Oh, to be Young

(And Republican)

Young Republicans watching their party lurch from ineptitude to irrelevance with occasional side trips to WhoopeeLand might be tempted by Depression.

Not the kind their party caused (again), but the psychological kind that comes when you can’t win for losing.

After all, there’s a charismatic and intelligent Democrat in the White House, the Congress is controlled by the Democrats, and “accuse,” “indict” and “prosecute” seem to be the words that pop up most in discussions of the last Republican administration.

All of which is solid proof that it is a very wonderful time indeed to be Young and Republican.

Consider:

Most political parties, especially the Republicans, operate on principles that would be instantly recognized by any 15^th-century courtier. All power in the party (or society) flows from the top down. There are three ways to acquire power – favor, inheritance or force.

Favor works best when a retiring leader bestows a warm smile on a selected successor and the opposition nominates a garden gnome. That worked just fine for George H.W. Bush when President Ronald Reagan (on whose name be praise) smiled upon George and the Democrats nominated Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts.

Inheritance works when you’ve put in your time for a very long time and it’s just your turn, which is how Robert Dole got to be the Republican nominee against Bill Clinton and won the opportunity to star in Viagra promotions. It also worked for John McCain, the poster boy for continued mainstreaming of Americans with cognitive issues. Hey, he even ran for president!

Force works when members of society can think as they wish but understand clearly that they’d damned well better vote your way or else. Richard Nixon was a master. So, on the other side, was Richard J. Daley of Chicago, the first one, not his kid. Dick Cheney spoke for himself and for George W, Bush, his lips as immobile as their minds.

If you are a young and ambitious Republican and see leaders with any of those three characteristics at the top of your party, then you might as well marry a Democrat and have some fun because there’s an airtight lid on your advancement.

But no – Oh, Good Golly! or whatever young Republicans in ecstasy exclaim – the top is empty today and the open road for advancing Republican principles and at last getting a share of the loot beckons ahead.

Just look at the current contenders.

Mitt Romney was shrink-wrapped at birth, just as soon as his mother checked that there were no wrinkles in his dark suit and that nary a hair was out of place. He is the current favorite of the AE (Almost Embalmed) wing of the Republican party and fills in his time giving shock speeches to the likes of the Heritage Foundation and National Rifle Association in which he slyly mentions that it is the 21^st Century so his audience may gasp in shocked dismay.

Mike Huckabee is a preacher who lost a lot of weight, plays a mean bass guitar and served as governor of Arkansas with no other serious offenses – or accomplishments. He speaks on the Fox News Channel, but Jesus forgave even Mary Magdalene for having to earn a living.

Sarah Palin, former vice presidential nominee and soon-to-be former governor of Alaska by resigning mid-term, followed her resignation announcement by going fishing. Informed sources said she yearned for the intellectual company of equals and spawning salmon filled the need. She appeals to the base of the Republican party that focuses on one issue at a time on account of they don’t hold with all that high-falutin’ countin’ stuff nohow, you betcha.

There you have it, Young Republicans -- the road to opportunity is wide open. Can you walk? Talk? Chew Gum? And all at the same time? You could become a Rising Republican Star. Your destiny awaits – heed its call!

###

Sotomayor and Republican Choices

 

 

President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court shows the president at his most gracious towards the Republicans who bedevil him, giving them a choice and a voice in one of a President’s most enduring decisions.

 

Sure, the choice is like that 20 states give condemned inmates facing execution, allowing them a say in method, not outcome. Hey, it’s a choice, right?

 

And if the voice Senate Republicans get is the kind heard after a warden says “Any last words?”  they still can’t claim being denied a voice.

 

Senate Republicans trying to resist a growing urge to lie down in front of any steamroller they see have limited options in opposing Sotomayor, all of them bad.

 

Republicans can oppose Sotomayor because she’s female. Of course, they wouldn’t say so explicitly, but the party’s Cheney/Limbaugh base, which can only see women in either nighties or cooking aprons, would understand and approve.

 

Women voters, of course, might see it differently. In the 2008 presidential election, Republicans lost unmarried women by a 70-29 margin. And they lost women overall 56-43. Opposing the nominee because she’s female would certainly build on that record.

