HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

So yesterday the right was discovering the concept of the echo chamber! Shock and awe! The White House uses spin to get what it wants! Heavens no!

Today they discover the concept of the Swift Boat. As Armando details, the crew over at NRO are just up in arms over the fact that Brit Hume is helping the White House trash some of the judges Bush passed over in favor of his little crony. What? Sending surrogates out to smear others in your defense? Why I never!

But seriously folks... one of the most gratifying things about this whole Miers mess has been watching Bush/Rove turn their wretched tactics against their own people. There's so much I've wanted to say about all this, but while school kept me locked down Kevin Drum and Billmon beat me to it. First let's look at Billmon. A highlight:

Those who remember Shrub's ever shifting rationale for the Iraq War -- it's about Saddam's WMD, or his ties to Al Qaeda, or promoting democracy, or bringing peace to the Middle East, or liberating women, or giving my Dad a nice birthday present -- shouldn't find it strange when the Miers marketing campaign shifts in rapid-fire succession from her role as a female trailblazer (albeit one who will "walk in the president's footsteps" ) to her religious faith, to her "real world" experience, to the claim that Shrub knows her "heart" even better than he knows Vladimir Putin's. Right-wing opponents of the Miers nomination also shouldn't be too surprised to find themselves slimed as "sexists," "elitists," "geeks" and (my favorite) "so-called movement conservatives" who have no followers. After all, many of them eagerly helped the administration slime those who opposed the neocon march of folly as anti-Semitic extremists who hate America almost as much as they love the Islamofascists. They know how the Rovian game is played -- or should. So it's a little late for the bow-tie brigade to whine about the way the RNC spin machine rips quotes out of context to make the Orwellian case that black is white. After all, they were for it before they were against it. But I will admit I've been a little taken back by the ferocity with which the Rovians have turned on their own. I mean, doing a John Gotti impression with the rubes down in Texas -- "If you oppose this nomination, you oppose the president" -- is one thing, but when the slime masters are reduced to swiftboating conservative judges as "activists," simply to make Miers look less unqualified by comparison, then you have to wonder whether the propaganda machine has finally run amok. It's behaving like the sucking monster in Yellow Submarine, which sucked up everything around it, and then everything on the screen and then, finally, itself.

But with this Billmon has really only just begun. Over the next 5 paragraphs he lays out in stark detail just why this fight is destined to become even more brutal. His conclusion?

So if the bow-tie brigade really wants to rumble -- and it looks like it does -- I think the Rovians will oblige them, in which case John Fund and George Will should probably think very hard about the things in their closets they wouldn't want circulated by the same folks who made sure the God-fearing people of South Carolina knew that John McCain had a "black love child." Because if they think the White House is fighting dirty now, wait until they see what happens if the Rovians think they might actually lose.

And here I have to depart a bit. While I agree with virtually all of this, I think he overestimates Bush/Rove's strength. You see, Republicans don't need Bush anymore. He cannot stand for reelection. But in less than a year, many of them do. And that changes everything. Eventhis evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

FAIR TREATMENT. The White House political arm is taking a special interest in U.S. senators who are potential 2008 Presidential candidates, especially when they come to New Hampshire. The goal is to put them on the record on the Harriet Miers nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is under fire from the right and left. Bush administration political director Sarah Taylor has been making calls into the state to advise local activists working on behalf of the nomination with the Washington-based Progress for America organization. "They are obviously well aware of our special role in the political process," said political strategist Jack Heath. As part of the coordinated effort, activists Tuesday night approached Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., at St. Anselm College with a letter saying that Miers is qualified, deserves "fair treatment" and a filibuster-free up-or-down confirmation vote. It was signed by Republican National Committeeman Tom Rath, Cornerstone Policy Research head Karen Testerman, Ed Naile, chairman of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, and GOP activist Susan Duprey, president of the Devine Millimet law firm.

