Lions, Tigers, Gay Sex!

The Republican Party has another sex scandal on its hands. From Roll Call:

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.

Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.

Now, that seems fairly innocent on its face. It would appear, however, that there is more to the story. It would seem that a great many knowledgeable sources on such things believe that Craig's actions are those of a man who knows the "rules" of seeking anonymous male-male sex in relatively public situations. Such meeting areas are often known as "tea rooms."

This does not look good on a Republican resume. Like so many Republicans who are later hoisted on their own petards -- as it were -- Craig was a "player hater." He continually spoke out against gay rights, particularly gay marriage. In spite of this [read: because of this], he was considered to be staunchly in the "pro family" camp. He even went so far as to demand not censure, but impeachment for President Clinton during Clinton's second term. Obviously, he doth protest too much.

In spite of the relative glee that I derive from sanctimonious buffoons being found guilty of the very "crimes" for which they have so long derided others, it is not the chief topic of this writing. What I want to discuss here today is the Republican reaction to Craig's situation versus to that of another Republican also embroiled in his own sex scandal, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Vitter, you may recall, has a history of hiring prostitutes, albeit female prostitutes. However, while Republicans are falling all over themselves to jump off of Craig's bandwagon, they have by and large defended Vitter. Why?

Sure, it could be that they actually believe that gay sex is worse than straight sex. Gay rights have been the Republican bogeyman, especially in the South, for a decade-plus. It is the all-purpose political tool to fix any problem. "Our shipping ports are not secure after 9/11." Gay marriage! "We don't have health insurance for our family." Gay rights! "Our factory closed down and the jobs went abroad." Gay sex! What is surprising and sad is that it works. Still, I'm not convinced that this is the reason here. Yes, it plays to the part of the religious Republican wing that would rather die than think, but that is only a bonus. (Indeed, in going after the gay "sex," it in some ways gets them off the hook for not going after straight sex out of marriage, also a no-no in some books. Of course, Craig only initiated gay sex whereas Vitter actually did the heterosexual deed, but who is keeping count anyway?) Ultimately, I think that it is the cold, hard political calculation of numbers that answers the question.

Craig is from Idaho. A retarded monkey with no arms and only one eye could run on the Republican ticket in Idaho and win, so the seat is safe even if he is removed from office. What is more, Idaho has a Republican governor and under state law, the governor would appoint Craig's replacement if he resigns or is removed from office. Thus, it is "safe" on both fronts to move against him. Vitter, on the other hand, is from Louisiana. This state, especially in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, is anything but a safe bet for Republicans. Having Vitter run -- even in the face of scandal -- with the trappings of incumbency looks mighty nice to the party. And should Vitter leave, a Democratic governor would appoint his replacement and it is this Democrat who would enjoy incumbency in the next election. Thus, once again for the Republicans it is a case of "do as I say, not as I do." We are pro-family -- whatever the hell that means -- unless and until it gets in the way of our base ambitions!

BTW, in case you are keeping tabs on other Republicans embroiled in their own scandals -- not limited to sex -- check this out. Are there enough petards to go around?

30 August 2007

A Death in the Family

My paternal grandmother passed away this past Sunday. I got the news from my father while visiting my maternal grandparents. My grandmother had been failing for some time and much more rapidly of late. Her memory was worsening steadily and that, mixed with the fact that she was a terrible patient, did not help matters. I was hoping that when the time finally came, she would pass quietly, without a traumatic incident. Alas, this was not to be. She fell trying to go the the restroom by herself -- obstinate woman! -- and broke her right hip. Surgery was not an option and to keep her free from pain, painkillers were administered such that she was kept more or less sedated for the final day or two of her life. That is a blessing, I think, but a sad one.

We will travel to the funeral this weekend. I'm planning to speak at it and I think that in planning that, I'll get my head around this loss. I loved my grandmother, but she was very often a hard woman to like. That said, she was with me for all of my years heretofore and that alone makes it a hard loss. It is good indeed to have a loving wife and romping kittens in times such as these.

I will miss her and I loved her. I do hope that she is now in a better place. /salute

In response to my grandmother's death, I will say this: Keep your bones strong! My grandmother was a slip of a woman. She never gave any thought, even in her later years, to her health, including the health of her bones. It showed and bone breaks in her later years only sped her demise and made it more uncomfortable. Don't let that happen to you. Do whatever you need to make sure that your bones and muscles are strong throughout your life, even in your elderly years.

