Weekly Weigh-in - Shams and Charlatans

[Heh heh -- I actually wrote this post last weekend but hadn't gotten around to posting it yet because I still wanted to add some links. Anyhow, I still haven't added the links -- and it's a little too late this evening to do that -- but I wanted to go ahead and post it anyway...I've got a little more commentary on this at the end of the post...]

-- As news broke this week about the agreement to think about someday reaching a peace agreement for the Middle East, I was mildly amazed, yet again, by how the media continues to treat these things as if they were anything other than completely pointless political theater. I don't wanna dwell on this - frankly, it doesn't deserve more than a passing mention - but anyone who thinks that whatever Abbas, Bush, and Olmert agreed to will amount to anything substantial vis-a-vis peace between Israel and the Palestinians is - how shall I put this? - an idiot. Moreso, because not one of those three "leaders" is in any position domestically to dictate the shape of future negotiations. Nonetheless, the media in general treated their b.s. summit like it was the big news of the day. Collective stupidity.


-- On another subject, watching the Republican debate the other day made me realize that I despise Mitt Romney nearly as much as I do Giuliani. Or maybe "realize" is not the word. Maybe it just confirmed it for me.


Anyone who knows even a little bit about Giuliani's extremely shady friends will understand why I detest the little creep. Frankly, it would be hard for anyone to sink as low in my estimation, but Romney is certainly taking a shot at it. One need only look at clips from his debates when he ran for senator and governor and then listen to what he says now to see him as the lowliest of political weasels.


For example, it was only in 2002 - yes, only five years ago - that Romney basically insisted that he was pro-choice and would never, ever, never change his support for a woman's right to an abortion. Indeed, he struck an extremely sanctimonious tone when his opponent dared to question his commitment to that position. Yet now, after he's decided that he's pro-life (on account of he figures he has to be to win the GOP nomination), he acts as though he is equally offended when someone questions his commitment to pro-life policies. And it's not just on abortion that Romney has taken vastly different opinions in the past to the ones he now professes.


In short, he is a liar, pure and simple (that is, an even more brazen one than his competitors). He has no convictions whatsoever. His only interest is in power. Well, Joseph Smith, at least, would be proud.


All of this said, it does make me a little more concerned for the Dems chances of winning the Whitehouse next fall. Truth is, I would like nothing better than to see either Romney or Giuliani take the nomination because I am fairly sure that either would sink in the general election when closer scrutiny is given to the things they have said and done in the past. As it stands, however, that scrutiny may be coming early enough to prevent both of them from even getting the nomination. Huckabee, who seems more and more like the likely alternative, doubtless has baggage of his own (google the name Wayne Dumond, for one thing), but, as far as I know, it really can't compare with the dead weight that Giuliani and Romney are dragging behind them, and Huckabee, being more genuinely conservative (or so it would seem), should be far better able to unite the right side of the electorate in a way that could be more problematic for the Democratic nominee, especially if it's Clinton. I'd still like to think that people wouldn't want to elect some bible-thumping Huck-ba-crite, but if it's a choice between a clearly cynical, unlikable former first lady and a relatively charming former lard-ass, I'd certainly be a little more worried.


As it is, I kinda hope one of the two scumbags - um, talking about Romney and Giuliani again here - will actually manage to hold off Huckabee for the nomination. Given their amazing negatives, I'd think that would almost make it a lock for the Democrat, even if it is Clinton.

[So...that little parenthetical about Wayne Dumond...looks like now that Huckabee's aiming for the lead, turns out he's getting a little scrutiny of his own. And it's revealing some pretty ugly things about the Dumond case. Besides the fact that Huckabee pushed for the release of Dumond, a convicted rapist, from prison, and Dumond then went on, after his release, to rape and murder another woman -- all of which I knew -- it now sounds as though Huckabee has repeatedly lied about his efforts to get Dumond released, and -- this is the really crazy part -- that Huckabee pushed for the release at the behest of a bunch of right-wing Bill Clinton haters who thought Dumond was innocent (or something?) because one of his victims was a distant relative of Clinton! Whaaaaa? Yup, it is some super crazy sounding shit, but the info I read on it sounds pretty much on the up and up...In any case, it's definitely clear that Huckabee pushed for Dumond's release, in spite of Dumond's victims telling him that Dumond would attack again if released, and Dumond went on, as those victims had said he would, to rape and murder another victim...Looks like Huckabee has his own Willie Horton.

And the upshot of it all, at least in broad political terms? Well, I'm a lot less worried that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will have trouble beating the Republican nominee...That is, at least, assuming it's Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee, which it looks like it will be at this point (there really isn't enough time for anyone else to get the nom, it seems, unless it's that wacky old McCain, and I really don't think his odds are good). Looks all the top three Republican contenders have some really gnarly skeletons in their closets, so that should make things pretty easy for the Dem.]

The Weekly Weigh-in - Racism by Proxy

You may have heard about the recent "swiftboat" style attacks against Obama. There's the critique that he's not patriotic enough because he didn't put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance. Besides the fact that this is about as close to a non-issue as one can get (and, by the by, the pledge is a jingoistic bit of idiocy better suited to a police state than the United States; I never say it), Obama pointed out that the photo in question was actually taken during the playing of the national anthem, not the pledge. Nonetheless, stupid people continue to ask him about it during his campaign stops.

