Daimler-Benz plans to sell Chrysler. This might help explain why.
What Do You Suppose Time-Warner Would Get For AOL?Post + Comments (9)
by Tim F| 9 Comments
This post is in: Domestic Politics
Daimler-Benz plans to sell Chrysler. This might help explain why.
What Do You Suppose Time-Warner Would Get For AOL?Post + Comments (9)
by Tim F| 21 Comments
This post is in: Republican Stupidity
Desperate circumstances often lead to crazy thinking. I will illustrate with two recent examples.
#1: A group of Republicans feeling the Iraq heat thinks that they can talk Bush out of his absolutist stance on the war:
A diverse collection of House Republicans has formed an ad hoc group to negotiate with the White House on a compromise Iraq spending bill, Politico’s Ryan Grim reports. The group plans to hold talks with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who has been working behind the scenes to cement opposition among Republicans to the spending bill that would require U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq at some point.
The group includes five Republicans, diverse in geography and ideology: Reps. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Mac Thornberry of Texas and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland. Of the five, only Gilchrest broke with his party to support a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
Now, Gilchrest says the group will encourage the White House to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq. And the group has national security bona fides that will help it be taken seriously.
Rep. Gilchrist is more or less saying to the president, we’ve kept loyal to you for years. Sometimes it cost us dearly. Now maybe you can return the favor. Ha ha. Rep. Gilchrist should know that this president values loyalty above practically everything, sure, but his definition differs a bit from ours. To understand the kind of loyalty that an entitled old-money aristocrat like Bush expects from his allies, look up fealty.
Unless Rep. Gilchrist has a veto-busting coalition in his breast pocket he can save himself a trip.
Example #2: Rep. Phil Gingrey has another strategy.
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, told “Hardball” fill-in host David Gregory that if the ‘surge’ has not yielded success in Iraq by August 2008, then “this president, and the Republican majority from the last Congress, we do have a ‘Plan B,’ but we’re not going to give it to the enemy.”
Gregory did not push him to shed light on the back up plan, but Gingrey conceded that “adjustments” would need to be made if victory had not be achieved in Iraq by August 2008.
Yes, a secret plan. Maybe Gingrey has some secret infantry divisions under his House desk. A written treaty with Ahmedinejad, Muqtada al-Sadr and whoever is runninng the Sunnis this week that takes effect as soon as Republicans regain Congress?* The possibilities are endless, or they would be if we lived on a happy planet where our options didn’t boil down to either leaving now, or spending some more blood and treasure, wrecking our army and then leaving. I’m sure that in Jan. 2009 Speaker Gingrey won’t admit, yeah my plan looks a lot like Pelosi’s plan, except I get credit for it. Suckers.
This is a thoroughly non-inclusive list. If you know any other examples of Iraqageddon inspiring millenialist thinking in Republicans, have at in the comments.
(*) Also included: Kurdish independence resolved without inflaming Turkey, Kirkuk ethnicity settled and the domestic terrorist groups retrained as call center workers for Geico.
by John Cole| 62 Comments
This post is in: Domestic Politics, Politics
Interesting piece in the NYT on a “dilemma” facing churches and the rest of society:
On a marquee outside and on a banner inside, Pilgrim United Church of Christ proclaims, “All are welcome.” Sustained by the belief that embracing all comers is a living example of Christ’s love, Pilgrim now faces a profound test of faith.
The Rev. Madison Shockley is leading his church through a discussion about whether it should admit a convicted child molester.
In late January, Mark Pliska, 53, told the congregation here that he had been in prison for molesting children but that he sought a place to worship and liked the atmosphere at Pilgrim.
Mr. Pliska’s request has plunged the close-knit congregation into a painful discussion about applying faith in a difficult real-world situation. Congregants now wonder, are all truly welcome? If they are, how do you ensure the safety of children and the healing of adult survivors of sexual abuse? Can an offender who accepts Christ truly change?
“I think what we have been through is a loss of innocence,” said the Rev. Madison Shockley, Pilgrim’s minister. “People think of church as an idyllic paradise, and I think that is a great part of that loss.”
This is not a new problem- what do we do with those who have served their time and need to re-enter society? I am afraid I do not have many answers. Years ago there was a terrifying series of reports (and I wish I could remember where I read them- I want to say it was the Atlantic) about what was going to happen in the middle to late 2000’s when an entire graduating class of drug dealers and convicts from the 80’s crack wars were released from prison. Essentially, an entire generation of men would be released on the public, and due to the punitive v. rehabilitative nature of modern incarceration, they would be released with pretty much the same skill set they entered prison with maybe a few new tricks learned from their peers.