Sure, I agree with Billmon. This is absolutely a Rovian tactic. But unlike past efforts it is clearly one made from a position of weakness, not strength. How so? Because its not calling for a pledge to confirm Miers, its simply calling for a "filibuster-free up-or-down confirmation vote." Think that through. The demands they are making on members of their own party are nothing more than the demands they made of the Democrats last time around. They've been forced to turn the tactics they once used on their enemies on their friends. That is weakness, not strength. And at some point someone on the right is going to notice that, assuming they haven't already.

My prediction?

Miers will do for the GOP what Iraq did for the Dems - give them their Howard Dean. If you remember, Dean rose to prominence by taking a strong stand against the war when no one else in the field of Dem hopefuls would. (Sorry, but no, Kucinich doesn't count. People can't say darkhorse and laugh at the same time.) And when he did the dividends were huge. Sure, most of the mainstream fundraising avenues were closed to him, but that didn't matter. He had the base, and they gave in ways unimaginable. See the parallel? Bush/Rove are trying to use the threat of being thrown off the money train to keep people in line, and in most cases I suspect that will work. But somewhere out there is a conservative who stands not for power but principle, and for them opposing what Bush's betrayal of their movement will be what matters most. Eventually one of them will stand up, loud and proud, and when they do the base will come running.

Will that happen? My guess is yes. The thing is, Rove/Bush isn't the only one who can play the smear game. Rove has trained many young Jedi's, and apparently they have learned well:

The Drudge Report has obtained a copy of sworn testimony given by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers in 1990 in which she said that she “wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society” — a conservative and libertarian lawyers’ organization — because it was “politically charged.” .... Miers was also asked whether she considered “the NAACP [to be] in the category of organizations” that she considered to be “politically charged.” Her answer: “No, I don’t.”

Yes, you read that right. Bush's pick just got drudged. Let THAT sink in. And when you've recovered, think about what information like this will do to the base.

Sorry Karl, but you reap what you sow. This is the world of all or nothing politics you've created. I hate to break it to you, Karl, but politics isn't just about power. It's also about ideas. Believe it or not ideas matter, often more than power. The conservative movement you supposedly champion understands that much, MUCH better than you - the idiot Robertson notwithstanding. Take, for example, this conservative:

Baroness Thatcher has criticised Tony Blair for taking Britain to war in Iraq on the basis of flawed evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons. The former prime minister's embarrassing criticism emerged as Mr Blair was among the 670 guests who attended a party to mark her 80th birthday. Although Lady Thatcher remains a strong supporter of the decision to topple Saddam by invading Iraq, it is the first time she has questioned the basis for the war. Yesterday's Washington Post reported that when asked whether she would have invaded Iraq given the intelligence at the time, Lady Thatcher replied: "I was a scientist before I was a politician. And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof - and then you check, recheck and check again." She added: "The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return."

You know where I found that story? Drudge. Right above the piece about Miers and her lack of support for the Federalist Society. Sure, Thatcher's main target is no doubt Blair, but the "compassionate conservative" Bush certainly takes heavy collateral damage on this one. And no, I don't think this will affect US politics one way or the other. But please - the Iron Lady taking on the policy that has defined this "conservative" President's presidency? Don't even try to tell me that doesn't matter.

So what is a good Dem to do? Well, on this one I have to agree with Sully. And like him, I agree - if that makes the Kossaks made so be it. If Miers goes down it will only be because the base has risen up, and that means that whoever is chosen in her stead will be much, MUCH worse. Right now all of the blood is on Republican hands. But if Bush is forced to nominate someone hardcore, the Dems will have no choice but to fight. And if that happens there will be plenty of blood to go around.

Please, donkey, be smart! Carville once said, "When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." Good advice, but it includes one major assumption. It assumes that your opponents aren't throwing anvils to one another. This is not a fight we need to join. Bush has 3+ years to go. One way or another he's going to get his Justice. Harriet may be bad, but she clearly could be much, MUCH worse. Let this one pass. Let it go.

--------