventions held in Denver and St. Paul during the past two weeks.

Whether it is Barack Obama or John McCain going to the White House in January, the new president will understand that his mandate from the voters is to cleanse Washington of its excessive partisanship and attempt to break the gridlock that has prevailed on almost all the big issues.

The good news is that Obama and McCain, for different reasons, have about as good a prospect of achieving that change as any two politicians you could find.

The acceptance speeches they delivered will not find places in many collections of great campaign oratory. But rhetoric aside, the clear intent of both candidates was to signal that they understand the frustration of voters of all parties with the poisonous status quo of recent years in Washington.

How addled is Broder? First of all, although he later notes the two candidates have different "agendas," as always, he's ignoring that their policy differences are drastic. McCain's voted the Bush line over 90% of the time, and boasted about it when it seemed politically prudent. On tax cuts and Iraq especially, McCain is the same as Bush or even more extreme (even more money to the wealthiest Americans). How is that possibly "change"? Apparently, McCain saying he wants change is more important to Broder than his actual policies, and McCain's promises are somehow credible, despite plenty of evidence they're preposterous. (And if Broder doesn't believe Obama will deliver, fine, but he doesn't make that argument.)

Second, as ever, Broder believes the solution to whatever ails Washington is always comity and bipartisanship, because policies themselves simply don't matter. He just hasn't noticed what's been going on for the past eight years, if not the past few decades. "Bipartisanship" to Broder and his ilk almost always entails Democrats kowtowing to a lockstep, radical conservative agenda, and his idea of a "mandate" is either incomplete or flatly wrong. For a long time now, Congress has been unpopular with voters for not sufficiently opposing the Bush administration. Voters want something done. Comity is at best a means to that ends, and the GOP has successfully pursued an obstructionist agenda, aided by a pretty weak Democratic leadership. Strangely, Broder's never seemed to notice this dynamic, preferring instead to wax nostalgic about the good ol' days when Reagan and Tip O'Neill would have a drink together. Broder also doesn't seem to get the concept of bad faith. (Meanwhile, he still thinks Bush shouldn't be impeached, but Clinton should have resigned over Lewinsky, which really says it all.)

Third (and this is the point where I found myself really doubting Broder's mental capacity and work ethic) Broder writes that "The acceptance speeches they delivered will not find places in many collections of great campaign oratory." What planet is he on? Perhaps it's the same one as the AP's Charles Babington, who clearly wrote his hit piece on Obama's speech without bothering to actually watch the whole thing first. Even some of McCain's allies acknowledged that McCain's speech was disjointed, poorly delivered, and lacking substance. In contrast, Obama made a number of specific policy points, his speech was well-structured, and he delivered it powerfully. Broder's free to disagree, of course, but his opinion certainly goes against most journalistic opinion. Rather than justifying his unusual views, in one sentence he instead dismisses Obama's greater substance and delivery, and again ignores the wide divide on issues (not to mention the soundness, consequences and popularity of their respective policies).

A later section also stands out (emphasis added):

Their skills and agendas are different, but both McCain and Obama bring strengths to what will obviously be a struggle against the forces of parochialism and partisanship resisting change in Washington.

Obama has an exceptional mind when it comes to analyzing and then formulating policy. His methods are reflective and sometimes iconoclastic, but the results are impressive. He has outlined approaches to domestic issues that might enlist support across a broad political spectrum. Still, his skills as a negotiator are largely untested, and he has yet to demonstrate, as McCain has, the backbone to challenge the prevailing interest groups in his own party.

Again, Broder is pushing his beloved comity. Broder grants McCain courage versus ego and pique for opposing his party. He echoes an earlier McCain ad, and much of McCain's rhetoric, that he's 'stood up' to his own party. There are three glaring problems with this. One, it once again ignores that there are qualitative differences between policies. Not all are good. Two, it's easier to stand up to policies when they're lousy, as the GOP's largely are, and less necessary when they're good. Broder values opposing one's party regardless of a given policy's merit. Three, McCain has voted the Bush line over 90% of the time, and boasted about this. He hasn't opposed his party. He's also reversed himself on almost every issue, including torture. But Broder again simply hasn't noticed.

Steve Benen comments on this Broder piece, too, noting that Broder once again pretends that the McCain campaign has somehow gone scurrilously negative against the noble Saint McCain's will. And Quiddity also delves into the idiocy of Broder's ideas about opposing one's own party as well as confronting the opposition party (and also challenges Broder's grasp of history). Quiddity apparently shares my take that the "centrist" Broder's arguments always seem to be novel reasons why you should vote for a Republican.

In any case, if another crappy, warmed-over, reality-challenged op-ed by Broder leaves a bad taste in your mouth, too, here's a series of palate cleansers from folks who somehow gleaned the truth that Broder dare not grasp. Here's Tom Toles, pointing out the obvious in style:



Here's Jon Stewart on The Daily Show:



And here's that guy who didn't deliver "great campaign oratory" in Denver:



That covers both the change the delusional Broder believes in, and the real differences he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge.

Update: Obama gives Toles a shout-out. Although the Obama campaign has long hit how McCain doesn't represent change, I guess he saw the cartoon!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Pay No Attention to the Man in Front of the Giant Screen

When watching McCain's speech last week, my strongest reaction was to the ending. It seemed to me that someone had hit an "applause" sign, the way the crowd got so loud for McCain, who was trying to be inspiring and forceful and just wasn't. There was a striking disconnect on the speech and the reaction. My suspicion was that the delegates were told to go crazy near the end, to try to trick the TV and web audiences into thinking they'd actually seen something exciting (much like late-night infomercials, actually). I've since heard something about fireworks on the screen behind McCain, but I don't know if those were near the end of speech or after it actually finished. Watching the end of the speech again, I had the same impression – ginned up applause. McCain looked tired and confused throughout, and that "fight for me," bit just wasn't anywhere close to Henry V on St. Crispin's Day. (Nor was it Mel Gibson in Braveheart - McCain was even more soporific and less convincing than Kevin Costner in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves talking about freedom.)