29 August 2007

Chertoff for AG?

There is a rumor flying that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff may be tapped by President Bush as the next Attorney General. From Bush's point of view, it is a good fit. Chertoff was part of the incompetent federal response to Hurricane Katrina, so that's good. It would appear that he's also lied to Congress, so that works, too. Plus, he'll back the President in the face of the rule of law. Folks, we have a winner!

In all seriousness, the question is this. If Chertoff is nominated, will the Senate let all of his myriad shortcomings slide or will they actually tell the President "no?" Stay tuned.

29 August 2007

Going, Going, Gonzo

As you most certainly know by now, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned on Monday. While this is most certainly good for the country, I'm a bit puzzled by it. Why after all this time did he choose -- or have chosen for him by his calculating superiors -- this time to go? While there are many possibilities, two stand out. First, one of the myriad executive-branch-based investigations of Gonzales and the DoJ scandals have uncovered evidence such that its later revelation will hurt the White House more if Gonzales remains in his current post. Second, the White House has decided to play up the "he's not even AG any more, so let the investigations go" card for public consumption and hope that it flies until January 2009. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course.

What is interesting, at least in part, is how the media have reacted to the departure. Much of the popular media is portraying it as a positive reflection on the President, as if he's somehow finally decided to put the country before his own selfish aims. The LA Times called the move a "blessing" and noted that Bush now has:

...a chance to salvage his relationship with Capitol Hill and the legacy of his second term.

Roger Simon at The Politico also believes that the president is putting his legacy above loyalty.

Once famous for his loyalty to subordinates, Bush is now showing himself very capable of jettisoning the ones who create too much controversy.

Have these people taken leave of their senses? Bush has shown himself to be loyal to the detriment of the country and his duty to it. When he sets that loyalty aside, it is only out of a greater loyalty... to himself. As David Kurtz at TPM puts it:

If, as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests, Gonzales was a mere Bush flunky, a cipher, an amiable man doing the bidding of more powerful and more sinister men, then his departure can hardly be said to herald a new era so long as Bush (and Cheney) occupy the White House.


...


Nearly seven years into his Presidency, don't we have a pretty good idea of the character and abilities of this man [Bush]? There is a long track record now of truly unparalleled incompetence, corruption, and politicization. What more do we need to know? Bush's legacy is firmly entrenched, and barring any seismic historical events between now and January 2009, any changes to that sorry legacy will be at the margins.

Perhaps the main thing that Gonzales' departure highlights is how very much the Bush Administration has harmed the Department of Justice. The very fact that the department currently is missing -- if we assume that Gonzales is already out the door, but for the paperwork -- its top three appointees. This is our chief apparatus for safeguarding the American justice system -- in a "time of war against terrorists" remember -- and it is a rudderless ship. Anyone who still supports the President in any way, shape, or form should be forcibly sterilized. We don't want their genes in our pool.

Yes, that Gonzales is out at the DoJ, no doubt heading to the great lobbyist oasis on the far horizon, is good news. Until Bush and all of his ilk are gone, too, however, America will continue its slide.

29 August 2007

Vietnam, Korea, Iraq

I'm off to visit my grandparents with my wife this weekend, but before I go, I wanted to write about the President's new foray into justifying our continued presence in Iraq. He has been trying to draw parallels with two other American conflicts, Korea in the 1950s and Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s.

In a recent speech to the VFW in Kansas City, President Bush tried to especially focus on the idea that "just as in these two conflicts in SE Asia" if we leave Iraq, the country will go to hell in a hand basket and our enemies will benefit as a result. Now, I'll be the first to admit that America leaving Iraq will be destabilizing to the country in the near -- and perhaps far -- term. Of course, the question here is whether Bush's parallels with these other conflicts hold up. I think that with Korea especially, they do not.