More disturbing still, I think, is the email suggesting that Obama is some sort of closeted Muslim. Besides the fact, once again, that the charge has no basis in truth, the fact that it has gotten a fair amount of traction has forced me to rethink the race issue as it relates to Obama's candidacy. See, I have felt since before he announced that while there are doubtless some people out there who won't vote for Obama for the simple fact that they are racists, I figured that the majority of Americans were evolved enough, so to speak, that he could still win in spite of the troglodytes. And, I still believe that, so long as the attacks are transparently racist.

This "he's a Muslim" attack, though, as loathsome as it is, makes me wonder if Obama's adversaries haven't found a way, whether inadvertently or intentionally, to subtly make Obama's race an issue. Call it racism by proxy. See, they can't, successfully anyways, get people not to vote for him by calling him the N-word. Indeed, I like to think that might cause some people to vote for him who might not have otherwise, if only to take a stand, of sorts, agains racism. But, lots of people wouldn't have a problem with not voting for someone purely b/c he's a Muslim. And, come to think of it, that Obama feller kinda looks like one o' them Muslims - kinda brown, if you catch my drift...

So, in effect, I think the Muslim charge is a way to piggyback on some (perhaps subconcious in many cases) racist sentiments that some voters have, allowing people to attack Obama's skin color, in effect, withoout attacking it directly.

To put a finer point on it: obviously the charge rests to some degree on the fact that Obama was raised briefly in Indonesia and attended a school there that happened to be majority Muslim, but I don't think the charge would receive nearly the same attention, or any, really, if Obama were white. I mean, a white Muslim - who ever heard of such a thing? (And yes, I realize that there are white Muslims - I'm just trying to outline the thought process of some of the more manipulable voters.)

In the end, I still hope, and think, that enough people would reject this kind of demented attack that he could still win in the general, but, given the degree to which such scurrilous claims, in spite of being completely baseless, do sometimes stick with people, I have to admit that it makes me a little more concerned about his g. e. viability...

Meanwhile, more news recently that seems to suggest that the ole "Huck-ba-crite" might well be a serious contender come caucus time, with a sufficient number of religious conservatives coalescing around him to give Romney and Giuliani a run for their money. And, I also have to wonder if, given the length of this process and Republicans' general inablity to settle on a frontrunner, old McCain might not make a comeback after so many people (myself included) had pretty much written him off. Ultimately, I don't think he has enough time to get back in voters' good graces, but I do think there's a glimmer of hope. And, on a personal note, though I do think he's a hypocrite and an idiot for some of the things he's said and done, I have to admit that I would prefer McCain over all his (legitimate) Republican rivals. I mean, he still sucks, but the thought of him being president is not nearly as stomach-turning to me as the notion of a president Giuliani, Romney, or Hucakbee.

The Weekly Weigh-in -- The Enemy of My Enemy

So, Pakistan seems to be sliding ever closer to calamity. In fact, for the hundreds of activists who have been beaten and arrested in the past few days, things probably feel pretty calamitous already.

All of which -- surprise, surprise -- kind of puts the lie to Bush's endless platitudes about freedom and democracy being the aims of his foreign policy. Doing the only thing that it seems he can be counted on for doing, Bush and his cronies have successfully backed the United States into a corner in yet another Middle Eastern country. Having spoken at such length -- ad nauseam, if you will -- about his administration's dedication to spreading democracy, Bush and company can't very well just say nothing while Musharraf suspends the constitution, arrests the Supreme Court, and sends his soldiers out en masse to crack some skulls. At the same time, it's also true that Musharraf, as bad as he is, might be better than, well, democracy for the US, particularly if democracy would mean a radical Islamist government controlling the country's nuclear weaponry. But again, if Bush doesn't protest when a dictator is having people beaten in the streets, it kinda lets the world know that he was full of s*** when he said all that stuff about freedom (that is, to the extent that they don't know he's full of it already). Ah, what to do, what to do?

Well, apparently the answer for Bush, Rice, et al. is to cluck their tongues reproachfully but not make any serious efforts to punish Musharraf for his naughtiness, lest they inadvertently help to topple his government (which might happen anyway). Frankly, I doubt the world in general will fail to see the hypocrisy, particularly as it comes so close on the heels of the administration's far harsher language and actions against Burma's junta...but of course, the US isn't an ally of that repressive dictatorship.

At this point, though, I'm not sure what else the administration can do.

At other points, however, say starting around six and half years ago...Well, first of all, don't lie so egregiously about your motives and the allies you choose. Don't pretend that our military actions in the Middle East are all about spreading freedom when they're clearly not. People tend to see through that. Also, just because in the push and pull after 9/11 it might actually be expedient for the country to ally yourselves with a dictator here and there, don't fall all over yourself kissing said dictators asses and pretending they're something they aren't. Calling such people your "friend," as Bush has done with Musharraf, kind of makes you look a like a **** when your "friend" starts having his political opponents tortured.

But speaking again of those Middle East adventures, could it be that this is another area where if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball that is Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, things might not be so screwed up today? Like, maybe if we'd stuck to the utterly legitimate goal of wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not only would, say, bin Laden be dead or captured by now, but the Musharraf government, not having had to do so much of the military activities along its border for so many years now, might have a much stabler situation on its hands and be much better positioned to handle any internal opposition, particularly from Muslim extremists? Oh, and speaking of extremists, could it be that maybe, just maybe, by attacking a country that most of the world (rightfully) thought had nothing to do with 9/11, the administration might have increased the strength and numbers of radical Muslim groups in the Muslim world, including in Pakistan?

Just wondering.