My favorite comment so far comes Rich Lowry (via Howard Kurtz). The National Review crowd was mostly for Romney earlier, but of course they've been shilling for their party's selection. Here's editor Lowry's "Quick Take" (emphasis added):

Don't focus on the oratory. If Mark Salter wanted to, he could have written prose for the ages, but it wouldn't have seemed true to McCain. Don't focus on the delivery. The election isn't going to be decided on speech-making ability. Focus on the theme—a populist fighter for you. This is exactly where McCain needs to be. Just as Obama needed to ground his politics of hope last week, McCain needed to ground his politics of honor tonight. And he did. At least thematically. What's still lacking is the substance. He needs three simple, stark policy proposals to protect and ease the way of life of average Americans, and I think he already has two (on energy and health care) and can get another (a middle-class tax cut). Then, he needs to master them and talk about them wherever he goes. I'm not sure whether McCain will win this election, but I'm very confident his campaign will do the things necessary to win it. Over the last two months, it has been fearless and shrewd. The celeb ad, the Palin pick, and now this speech were steps in the right direction. So I wasn't bowled over by it, but I'm still encouraged.

Yeah, see, McCain could have had a well-written speech if he really wanted to. And just ignore the crappy content, the lousy delivery, and lack of substance. Most critics weren't as scathing as Jeffrey Toobin, accurately calling McCain "shockingly bad," but nearly all commentators noted it was a both a weak speech and poorly delivered. When even McCain's cheerleaders are making such lame excuses for him, you know it didn't go over well. I suspect a TPM reader is correct – the A-team was working on re-tooling Palin's speech, and McCain's speech was given less attention. As with McCain's selection of Palin as his VP – he had roughly three months to find and vet candidates, and to start outlining a speech, and this last-minute, reckless, substance-less effort was the best he could muster? Add in the Walter Reed Middle School gaffe (it's a few miles from where I live, actually), and the other video issues (fake soldiers, using stock photos of African-Americans while less than 2% of the delegates were black), and it's not a pretty picture. McCain's actual performance, and the truth content of the Republican National Convention, were both abysmally low. We'll see how much the press actually cares, though, to delve into policy - and the character issues revealed by lying - especially when there's outlier polls, horse race questions and bullshit stories about Democrats throwing away American flags to cover. Yes sirree, that's news you can believe in.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Palin's Test of Loyalty

McClatchy ran a story from the Anchorage Daily News further delving into Sarah Palin's efforts to ban books, a subject we've covered before. It appears she never mentioned a specific list of books publicly, but brought up the issue at least three times (emphasis added):

When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there.

Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name.

"Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said.

"I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'"

Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said.

Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article.

Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.

Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.Books may not have been pulled from library shelves, but there were other repercussions for Emmons.

Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

Palin told the Anchorage Daily News then that the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.

Emmons survived the loyalty test and a second one a few months later. She resigned in August 1999, two months before Palin was voted in for a second mayoral term.

Palin's excuses are bullshit, of course. Why would someone repeatedly ask about banning books from the town library, and how would preventing adults for reading books selected according to standard criteria possibly be part of a normal mayor's "administrative agenda"? And firing someone is not a "test of loyalty." It's punishment for perceived disloyalty. But let's pretend for just a moment.

According to Palin herself, she thinks tests of loyalty are acceptable. She thinks firing someone – or going through the motions of doing so – as a 'test of loyalty' is acceptable (although Stambaugh stayed fired). To Palin, loyalty to her personally is more important than loyalty to the town or one's duty (shades of Bush and many other authoritarians). I don't know about Stambaugh, but Emmons was doing exactly what she should have been doing as a librarian, and given that she was reinstated due to public outcry, apparently the people of Wasilla agreed. Palin hasn't said anything like, "It was my first real position of power, and I misused it when my ego got involved. I'm sorry, and I've tried to do much better since." She shows no signs of learning from the incident in terms of morality or leadership; in fact, she's repeated the pattern.

Palin abused her authority, and then lied about it. She's done the same in trying to get he ex brother-in-law fired. She's brazenly lied, repeatedly, about saying "Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere." She's presented a false image of an anti-earmark crusader. She left Wasilla burdened with at least 12 million in debt. She's hiding away so as not to be challenged on her lies or her lack of knowledge, qualifications and competence. Her fringe views on abortion and global warming need to be exposed, but her track record reveals serious character issues as well. Palin's just one more in a long chain of conservative authoritarians and liars, but as always, the GOP's trying to do what they'll pulled off so often in the past - sell what they view as an appealing package to hide extremist policies.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Eclectic Jukebox 9/4/08

John Lennon - "Gimme Some Truth"

Boy, after all the lies at the RNC, a certain song comes to mind... (The video volume is low, but much cleaner than the other version I found.)

Where's Bush?

Kevin W. Baker of Republic of Dogs noted that there was no mention of George Bush in Sarah Palin's entire speech. This got me thinking.

Many people have noted that Bush has really been shunted aside during the Republican National Convention, and it's hardly surprising given his justifiably abysmal approval ratings. Dan Froomkin's provided good overviews of this dynamic this week in "Gustav's Silver Lining," "Bush Gets the Bum's Rush" and "President Who?" Laura Bush and Cindy McCain mainly spoke about Hurricane Gustav, so that's not a fair gauge (but they did mention President Bush, of course). Yet Bush's own speech, broadcasted from the White House, was extremely short, and mainly touted McCain.

This isn't a complete list of all speakers, but here's how many times Bush was mentioned by the headliners:

Fred Thompson: 0

Joe Lieberman: 0

Mitt Romney: 1

Rudy Giuliani: 0

Mick Huckabee: 0

Sarah Palin: 0

John McCain: ???

Sarah Palin and Alaska both received far more mention than Bush. (For that matter, so did Ronald Reagan and the Clintons.) As the VP pick and a relative unknown, certainly she'd be mentioned, but it's not as if she's been the defining face of conservative politics for the past eight years. Giuliani even managed to reference 9/11, of course, but without mention of Bush, in sharp contrast to his 2004 speech. I haven't gone through all of the less prominent speeches to see how prevalent this pattern is, but I suspect Bush doesn't appear often. (Let me know if I missed something significant.)

As to the one reference to Bush, it was shameless hackery. Here's Romney:

Last week, last week, did you hear any Democrats talk about the threat from radical, violent jihad? No. You see, Republicans believe that there is good and evil in the world. Ronald Reagan called out the evil empire. George Bush labeled the terror-sponsor states exactly what they are: the axis of evil.