 

Republican can oppose Sotomayor because she’s Hispanic. In a 2001 lecture, she is reported to have said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

 

“Racist!” yells the Republican core, which admittedly ought to know, but is wrong on this one. If the idea, as it says on the Supreme Court building, is “Equal Justice Under Law,” than those dispensing justice must at least in some way connect with those judged – and with the likely real-world consequences of their decisions.  That won’t wash with the Republican core, which is made nervous by census data showing Hispanics account for more than 15 percent of the U.S. population, and downright jittery when they look at the 2008 results with Democrats taking Hispanics 67-31. If Republicans seek even more distance from the Hispanic electorate, opposing Sotomayor is the ticket.

 

Republicans can oppose Sotomayor because she’s liberal. Of all the grounds for opposition, this is the least odious. It chucks a scrap to the snarling core that that bays attack when it sniffs the L-word, and at least  spritzes GOP Senators with Eau De Principle. But the record of Supreme Court justices voting the way folks who nominated and confirmed them thought they would isn’t good. Soon to-be-retired Justice David Souter, who was supposed to be a safe and solid conservative appointee of President Bush I, ended his career as a mostly liberal vote on the court. This course won’t cause more self-inflicted Republican damage, but it won’t gain any converts, either.

 

Prediction: Republicans will oppose Sotomayor because she’s a female Hispanic liberal. With a sure instinct to find the worst of all possible outcomes in any recent political situation, the Republican party will manage to offend all possible new constituents while catering to a core that sees Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney as the rising young hopes of tomorrow.

 

If the post-Sotomayor confirmation Republicans are offered a last meal, they shouldn’t be surprised if it’s crow.

###

 

 

 

 

 

Republican Soul,

Convergent Series

 

Republicans are fighting for their party’s soul, which may be welcome news to those who wondered if it had one, but distressing to whole generations of political journalists who are accustomed to easy work reporting on the squabbles between Democrats and Republicans:

 

 WASHINGTON – Democrats in the House said the moon was made of green cheese today, but Republicans declared it evidence of undue influence by the cracker lobby.  All that kind of political journalism took was pairing an absurdity from the Democrats with another from the Republicans -- and both parties were eager to keep you supplied.

 

Now, political journalists are confronted with a Republican party that seems determined to argue itself out of existence, hell-bent on excluding those whose ideology isn’t pure. The current purity standard is agreeing with the Test Committee’s views.

 

The Test Committee, of course, consists of Rush Limbaugh, a radio commentator whose volume is inversely proportional to his intellect, and Dick Cheney, whose pioneering work on the Adjustable Moral Compass speaks for itself.

 

Now the Test Committee is trying to hustle Colin Powell out of the party, saying his endorsement of Barack Obama over John McCain was the final straw. Informed sources say previous straws included Powell’s belief that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun.

 

All of which, the Test Committee says, amounts to ample reason for excluding a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Adviser and Secretary of State from discussion of serious Republican matters. Even if he says he’s a Republican and all that service was under Republican presidents.

 

So the debate pretty much comes down to whether the Republican party is more comfortable in Ronald Reagan’s Big Tent, where it lived in the 80s, or in the much more exclusive Cheney-Limbaugh Club, the one with the prominent  Members Only sign.

 

The Cheney-Limbaugh founders have made it pretty plain that they don’t want Powell around, and Powell has made it pretty plain that they can stick that in their ear. (Ever rational, Powell chose ears as the receptacle after clear evidence that neither Cheney nor Limbaugh could find the other obvious place with both hands.)

 

Backers of the Cheney-Limbaugh Club say their faction will win the dispute and that the Republican party will become smaller but purer and go on forever. And in that, they may be more right than they know.

 

In 1979, science fiction writer Larry Niven published a story in which a demon intent on collecting a soul may only reappear within the confines of a pentagram -- which the protagonist cleverly draws on the demon’s belly. Every time the demon tries to appear, it’s too big for the pentagram, and so shrinks itself and tries again -- and again, and again, since each time it shrinks itself smaller, it makes its target smaller still.