I think if people want to make the Korean War analogy, they should do it right. Bush sees the Korean War as a symbol of our commitment to fight aggression and lay the groundwork for development and, eventually, democracy, in South Korea. But we had achieved the liberation of South Korea by October 1950, mere months after the war began. We then made the disastrous decision to push into North Korea in an effort to topple the communist government there. That triggered Chinese intervention, and the war developed into a stalemate that dragged on for three more years. The eventual ceasefire returned things essentially to the status quo ante, an outcome we could have achieved at much lower cost had we not chosen to expand the war.

So, yes, the Korean War analogy is quite apt. Just not in the way Bush means it. The decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 looks a lot like the ultimately futile decision to invade North Korea in October 1950.

In terms of the Vietnam parallel, Bush speaks in part of the Khmer Rouge gaining power in neighboring Cambodia after America began its withdrawal from Vietnam. Of course, as TPM's Todd Gitlin observes, "As anyone serious about history knows, a necessary condition for the triumph of the Khmer Rouge was the devastating American bombing campaign in Cambodia." Thus, again the parallel between the Iraq War and the Vietnam war exists, just not the way Bush would like us to believe. Al Quada of Iraq didn't exist in Iraq until Bush's war fostered it. It was the current war and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power that allowed it to rise... just as our intervention in Cambodia watered the seeds of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia three decades ago.

Bush is banking on the fact that: (1) Americans don't know history; and (2) The media won't call him on his obfuscations. Both are safe bets to be certain.

Of course, the most amazing thing in all of this is that Bush is still welcome in any VFW gathering. He has, after all, done nothing good for veterans other than offer up nice, patriotic rhetoric. Sadly, he has added to their number, so perhaps that is something...

23 August 2007

No Armor for You

One of the often-repeated criticisms of the Bush Administration is that they started the war in Iraq with a military that was unprepared for a protracted war of insurgency. This is undoubtedly the case. Of course, they didn't think that the war that we have would be the war that we have, but that is another story. Once we were in the mess that we find ourselves, however, the right steps should have been taken to correct the matter as quickly and as fully as possible. Unfortunately, the results have been rather poor. Witness a recent example.

The Pentagon will fall far short of its goal of sending 3,500 lifesaving armored vehicles to Iraq by the end of the year. Instead, officials expect to send about 1,500.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that while defense officials still believe contractors will build about 3,900 of the mine-resistant, armor-protected vehicles by year's end, it will take longer for the military to fully equip them and ship them to Iraq.

"Production is on pace, the issue is delivery," he said, adding that the lag is a disappointment and the Defense Department is still committed to getting as many of the vehicles to the war as quickly as possible.

The vehicles _ known as MRAPs _ have a special V-shaped hull that provides greater protection against roadside bombs. According to the military, no troops have been killed while riding in one.

Again, we fail our soldiers.

22 August 2007

The Bush Media Train

The White House spent months touting the so-called "Petraeus Report" that the commanding general in Iraq would issue in September. The Administration has let everyone believe through both overt exclamations and subtle slight-of-hand that the report will be the full, undiluted viewpoint of the both the general and the US Ambassador to Iraq. Of course, as I've noted here previously -- see August 15th blog post -- the report is actually being written by the White House, not Petraeus. In spite of this well-known and very important piece of information, the mass media continues to falsely refer to this writing as the "Petraeus Report." To do so lends credibility where none is due. Much rides on this report the the response of both Congress and the public to it, and the national media are enabling the White House to continue to lead us down the path of ruin. More to the point, they are failing at their job.

Greg Sargent over at TPM has written a piece that notes many of the instances of poor, misleading reporting on this subject. He also writes:

This gives rise to a key point that's getting a bit lost. The media wouldn't be shouting "Petraeus report" in unison if the White House hadn't spent literally weeks hammering the phrase into the minds of reporters and the public at every conceivable opportunity. And now, even though it's widely known that this was a total sham designed to bolster the report's credibility in advance, reporters and editors just can't seem to get it out of their heads, even though such an exercise certainly wouldn't be all that challenging.

This is a really, really big deal. The White House and war supporters are shoving all their chips onto the written report. Indeed, the credibility the public accords this thing when it comes out could have significant influence over the direction and politics of the war debate this fall, and by extension over the direction of the war itself. And every time the media repeats the Gospel According To Petraeus sham, it's helping the White House obscure the fact that this report will actually be written by the same crew who've been lying to us about the war all along.

22 August 2007