Giuliani pulled a similar trick during the Republican primaries (and did again last night), suggesting that the Democrats hadn't discussed terrorism and national security when of course they had, merely because they didn't use his specific concocted phrase. In this case, to sell the same bullshit, Romney uses "radical, violent jihad." Cooler heads might point out that insinuating that Righteous America is involved in a holy war against those evil Muslims actually threatens America's national security, but Romney knows his audience – they want black and white, and they want to feel they're the good guys fighting Bush's "evildoers." Romney's sharp enough to build deniability into his language so he can claim he's not demonizing all Muslims, only the "radical, violent" set, but the RNC crowd definitely got his subtext. (Romney also avoided the word "crusade," that Bush used years ago.)

Mavericky John McCain has voted the Bush line over 90% of the time. Let's see how loyal the supposed man of honor is tonight.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Another Practitioner of the Dark Arts Revealed!

To follow up on an earlier BH post or two, via MBR, Unbossed has great rundown on Sarah Palin and her attempt to ban books in the town library when she was mayor. She even threatened to fire the librarian, and then did, although luckily the librarian was reinstated due to public outcry.

Let's be clear – anyone who tries to ban books is either a dolt, a scoundrel, or both. Such a move reveals a person lacking both character and wisdom. If the same person threatens to fire a librarian, and then actually tries to do it, well, that's a special level of mendacity. Now granted, since I have librarians and archivists in my own immediate family, I'm biased toward Biblio-Americans, and literate Americans, but hear me out.

Many libraries have a selection committee. Besides any librarians, such committees normally consist of citizens who just love to read, and also may read reviews of books the library doesn't own yet. Being willing to show up for the meetings is often the only requirement. The librarians may have the final say, but typically they welcome polite input. Meanwhile, due to the culture wars, many libraries have a "challenge" system if someone feels a book is inappropriate for the library to have. However, in at least some counties, libraries also have a two-card system, one card for adults, one card for kids. Kids can't check out certain materials without parental approval. Many kids will be hitting the library with an adult anyway, but the card system is an additional safeguard for anxious parents.

In Palin's case, she wasn't even targeting the school library, she was targeting the town library. As in one and only, unless the news accounts have omitted something. Palin wasn't just trying to hide dangerous literature from the kids. She was denying it to adults. That is simply not her call, it's the work of a busybody, and it's deeply immoral. If you've lived in a town or city of 10,000 or fewer (I have), you know there's generally only one library. These days, libraries provide key internet access to folks who don't have it. They also provide, as always, access to books for those who can't afford them, and access to many more books than even a well-to-do bibliophile could purchase or store. A good library is a wonderful place and often a community center. Public libraries and parks are two of the best communal goods a government can offer. Saying so is hardly controversial.

Meanwhile, librarians on the whole are a pretty smart, helpful, patient bunch. Sure, every once in a while you'll run into a crank, or one will pull a switchblade on ya for not understanding the Dewey Decimal System, but generally speaking, they're a cool bunch. When a librarian opposes a book-banner, you're on safe ground assuming the librarian is in the right. (I'll add the librarians tend to know their civil liberties, and many opposed all those National Security Letters the FBI was issuing abusively.)

I'd still like to see a list of the books Palin was targeting. She apparently remained vague in public statements, but I'd be surprised if she didn't drop some names at some point to somebody. Yet given this incident, "troopergate" and her multiple public lies, we know this woman may make a pleasant neighbor, but she's an authoritarian with some extreme views who abuses power and then lies about it.

September 27–October 4 is Banned Book Week this year (posts for past years are here). This year, please celebrate by reading or re-reading a banned book, or sharing one with someone you know. And please also consider opposing Sarah Palin. Personally, someone without the judgment and temperament to sit on a library selection committee is not someone I want in any public office, let alone the vice presidency.

In any case, I've figured out who this hockey mom with the authoritarian heart and deceptive tongue really is. To borrow from a book challenged occasionally, one that kids and teenagers are excited to read, Sarah Palin is none other than... Dolores Umbridge. Continuing on my campaign poster kick, I've mocked some up in her honor (click the pictures for a larger view):



Since these are conservatives, going from right to left, we have Bill Kristol, John McCain, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, Sarah Palin, Tucker Carlson, Jonah Goldberg, and a terrified, captive Stephanie Miller.



Meanwhile, here's the woman herself! Aaaah!!! So practice those counter-hexes against the dark arts, kids, read a banned book and Fight the Smears!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

The Passion of Saint McCain

(Pic by the ever-creative Darkblack.)

The fake cornpone patter of rich lobbyist Fred Thompson at the Republican National Convention Tuesday night made the bullshit and lies he was flinging all the more insufferable. His rallying cry for Sarah Palin was one echoed by other Republicans – the press and those liberals look down on you reg'lar folks (no mention of the leading critique, Palin's lack of qualifications for the job). It's a gambit that plays into the familiar victimization claimed by so many conservatives, but particularly those of the authoritarian religious right. Despite conservative wealth and power, and holding the White House, the rank and file still feel persecuted by those George Bush referred to as "the angry Left" - never mind that Bush was really describing roughly 70% of the country. (More on the conservative shell game on economics elsewhere.)

But Thompson ramped things up with a lengthy account of John McCain's POW experience, complete with numerous pauses to allow the full emotional weight to sink in. He took some liberties of course, but he was delivering more than a Hollywood prison movie tale. Did you see the rapt, near tearful crowd, re-living this ordeal and suffering along with Thompson - and McCain? The GOP knew their audience, and this wasn't Top Gun, Stalag 17 or heaven forbid, Grand Illusion they were selling – Thompson was selling The Passion of the Christ.

Watch the speech again, listen to the story Thompson constructs, and pay special attention to the faces in the audience (the "rapt" MSNBC version linked above has some great reaction shots). All political parties have their beloved narratives, of course, but the GOP is tapping heavily into the "culture wars" that they've exploited so successfully for decades, and also (I believe) appealing to religious tropes. Mel Gibson's Passion… features lengthy depictions of Jesus being tortured and mistreated, most notably with the scourging and the crucifixion itself (although lead actor Jim Caviezel as Jesus carrying the cross also falls down in slo-mo what feels like at least five times). Although some viewers found Gibson's approach gratuitous, it was a powerful, cathartic experience for some religious viewers, and the movie was quite a financial success. I'm not sure how conscious this appeal in Thompson's speech was, but especially given his abortion-Rick Warren reference ("pay grade"), I wouldn't be surprised if it was very calculated. John McCain's story was presented as one of suffering and deliverance, rebellion and redemption, of stubbornness and faith rewarded. And the subtext was, John McCain is one of us, whereas Barack Obama is not, in more ways than one. A quasi-religious suffering stood in for economic suffering, perhaps, especially since the GOP hasn't discussed the economy much compared to "character" and personality.