What do we do with these people? Recently, moves have been made in Florida and elsewhere to allow former cons the right to vote, but that is really a smaller part of the bigger issue. With the numbers we have in jail at the moment, we have to appreciate the magnitude of the problem we will soon be facing. Where will these people live, work, worship?
Or are we, by the nature of incarceration, creating a permanent criminal class? Politics being the way it is, it is impossible for people to introduce sensible legislation to provide training and education to inmates- those who do are immediately assailed by the usual suspects for coddling criminals.
Scary, and like I said, I have no answers.
by John Cole| 70 Comments
This post is in: Media
One last thing about Imus- can we please stop the fauxtrage that certain columnist and political leaders are standing by Imus? Some of the people on the left-wing of the political debate are starting to sound like the paranoids at Red State with their media conspiracies. Some of the same people, I might note, who would have (admirably, in my opinion) defended ANYTHING their friend Amanda Marcotte said in order for her to keep her job with Edwards.
Of course they are standing by him. They have long-standing relationships, and they are friends. Imus may be a lot of things, but he was loyal to his friends. What you see/hear on the Imus show most certainly is not all there is to the man, and could go a long way to explain why decent men like Tom Oliphant are standing by Imus. And it is possible to stand by someone while still hating what they have said and done.
As the TNR notes (via Sully), it will be interesting to see how MoDo and Frank Rich react. Another one that will be interesting to watch is Mike Barnicle, who was, for the most part, thrown out of the “clique” for plagiarism a few years back and was wholly rehabilitated by Imus. He made Barnicle less nuclear. People remember that. People understand loyalty.
But I really do think it boils down to friendships and relationships as much or more than it does to Digby’s hypothesis about book sales. I listened to the show quite frequently (every morning, actually, up until about a year ago when I just stopped watching, for whatever reason). The guests and Imus generally liked each other- you could tell that they were friends, and yes, they were clubby.
I guess my whole point is that it is, I think, unfair to attack Oliphant, or David Gregory, or Tim Russert, or whoever, because they will defend a friend. I worked in probation for a while, and at every sentencing, people got up and said good things about the convicted. That doesn’t mean that the convicted is any less guilty, and it surely does not mean that those testifying on behalf of the convicted are awful sell-outs. It is just human nature to try to stand up for your friends.
*** Update ***
This is just a completely unfair attack on James Carville:
Here’s how James Carville defended Imus on CNN just now, saying that they’ve been friends since 1992. After spouting off for about thirty seconds of saying how he really thinks that Imus is genuinely sorry, he gave his real reason for defending Imus.
“I’m a believer that when a friend is in trouble, that’s when you run to their aid.”
And then Carville talked about how Imus has raised lots of money for charity. The other guy, the Republican strategist, actually did some analysis about whether candidates should go on and how Imus relates to cultural conservatives.
It’s striking how Carville’s move to stardom in 1992 colors his whole world. James Carville is no longer a Democratic strategist or analyst, he’s just an insider celebrity.
Look, I was a Clinton hater during the 90’s, and by extension, a Carville hater. I detested him. I thought he was a liar, an opportunist, a hack, and would say and do anything. I felt there was nothing Clinton would do or say that Carville would not excuse. Until I heard Carville speak at my school.
Carville and his wife came to speak one night, and one of the questioners asked Carville how he could sleep with himself defending Clinton even after Clinton admitted to lying to him about Lewinsky and other issues. Carville’s answer was simple:
“Loyalty.”
Clinton gave Carville a shot, and stood by him through thick and thin. Carville, a Marine, did the same, even when he knew his friend was in the wrong. Now we can get into an deep (well, probably not) debate about the magnitude of sins committed by Clinton v. Bush v. Imus, or for the relative merits of being loyal when you know someone is doing wrong (make no mistake, the loyalty used to cover up the disasters in this administration has wreaked unparalleled messes on this nation that will take a long time to fix), but I respect Carville for his loyalty.
Sorry, but I do. Imus has been a friend to him, Carville thinks he knows Imus beyond what is portrayed on the screen and on the radio (and, indeed probably does), and I can respect that. You don’t have to agree with it, but smearing Carville for being loyal to a friend seems beyond the pale. Imus is going to get what is coming to him- lashing out at people for defending their friends seems pointless and unfair.
And believe it or not, I do understand what many are upset about- friendship and loyalty does seem to have replaced honesty and integrity in the media. But I simply can’t attack people for being loyal to their friends.
by John Cole| 23 Comments
This post is in: Politics
I suspect that pretty soon, we shall learn what Abramoff knows:
Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff may be getting out of jail earlier than he expected, NBC News learned on Monday. A federal judge Monday granted the government’s request for a new hearing to determine an appropriate reduction in Abramoff’s sentence, a reward based on his continued cooperation with investigators in several federal probes.