 

Niven called the story Convergent Series, and there’s squiggly-line math about the concept, but the important thing to remember for Republicans is that it’s a story about eternal shrinking.

 

However big the pentagrams on the Cheney-Limbaugh bellies look now, Republicans should think twice about appearing there.

###

 

 

 

Short Sermon On Torture

 

NOTE TO TERRORISTS FACING U.S. CAPTURE AND POSSIBLE TORTURE:

 

The Pew Center for the People & the Press took a survey and the results suggest your best bet for a happy U.S. captivity is to be in the hands of a person who is unaffiliated with a religious group and attends religious services seldom or never.

 

The unaffiliated no-shows had the lowest combined percentage of those who said using torture against suspected terrorists can often or sometimes be justified – just 42 percent of the unaffiliated, and 45 percent of those who skipped services.

 

So if your primary jailer is someone who isn’t a church member and doesn’t go in any event, you’re better than even to avoid the Rainy Cheney.

 

On the other hand, 62 percent of white, evangelical protestants don’t think it’s a problem to encourage dialogue by often or sometimes slamming you naked against a wall. Fifty-one percent of white, non-Hispanic Catholics would agree.

 

Final note: Above all, don’t quote to any Christian words from Christ as depicted in the Bible, for example, Matthew 5:43-47 of the New Living Translation:

 

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?”

 

Tell these birds to love their enemy and they might just love you to death.

 

###

Back To Top

 

Satan’s Pride and Joy

 

Satan must be so damned proud.

 

The debate over Central Intelligence Agency torture of suspected terrorists now centers not on whether it was right or wrong, but on whether or not it was effective.

 

Since time began, turning our attention from issues of good or evil to procedural details has been high on Hell’s agenda. And at no time has success been as spectacular as in the last 100 years.

 

The debate in Nazi Germany was not over whether the execution camps were wrong, but whether the Final Solution functioned efficiently. Stalin’s artificial famines, forced collectivization and endless Gulags were criticized less for being wrong than for being economically inefficient.

 

And now the heirs of those who so proudly wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” are treated to an August 1, 2002 memo from the ironically named U.S. Department of Justice that says:

 

·        It’s okay to grab a suspect’s head, slap them in the face and throw them against specially-built walls.

·        There’s no problem with putting a suspect into a box for 18 hours at a stretch.

·        Sleep deprivation for 72 hours is fine, as is forcing suspects to assume and hold body positions that bring intense muscle fatigue pain.

·        Putting feared insects into the box with the subject presents no issues.

·        Water-boarding, aka near-drowning, is perfectly legal, even if you do it to one suspect 183 times in a single month, and give another suspect a break with only 83 episodes.

 

We prosecuted folks in Germany and Japan who did things like that to detainees in World War II, but we have it on no less authority than former Vice President Dick Cheney that these things were necessary to keep us safe. Or as he told ABC News in a December 2008 interview”

“. . .So, it's been a remarkably successful effort. I think the results speak for themselves.

“And I think those who allege that we've been involved in torture, or that somehow we violated the Constitution or laws with the terrorist surveillance program, simply don't know what they're talking about.”

So a “remarkably successful” wrong is right, and therefore only a failed wrong is wrong, which opens the question of whether a failed right is wrong or a wrong right is failed, and. . .and the howls of laughter in Hell rise in unending crescendo.

 

Some have made so bold as to suggest that doing these things constituted crimes, both by those who ordered and did them and by those who blessed the whole stinking mess in pages of BureauLawerSpeak.

 

That must also amuse the Hell out of Satan, who has watched our concern as a nation slip from a mutual pledge of “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor,” to a more convenient pledge of “your life to protect my fortune -- and honor be damned.”

 

Damned it will be, and Satan gets his amusement with little effort. Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and the rest of the goose-brained goose-stepping Right are doing all the heavy lifting here, and the Prince of Darkness has no doubt prepared appropriate rewards.

 

Rewards in which we’ll all share unless we stop nattering about how effective a criminal act was in nabbing the loot and start prosecuting those who in the guise of protecting us from harm exposed us to a far greater evil.

 

###