There was a stark irony to the telling of the tale, though, since as John Cole noted, both Bush and Thompson went to great lengths to avoid using the word "torture," since by Bush administration standards, McCain was not tortured (and despite his stated opposition to torture, McCain voted to allow it). Plus, authoritarian movement conservatives, many of them self-described Christians, sadly support torture when it's of infidels, or at least anyone the Bush administration says is guilty - although many Guantanamo prisoners are actually innocent. (Interestingly, tonight Huckabee did say "brutally tortured" and Palin used "torturous interrogations." I haven't heard all the speeches yet, so I'll be interested to hear the language.)

The McCain campaign is pushing the Palin mistreatment angle very loudly and angrily, most likely to try to distract from their lack of real vetting of an extremely questionable candidate, but also to sell the culture war that's such a key motivator to the conservative base. Given how unqualified Palin is, trying to stoke backlash is one of their best options. Josh Marshall dissects the game of McCain senior staffer Steve Schmidt's recent outburst:

It's also notable that while virtually all the aggressive questioning of Palin has been on her troopergate scandal, her manifest lack of qualifications, ties to a political party that embraces secession, etc. Schmidt focused on stories that if you look closely were actually never written. Yes, there was a storm of speculation on blogs. And maybe reporters followed up with inquiries. But who published any of it? Think about that for a second.

The McCain camp is using the rumors about Palin's family as a cudgel to beat back entirely legitimate questions -- which may amount to a feeding frenzy -- about Palin's political record, alleged pattern of abuse of the power of her office and political associations. When you see Steve Schmidt getting weepy, believe me, you're getting played.

Joe Klein's also sussed out the McCain ploy here. But expect to see much more of this. Really, how dare anyone suggest that someone be qualified for the job, when George W. Bush obviously shows it's just not necessary? Beyond the biographical parts, Palin's speech tonight mainly consisted of culture war bait overlapping with personal attacks on Democrats, albeit delivered with a chipper demeanor. Needless to say, we didn't see the numerous serious questions about Palin addressed, but for that matter, we've yet see any Republican address the meat of Obama's acceptance speech. (I could take the GOP a bit more seriously if they didn't lie about virtually every single Democratic position and still try out lines like "more executive experience" and "proud of my country (unlike that traitor Michelle Obama!)" Just about every piece of bullshit refuted over the past year was back tonight. When a party can't win a debate honestly, and practically every statement about the opposition contains a straw man argument, it tells ya something.)

For more on the culture war themes, see Digby in "Orthogonian Joan of Arc" and "Phase Two." She also passes on "The Palin Convention and the Culture War Option" by Jay Rosen. The Republicans' anti-revolution will be proselytized.

The Gospel of Saint McCain as written by Rick Davis, Steve Schmidt and the gang - and as delivered by Fred Thompson and others - is mostly image and persona, smoke and mirrors. Somehow, a man who votes the Bush line over 90% of the time and doesn't even pick the vice president he really wants is a "maverick." Somehow, we're told that McCain is honest, honorable and will never change, despite a staggering number of policy reversals. But then, McCain's campaign has finally admitted that "issues" aren't terribly important to their run, and close scrutiny of McCain's policies and statements bears that out. It's surely safer to manipulate and pander to the base, and try to pick a fight with the Democrats and the press so no one notices how weak and poor a choice McCain-Palin really offers.

Overt and covert appeals to religious feeling aren't that surprising, but some are awfully dismaying. Both parties should welcome people of faith, but also non-believers. I have respect for many people of faith, but none for religious blowhards, phonies and tartuffes, and certainly have no respect for the cynical exploitation of faith. In that spirit, I'm suggesting the McCain-Palin campaign do away with pretense and sell the product they really want to shill, complete with trademark POW star:



Update: A few thoughts I forgot to add. The GOP may be mocking Obama as "The One," but they're offering John McCain as our true savior. Of course, even the misleading bullshit about "the surge working" and "we're winning" in Iraq is a narrative about unquestioning faith rewarded. (And maybe Thompson should have followed Bush's lead, and compared the American people to North Vietnamese communists. Froomkin has more on that one.)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Concern Trolls for Nixon

When Wingnuts Tremble

The Palin circus has drowned out almost everything else, but you may have seen that the Obama campaign has pushed the Department of Justice to investigate the group behind the Ayers ads for possible violation of FEC guidelines. Meanwhile, The Politico reported late last week:

Barack Obama's campaign hasn't advertised this a great deal this week, but the campaign's "Action Wire" has been waging large-scale campaigns against critics. That includes tens of thousands of e-mails to television stations running Harold Simmons' Bill Ayers ad, and to their advertisers — including a list of major automobile and telecommunications companies.

And tonight, the campaign launched a more specific campaign: an effort to disrupt the appearance by a writer for National Review, Stanley Kurtz, on a Chicago radio program. Kurtz has been writing about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, and has suggested that papers housed at the University of Illinois at Chicago would reveal new details of that relationship.

The campaign e-mailed Chicago supporters who had signed up for the Obama Action Wire with detailed instructions including the station's telephone number and the show's extension, as well as a research file on Kurtz, which seems to prove that he's a conservative, which isn't in dispute. The file cites a couple of his more controversial pieces, notably his much-maligned claim that same-sex unions have undermined marriage in Scandinavia.

"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse," says the email, which picks up a form of pressure on the press pioneered by conservative talk radio hosts and activists in the 1990s, and since adopted by Media Matters and other liberal groups.

This comes via The Poor Man Institute in "Stanley K-Y" and "Wankpocolypse Now" and Thers in "The New Juice," all providing some good thoughts as well as links to right-wingers whose heads are predictably exploding over this. Thers nails it:

Because Ben Politico Smith is kind of a wanker, we get the line that the line about the file on Kurtz merely "proving that he's a conservative," which of course is not the point -- the file shows that Kurtz is a wingnut hack ideologue and nothing remotely close to a "scholar" or "researcher." The pretense that clowns like Kurtz are Serious People doing Serious Work (at the Very Serious Hoover Institution, no less) would be laughable were the Liberal Media not so prone to believe this sort of bullshit and lend it unjustified credibility by quoting them and giving them airtime...