Abramoff is currently serving a five-and-a-half-year sentence for his conviction in the Florida-based SunCruz Casinos gambling boat fraud case. In Miami, U.S. District Judge Paul Huck granted the request from prosecutors once they told him Abramoff’s cooperation in the investigations is fully completed.
That means he has given the goods.
This post is in: Media
Stealing from Bill Maher, I have a new rule:
“Anyone outraged by Don Imus’s remarks is forbidden to link approvingly to Al Sharpton’s role in this matter.”
Period. And no, that is not excusing Imus.
I lived in Poughkeepsie in 1988-1989.
*** Update ***
And in case you are confused, while this was originally about some tasteless racist remarks, this is now all about raw political power:
Imus, who has made a career of cranky insults in the morning, was fighting for his job following the joke that by his own admission went “way too far.” He continued through the day Monday, both on his show and Sharpton’s.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who marched with about 50 protesters Monday outside NBC offices in Chicago, said Imus’ suspensions will not halt the protests.
“This is a two-week cooling off period,” Jackson said. “It does not challenge the character of the show, its political impact, or the impact that these comments have had on our society.”
Prediction:
Imus survives unless he keeps talking the next two weeks. His main problem is that he has no real base of support- he has spent the last few years on the right side of the war issue and alienated many conservatives, he was on the right side of Walter Reed, and has been a vocal supporter/champion for a number of issues that have alienated him with many on the right. He has nowhere to go- the left think he is an icon of the right and think they can get a scalp, the right feels like he betrayed them and is happy to see him hurt.
And really, he is just a cranky old radio jock who has been giving people what they want for years. Anyone who is remotely surprised or shocked that he said this about the Rutgers basketball team has CLEARLY not watched or listened to his radio show in the past ten years. In one sense, it seems almost unfair- it is like spanking your dog after he chewed up the 200th pair of shoes. While I am sure that he now understands the remarks were inappropriate, he probably feels blindsided and shocked by all the outrage directed at him.
Take that for what you will.
by Tim F| 135 Comments
This post is in: Foreign Affairs
From an op-ed in today’s Washington Post, the writer takes a second look at a controversial thesis:
Jimmy Carter raised hackles by titling his book about the Palestinian question “Peace Not Apartheid.” But Palestinians allege this is worse than the former South African racial separation. Nearing the 40th anniversary of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, the territory has been so fragmented that a genuine Palestinian state and a “two-state solution” seem increasingly difficult.
The security wall has led to virtual elimination of suicide bombings and short-term peace. But life is hard for Palestinians, whose deaths because of conflict increased 272 percent in 2006 while Israeli casualties declined.
[…] Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey was at the university the same day I was, and faculty members could hardly believe a real live member of Congress was there. Smith later was given a tour of Jerusalem to see with his own eyes that the separation barrier in most places is a big, ugly and intimidating wall, not merely a fence.Smith, an active Catholic layman, was drawn here because of the rapid emigration of the Holy Land’s Christian minority. They leave more quickly than Muslims because contacts on the outside make them more mobile. Peter Corlano, a Catholic member of the Bethlehem University faculty, told Smith and me: “We live the same life as Muslims. We are Palestinians.”
Concerned by the disappearance of Christians in the land of Christianity’s birthplace, Smith could also become (as I did) concerned by the plight of all Palestinians. If so, he will find precious little company in Congress.
Take a moment to read the whole thing, which definitely does not come from somebody with an axe to grind about the Palestinian plight. Make a point to skip the byline and read the article without seeing who wrote it. Then read the byline. Huh.
As for my feelings, I think that Israel’s security is inextricably linked to the quality of life in Palestine. I took it as a positive sign when Israel recognized that endless occupation of the Palestinian territories was a non-starter, but this wall just worsens Israel’s isolation and further pushes her immediate neighbors towards extremism. I don’t think that the Palestinians have any more crazy extremists than any other group of people (call it my Conservation of Craziness rule, or Tim F’s Third Law), which means that if people don’t feel like supporting the crazies anymore then the crazies will go back to being a noisy minority.
The author describes a pervasive feeling of hopelessness in Palestine and makes a compelling case that much of the violence stems from that rather than some innate evilness. I don’t have any specific solutions for that. Despite an unserious negotiating partner Yitzhak Rabin seemed to be moving in the right direction. Ariel Sharon shocked me with a series of surprisingly sensible policies, beginning with pulling many settlements and revisiting Israel’s support for the rest. Arafat died. Whatever the solution, bricking over the problem with a wall that arbitrarily separates Palestinian communities and removes them from the commercial life of the region seems like an enormous mistake.