Over here on the left we're all too familiar with the whole dreary process by which conservatives turn ridiculous bullshit into conventional wisdom...

The sniveling, hypocritical, hysterical response from NRO is also hugely entertaining, and that is in and of itself a plus. But the deliberate disruption of the Crazy Conservative to Conventional Wisdom sewer line is smart and necessary. More like this, please.

For my money, the best laugh line come from National Review's Guy Benson, who tries to sell this incident as a "stark and alarming wake-up call," and then implores, "For goodness sake, read Jonah's book." Benson at least knows his audience – Kurtz' "scholarship" is on a par with Jonah Goldberg's. And when you're trying to sell a bullshit scare over your bullshitter pal getting called on his transparent bullshit, the best way to back up yourself is to cite one of the most ludicrous pieces of bullshit ever penned.

Check out the Obama e-mail at The Politico piece, which points out Kurtz' wingnut pedigree, and if you dare, listen to the two-hour podcast of the 8-27-08 show in question. Kurtz is shoveling some awfully weak crap. His main argument's basically that Obama knew Ayers, Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground in the 60s, so Obama's comfortable with those views. Kurtz conveniently ignores that Obama was a kid at the time of Ayers' actions, Obama has condemned them, and Ayers is a professor now. By Kurtz' own standards, all the respectable Republicans on the same board also must also be far-left radicals or at least sympathizers. Kurtz' entire shtick is innuendo and guilt by association designed to scare conservative-leaning whites from voting for Obama. Kurtz also whiningly plays the persecuted martyr throughout. Of course, no one's trying to suppress his First Amendment rights (which don't include the right to be on a radio show); the callers are just exercising their own. Some of the callers could have been sharper, perhaps, but they're pretty civil, with only one guy getting heated. Host Milt Rosenberg seems like an amiable guy, Kurtz was booked last minute, and the program did try to contact the Obama campaign for equal time – although in the middle of the Democratic National Convention. Rosenberg does offer to have an Obama surrogate on a later date. The point is, Rosenberg should have done his homework, exercised some editorial judgment and upheld some basic journalistic standards. (A radical notion, I know.) Kurtz is an odious smear merchant who shouldn't be given a platform and credibility by any legitimate news organization, and the Obama campaign made a strong case to that effect. (I don't know who pushed the last-minute booking, but the trick to being a successful snake oil salesman is to get in and out before one's reputation catches up.)

Thoughtful Uncertainty and the Grand Scheme

This particular incident isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things, but when I first read about it, I wondered if it presented some ethical dilemma, the sort liberals (like me) often fret over but which seldom give conservatives pause. There's a saying that education is the process of moving from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty, and those two approaches sorta capture stereotypes of conservatives and liberals, respectively. (Those stereotypes don't go very far, though, and leave out authoritarian malice.) The Poor Man Institute's spent many a post discussing the fine art of ratfucking, and the Democrats' reluctance to engage in the sort of dirty tricks Republicans have often used to win elections. What's effective and not, what's ethical and not, the best angle of attack, the right mix of positive and negative, the perceptions game – all these are issues much discussed in campaigns, on television talk shows, and on blogs. I think it's safe to say that the "ethical" issue is of far greater concern to bloggers, who also tend to focus far more on actual policies than the average citizen or political reporter. But discussions of approach have intensified with the Democratic National Convention, the current Republican one, and certainly with McCain's virtually un-vetted pick of Palin. (More on Palin and these issues in another post, perhaps, although it's pretty well covered on many a blog, including BH.)

To return to the Kurtz incident, especially after listening to the actual show, I have to say the wingnut squawking on this is just ridiculous. This wasn't the Swift Boat campaign, or the Brooks Brothers riot, or jamming phone lines at party headquarters in New Hampshire, purging voter rolls in Florida, a whisper campaign about a white candidate's black child born out of wedlock, an e-mail campaign claiming a candidate is a Muslim or disrespected the troops, or a late-night break-in at the other party's headquarters (can you spot the through-line?). The Obama supporters weren't harassing the guy outside his house or something -- they were calling a show that solicits call-ins. They were civil. They could have been a bit sharper and more effective perhaps, but they were concerned volunteers, not trained surrogates. Any Nixonian dirty tricks came from Kurtz and his backers. Kurtz was spreading lies and innuendo, whereas the information the Obama campaign provided was accurate. (I should also note that Bush administration and RNC talking points sometimes lie to their own party members.) It's simply a good thing to challenge a professional smear merchant who's paid to lie, to hold him accountable, and to make the whole gang behind him squirm a bit.

I'd say true "ratfucking" entails a smear, lies or deception, and/or disruption of the other campaign's operations, especially through infiltration -- 60s strategies brought to mind by the police misconduct in the Twin Cities. I don't think the response to Kurtz qualifies, except that it did disrupt the other party's campaign, albeit the public propaganda effort of an ally with deniability. Regardless, the Obama volunteers took concrete, organized action, and that part is definitely good, because liberals traditionally haven't been able to combat the extremely organized and loud right-wing echo chamber. Meanwhile, when it comes to true ratfucking, I tend to agree with Hilzoy (writing here on the news of Bristol Palin's pregnancy):

If the past is any guide, some people will respond to this post by saying that the Republicans would not hesitate to use Democrats' teenage children to score political points. That may be. Three responses: first, so what? Just because they do it doesn't mean that we should. Second, any argument for going there would have to assume that this would, in fact, be a political winner, and thus that not using it would entail some sort of political sacrifice. I am not at all convinced that that is true. Most importantly, though, there are some lines I'm not willing to cross no matter what the other side does.

There's sincere disagreement on these issues, and I don't think that's a bad thing on its own. However, to take Palin as an example, there are many ways to critique her on both issues and character without going after her daughter. Palin's extreme anti-abortion views (no exceptions even for rape and incest) are of course fair game, as is her abuse of power and lying in "Troopergate," and her decision to lie in her first press conference as a VP pick about being a reformer who opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere" is kinda relevant. So too is her almost total lack of the experience and knowledge necessary to be president, a job she might have to take over given the health issues of John McCain. Regardless, Hilzoy's second point is key – going dirty can be effective, but it isn't necessarily so, and can backfire. Ideally, the Swift Boat campaign in 2004 would have been fact-checked and exposed, and the Republicans would have paid a steep price for it. We obviously don't live in an ideal world, and that didn't happen. It would be naïve to suppose that dirty tricks never work. Plus, typically the press will rescue Republicans but savage Democrats. Yet the Obama campaign's "action steps" mobilizing volunteers to challenge lying hacks, and their site to Fight the Smears, are extremely encouraging. The right-wingers have shown, predictably, that no matter what Obama does, they'll attack him. So he might as well fight back and at least say his piece. That also helps the 'meta-narrative' Josh Marshall wrote about years ago regarding Kerry and the Swift Boat campaign. With Kerry not fighting back immediately and forcefully, the right-wing was able to imply that Kerry was weak, so that even if the specific charges didn't stick, they were able to inflict damage. So far, the Obama campaign has pushed back aggressively on smears, and action by volunteers is very important because, as the Poor Man points out, "You-Don’t-Run-The-Obama-Campaign and The-Popular-Media-Doesn’t-Care-What-You-Think."

Be that as it may, news and campaign analysis, issues and ethics will always be hot topics for liberal bloggers. And while speculation at big blogs such as Daily Kos might make the news, smaller blogs are less likely to be combed over and cherry-picked, and can perhaps be more candid. It's also important to note the different levels at work: the campaigns themselves, their official staffers, their surrogates, their allies, their supporters, the candidate speeches, the official statements, the ads, the behind-the-scenes operations – including possible dirty tricks, the Astroturf organizations, the attack dog allies with deniability, bloggers... I remain most interested in the many games to public discourse, on blogs, in debates, and probably most of all on political talk shows. Media analysis has always been a key part of the liberal blogosphere, but with more bloggers appearing on political talk shows, it's even more relevant.

Stop Moving So We Can Shoot You

Seeing the right-wingers flip out over the Kurtz incident made me think back a few years. Remember the parade of former Nixon aides when Mark Felt was revealed as Deep Throat? It was unreal. All of a sudden, convicted felons, former conspirators and general scumbags were running around, often meekly challenged if at all, talking about how Nixon was a 'serious president for a serious time,' and Mark Felt was dishonorable, and he should have brought his concerns to the White House if he was so bothered. Really. They said that crap. Rove and other Bushies used a similar line this year on Scott McClellan -- if he was bothered, he should have spoken up, of course we'd have listened, as is the Bush White House style. But McClellan, while a dupe initially on Plame, wasn't a complete dunce. He knew, and had witnessed first-hand, exactly what would happen if he spoke up. And Felt was far craftier than McClellan.

Felt didn't bring his concerns to the Nixon gang because he knew he wouldn't be handing a decision to a thoughtful and ethical superior, he'd be handing them opposition research on himself, and they'd use the advance warning to try to destroy him. And if they had, Nixon might have stayed in power. Felt's motives might not have been entirely noble, and apparently one factor was that familiar D.C. beast, a turf war. But what I find ironic is that Nixon's plumbers were amateur spies, trying to destroy their enemies. Felt was a real spy, and extremely good at it. The Concern Trolls for Nixon attacking Felt years later were in large part just expressing professional jealousy – he beat them at their own game. And America is better for it.

Facing Off with Scoundrels in the Blather Wars

Bruce Reed has a great essay from 2004 called "Bush's War on Wonks" that delves into the divide between wonks and hacks, and also touches on some of the same territory as Ron Suskind's "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush." Many pundits, but almost all conservative pundits, are hacks. There are honorable, honest conservatives out there, for instance the rule-of-law type such as Alberto Mora and many of the JAGs pushing for due process and actual justice for Guantanamo prisoners, guilty and (the many innocent) alike. There are some Eisenhower Republicans still around - but these days they're speaking at the Democratic National Convention. The authoritarians of movement conservatism in power now are a completely different breed. For them, the only sin of Watergate was getting caught. Ever since, they've worked hard to avoid that happening ever again. Cheney and Rumsfeld practiced their dark arts in the Ford administration. The Reagan crew committed Iran-Contra and largely got away with it, with pardons from Bush the elder and justification from then Congressman Cheney, who complained that one just doesn't question the Imperial Presidency. And of course we now have many of the same Concern Trolls for Nixon in the current administration and carrying their water in the media. The neocons and their fellow authoritarian conservatives push disastrous policies without any scruple, their incompetence and corruption are (as Digby puts it) features, not bugs, and they will never, ever stop voluntarily. They have to be exposed and discredited.

In academia, in court, in good blog communities, when they're all at the best, there are standards of intellectual honesty and conduct. In honest discourse, there can be sincere points of contention as well as agreement, smart people of good faith will sometimes make mistakes but will own up to it, and the spirit is more one of exploration and discussion versus a humiliate-your-opponent, Thunderdome match to the death (which is what I was hoping for in McCain's VP pick process, actually). However, in those venues, it's also considered a virtue, not rude, to prove a point, to disprove a falsehood, and if necessary to call out a liar. That's not the case on most political talk shows. Many of the Democrats on TV aren't all that liberal, but beyond that liberals are often at a disadvantage debating conservatives because the key precept of liberalism is being fair, while the key precept of conservatism is power. Appear on PBS' NewsHour and you'd best call bullshit without profanity, but liberals can sometimes be gulled by concern trolls that it's somehow unfair to call bullshit at all, most of all forcefully, and that they should shy away from being fighting liberals. Conservatives can't win many arguments on the merits – they don't have much other than head games and language games, and they've gotten very good at those. Our mainstream media does not like to call out liars, nor to make qualitative judgments, pretending instead that all speakers are equally credible and that all ideas are created equal (much more on all this in two older, lengthy posts, "The Bullshit Matrix" and "False Equivalencies"). Back in 2004, Josh Marshall noted a NYT article that struggled to report how the Bush campaign was issuing lies and distortions in number and magnitude that far outstripped anything the Kerry campaign was doing (emphasis mine):

Yet by the rules of daily newspaper and television journalism it's not possible to quite say that -- a blind spot of the profession which Mike Kinsley has spoken about eloquently for many years…

They can't get themselves to say it, even though the authors of the piece, Nagourney and Stevenson, are seasoned political reporters who know the relevant facts perfectly well enough to make the judgment themselves.

This isn't an indictment of these two reporters. It's a recognition of the system they're working in, and the tactical advantages it gives to liars.

That dynamic sure hasn't gone away. And while The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are really funny, of course, they're also popular because they actually call bullshit, whereas far, far too many in the mainstream media do not.

Jamison Foser has a great piece from August on the media repeating McCain smears. Foser focuses in on an interview where Andrea Mitchell has McCain campaign manager Rick Davis dead to rights on a lie, yet lets him off the hook. I'd argue that commercial motives and social and professional norms are part of the problem. Regardless, do you think Patrick Fitzgerald would let that pass if he had Davis on the witness stand? Would Rachel Maddow, if Davis dared to come on her new show? Another guest could potentially challenge Davis, but then we're often into he-said, she-said territory, and hacks everywhere try to run out the clock and, as Dan Froomkin puts it, "win the half hour." Even with an actual liberal facing off with someone like Davis, it's likely going to be with a referee like Andrea Mitchell, or worse. This makes prepping for any face-offs all the more important. Obviously, if you're going to debate Davis, it's not going to play well to come right out and call him an evil, lying hack. But if you go into that debate not realizing that Rick Davis is indeed an evil, lying hack, you're gonna be in trouble. And you should know the material cold, plus study tape (as they say in the NFL) to know some of the evil lies he's bound to tell. It's also wise to know the most common logical fallacies and bullshitter's techniques, and practice how to rebut them quickly and effectively. There's a place for Kant and his categorical imperative in this world, but if I'm going into a debate, I want Socrates on my side, a guy who was wicked smart, but also one helluva smartass, brilliant at exposing his opponents (perhaps not the best approach to a capital trial, but a very effective one in debate).

This brings us back to matters over style and approach versus substance. Take McCain apparently not knowing the number of his houses – as Brad at Sadly, No, says, "The Reasonable Intellectual in me understands how silly it is to attack someone running for president for owning too many houses…But the Spite-Filled Hater in me can’t get enough of this shit." The reality is we live in a sound bite culture, with horribly superficial political coverage. I don't begrudge anyone for objecting to that or wanting to push back, because it needs to happen. But the world is also not as I would wish it. There are "gaffes" where someone's clearly just misspoke, and should be given every opportunity to clarify, or even admit error. The media's obsession with incorrectly labeling everything a flip-flop and with playing "gotcha" journalism is maddening. But I'm less troubled by someone smacking around McCain on his houses, as long as it then moves into the more serious stuff – McCain is out of touch, and his policies on taxes, health care, and the economy in general are horrible, and here's why. The sound bite is the shiny bauble for the press to distract and entertain them while the serious points are made. It is the tribute they demand. Plus, ridicule, when backed by a substantive critique can be very effective. Consider Obama's rebuttal of the tire gauge attack. He made serious points, he fact-checked the GOP, and he also justly ridiculed them. It was much more effective than an angry rant. And the ridicule was key, especially considering how much members of our press corps yearn for social approval and want to feel cool. Obama framed his rebuttal so it was cool to laugh at the Republicans – and that to be cool, one should laugh at the Republicans. Typically, our press corps ridicules substance, but Obama made it cool to ridicule bullshit. That's a minor coup.

The upcoming debates may provide a venue for more serious discussion, but it's not wise to count on it, given the terrible quality of the primary debate questions. Some of the candidates provided good answers, but largely despite the questions, not because of them. (I think the only decent debate was the Democratic one on NPR, which allowed for longer answers and discussion.) The debates as ran were little more than joint press conferences. The town hall format can be good, but also lends itself to sound bite answers and dodges. McCain does decently in those formats because he does have an amiable persona, and he's a decent bullshitter. But he's not at all superb. Longer formats and good, tough questions with follow-ups tend to fluster him and get him angry, with a recent Time interview merely one example. I'd love to see a real debate, with the principle of charity observed. I'd love to see both candidates pressed, and by actual, real-life, good reporters asking good questions and follow-ups. Long interviews by the same caliber of reporter would also be great. George Bush performed horribly when pressed by Irish reporter Carol Coleman and by NBC's Richard Engel. The same would happen to McCain if he were pushed on almost any issue at length. John McCain's statements and policies on Iraq range from the inaccurate to the incoherent to the incredibly bad. A substantial debate or sustained interview would expose him.

Meanwhile, in several recent cases with the press, McCain's gotten increasingly prickly. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis recently said that "This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates." It's the most honest thing we've heard yet from a Republican this election. While Davis went on to say issues play a role, the truth is, McCain has always mainly been selling his persona. Any format, any question or discussion that forces him beyond that will help Democrats. (The only danger with demolishing yet another unqualified politician is that a professional concern troll like Bob Herbert might rush to the hapless one's defense, and tell us why competence isn't admirable, but a refusal to point out another candidate's deception, ignorance or lack of qualification somehow is. But hey, it's not as if the stakes are high.)

Those Diabolical Nixon Concern Trolls

Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy supposedly performed a parlor trick of holding his hand over a flame until the flesh burned. According to the story, after he performed it at a dinner party, he was asked what the trick was, and he replied, "The trick is not to mind." It's a story repeated in Jane Wagner's play, The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe, most famously performed by Lily Tomlin (and consider this a Spoiler Alert if you haven't seen the play/film). Near the end of the play, Tomlin tells the Liddy story, then tries to hold her hand over a flame a few times, pulling back each time with an "Ow" or flinch. It's a funny bit that turns poignant when she says, "I do mind," and the lights go out.

Part of being a liberal, or at least a wonk versus a hack, is minding, is caring, is giving a damn - for principles, and for other people besides one's self. The defining characteristic of the current administration, and movement conservatism in general, is that they're holding someone else's hand over that fire. They run things disastrously, they raid the Treasury to give money to their buddies, they do horribly immoral things, they lie - and if caught, they blame others, including their own victims, for the mess. They seldom fear the consequences of their actions and rhetoric. Reasonable people can disagree on which circle of Dante's Inferno various members of the Bush administration merit, but one thing's for certain -- it's long overdue that in this mortal world, they feel the heat of their own flame.

(Edited slightly for typos and clarity.)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

"John McCain is the prisoner of the right wing, not a maverick."

If you missed John Kerry's fantastic performance on ABC, check out the whole thing:



Here's the transcript.

There are many storylines swirling around how McCain arrived at picking Palin, but they're not mutually exclusive. She was in fact favored by the authoritarian religious right, who McCain sought to court. In one report, Rick Davis was pushing for her, and he's probably been the McCain staffer most intent on pushing the bullshit about Obama and the Democrats being elitists; she's potential bait for ratcheting up the GOP's campaign of spite. (Hey, look at Bush, who needs to be qualified to be president?) Meanwhile, McCain's pick was impulsive and reckless. His campaign is only really vetting her now, after she'd already been picked!

Let me also recommend a few Obsidian Wings posts on the subject, and what they show about McCain. Here's Hilzoy:

The more I learn about this choice, the more it reminds me of Bush's choice of Harriet Miers. I don't think it's at all similar in its political ramifications -- Miers' nomination was seen as a betrayal by social conservatives, the very people who are thrilled by Sarah Palin. But it is similar in the manner in which each was chosen. In each case, the person who made the choice had wanted to pick someone else, someone he regarded as a close friend., In each case, he was told that he couldn't choose that person because it would be politically disastrous. In each case, the person who made the choice responded not by sitting down and thinking about who might fill the role s/he was to be nominated for with distinction, but by making a quick and ill-considered choice of a plainly unqualified person, a choice that seemed like an insult to the office that person was nominated to fill.

Moreover, in each case that choice reflected the fact that the person making it was chafing at the discipline required of him. As far as I can tell, Bush reacts very badly to the idea that his powers as President are limited in any way, or that he owes anything whatsoever to his party or his allies. McCain is similarly undisciplined: he has been willing to do what his party requires of him, up to and including sacrificing his honor and his principles, but he visibly bridles at it, and he seems to be thrilled at the chance to be a maverick again. If that requires picking a vice presidential nominee who is wholly unprepared to take over as President, without doing anything like the vetting a Presidential campaign would normally require, then so be it.

Discipline is not McCain's long suit, and he loves to gamble:

"Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John's life," says John Weaver, McCain's former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. "Taking a chance, playing against the odds." Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos, which he has helped regulate in Congress. (...)

"He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing," says a Republican who has watched McCain play. "And he just sort of revels in it."

Picking Palin without doing a thorough background check first is of a piece with this: chafing at discipline, playing the odds, liking to bend the rules and get away with it, wanting to be a bad boy. These are not character traits I'd like to see in a President.

But back to Kerry -- as with his great convention speech – where was this guy in 2004? More like this, please.

One last thing – I've argued before that McCain is running mainly on his persona. His actual policies range from the incoherent to the bad, and he often can't describe them, or the factual world, accurately. McCain clearly prizes a self-image as a maverick, an image that many of his surrogates have been trying to sell these past few days, and one that far too many in the press still buy, despite glaring evidence of its absurdity. How can a man be a "maverick" who's voted the Bush line more than 90% of the time? (Oh, and George Bush is a real cowboy, too.) McCain's been getting increasingly prickly, but he's yet to have an all-out temper blowup in public during the campaign. It wouldn't hurt to see it beforehand, but I'd love to see it in one of the debates. I hope Obama reiterates the maverick-voting record point in a debate, just as he did in his acceptance speech. Wouldn't it be great if he needled McCain with the truth until McCain had a "You can't handle the truth!" explosion? The American people deserve to meet the real McCain – a bellicose, uninformed, unwise, immature stooge.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Call to Free Amy Goodman (Updated)

Respected journalist Amy Goodman has been arrested. Here's the video:



As you can see, she's an extremely intimidating physical presence, and obviously a clear and present danger to all in the vicinity, most of all the multiple cops in riot gear. Given that peaceful activists targeted in earlier house raids were called "anarchists" by the police, and too many in the press has repeated that uncritically, I wonder how this incident will be reported. Let's work to make sure it's reported accurately, as the abuse of power it is.

Here's the press release, emphasis added:

September 1, 2008
Contact:
Dennis Moynihan
Mike Burke

ST. PAUL, MN—Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time. Police violently manhandled Goodman, yanking her arm, as they arrested her. Video of her arrest can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfuly detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman’s crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

Ramsey County Sherrif Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.

Democracy Now! is calling on all journalists and concerned citizens to call the office of Mayor Chris Coleman and the Ramsey County Jail and demand the immediate release of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar. These calls can be directed to: Chris Rider from Mayor Coleman’s office at 651-266-8535 and the Ramsey County Jail at 651-266-9350 (press extension 0).

Democracy Now! stands by Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and condemns this action by Twin Cities law enforcement as a clear violation of the freedom of the press and the First Amenmdent rights of these journalists.

During the demonstration in which they were arrested law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and excessive force. Several dozen others were also arrested during this action.

Amy Goodman is one of the most well-known and well-respected journalists in the United States. She has received journalism’s top honors for her reporting and has a distinguished reputation of bravery and courage. The arrest of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar is a transparent attempt to intimidate journalists from the nation’s leading independent news outlet.

Democracy Now! is a nationally-syndicated public TV and radio program that airs on over 700 radio and TV stations across the US and the globe.

Personally, I'm really, really sick of this shit. The raids in the Twin Cities are even worse than some of the police abuses in Denver. Not all cops are like this, of course, but this is entirely too commonplace. It defies belief that these cops don't know that they, officers of the law, are breaking the law. I want to see some people fired over this. I want to see it spelled out loudly and plainly that what all these people harassed and arrested were doing, peaceful activism in public places, was legal and protected under fundamental rights of the Constitution. I don't want to see this crap every again. I don't have much hope of that, but one key step to stopping it in the long term is stopping it now, and making sure those that have abused power pay a price for it.

Update: Via Cernig at C&L, Democracy Now reports that Amy Goodman, and now her producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, have all been released, although all were mistreated. Democracy Now will be airing more footage tomorrow. Meanwhile, tear gas was also used on protestors:



Democracy Now also reports:

During the demonstration in which the Democracy Now! team was arrested, law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and excessive force against protesters and journalists. Several dozen demonstrators were also arrested during this action, including a photographer for the Associated Press.

Cernig writes:

Democracy Now! is standing by the three and calling what happened today “a transparent attempt to intimidate journalists” and “a clear violation of the freedom of the press and the First Amendment rights of these journalists.”

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)