Is This Why There Are Lottery Payoffs for the Halftime Score?

The odds are considerable that the recent mini-victory achieved by the House in refusing to knuckle under to fearmongering and bullying by the white house thugs will prove fleeting.

Until now, few in the esteemed halls of Congress have sufficiently transcended their own egomania to notice the fragility inherent in the increasingly self-esteem-challenged and pathologically introspection-phobic executive branch.

May this be a harbinger!

Nevertheless, at this point I am prepared to be thrilled with even tactical victories and on even a limited scale.

Greenwald (at Salon these days) has a considerable (and deserved) store of cynicism when it comes to democratic congressional performance of late, yet even he has some upbeat comments to offer. I encourage you to read the whole post:

-clip-

Americans are worried and even angry about many things. Whether Osama bin Laden is throwing a party because AT&T and Verizon might have to defend themselves in court isn't one of them. Outside of National Review, K Street, and the fear-paralyzed imagination of our shrinking faux-warrior class, there is no constituency in America demanding warrantless eavesdropping or amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms.

On one level, it's difficult to maintain any sustained optimism about the House's defiance yesterday. They were acting far more out of resentment over the procedural treatment to which they were subjected by the White House and, more so, the Senate -- having a bill dropped in their lap again just a couple of days before a deadline and told that they had to pass it, as is, and immediately -- than out of any principled objection to warrantless eavesdropping or telecom amnesty.

-clip-

Still, basic human nature -- if nothing else -- dictates that having finally liberated themselves, however fleetingly, from the truly moronic rule of the Ted "Osama-is-Celebrating" Poes of the world, and having seen that -- as McJoan put it -- "the Democrats stood up to Bush, and the world didn't end," Democrats will crave more of the sweet taste of dignity and autonomy.

As I've noted before, newspaper headlines throughout the year have invariably (and accurately) used verbs such as "surrender" and "bow" and "succumb" and "capitulate" and "lose" to describe what Democrats have done on key issues with regard to George W. Bush. But look at how they are described today by The Washington Post:

[House Defies Bush]

Identically, the NYT article trumpeted the Democrats' stand this way:

[The decision by the House Democratic leadership to let the law lapse is the greatest challenge to Mr. Bush on a major national security issue since the Democrats took control of Congress last year]

Political parties that are "strong," and which are perceived as strong, are ones that "defy" orders and mount "great challenges" against weak and unpopular Presidents by standing on principle -- not ones that bow and capitulate and surrender and lose. Again, leave aside any hope that Democrats will actually be sufficiently motivated by the crucial constitutional principles at stake here. Just basic political self-interest, and basic human dignity, ought to mean that this singular act of defiance will lead to others.

The Post article highlighted the true crux of the "controversy":

White House officials and their allies were angry that the Democrats did not "blink," as one outside adviser said. The decision to defy the White House came in the form of a weeklong adjournment of the House yesterday afternoon.

The reason the President refused to extend by 21 days the "Extremely-Critical-to-our-Survival" Protect America Act -- and instead chose to allow it to expire -- is because the only thing that drives the Republicans is forcing Democrats into ritualistic humiliation: forcing them to surrender and bow over and over. While Jay Rockefeller, Claire McCaskill, Herb Kohl, Ken Salazar and their distinguished friends in the Senate happily rolled over as always, House Democrats, for once, actually refused to play their assigned role of submission, and instead issued clear, potent and persuasive counter-attacks from the likes of Steney Hoyer, Silvestre Reyes, and this one from Chris Van Hollen:

Several Democrats said yesterday that many in their party wish to take a more measured approach to terrorism issues, and they refused to be stampeded by Bush. "We have seen what happens when the president uses fearmongering to stampede Congress into making bad decisions," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "That's why we went to war in Iraq."

-clip-

The always-effervescent and delightfully spot-on Keith Olbermann was also inspired by the white house's absurd and could-have-been-comical, were it not criminal, ongoing intransigence:

A part of what I will say, was said here on Jan. 31. Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now than it was then.

"Who's to blame?" Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, "Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer.... The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: If the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?"

Like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Or Executive Order 90-66. Or The Alien and Sedition Acts. Or slavery.

Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability!

You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger! This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough for even you to understand.

For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act.

You. By your own terms and your definitions, you have just sided with the terrorists. You've got to have this law, or we're all going to die. But, practically speaking, you vetoed this law.

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law that could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.

"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."

Believed? Don't you know? Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.

You're a fascist - get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism?

-clip-

You go, Keith, I couldn't have said it better.

And, in closing, try this from Talking Points Memo on for size:

A Democratic Hill aide checks in:

I can’t remember which show it was – something like the Brady Bunch – where the protagonist is being picked on by a bully and at a certain point lashes out and inadvertently bloodies the bully’s nose (and ends the bully’s tyrannical reign, etc). It seems that the House may have inadvertently done just this. In the face of an all-too-familiar pattern of administration fear mongering instead of cowedly acceding to the administration’s wishes (and tacitly reinforcing the effectiveness of the administration’s fearmongering) the House seems, through something other than a concerted response, to have stumbled into a situation where they have bloodied the administration’s nose. Short of cancelling his Africa trip and spending all of next week demagoging this issue, I don’t see how the admin keeps their credibility on this. A line has been crossed.

I'm not a pop culture aficianado, but I think it was a Brady Brunch episode. In any event, bullying is precisely what the Bush Administration has done to cow Democrats. I'm not yet convinced that we have crossed the Rubicon in terms of Democrats punching the bully in the nose. But even if we have, what took so long?

Late Update: We're having a Brady Bunch v. A Christmas Story throwdown in the emailer comments. Here's TPM Reader DM:

It’s definitely possible that The Brady Bunch had an episode where one of the boys bloodied a bully’s nose, but I’m reasonably confident that the reader is thinking about “A Christmas Story,” where Ralphie finally snaps at all the taunting he is receiving from Scut Farkus, attacks ol’ Scut and beats the crap out of him.

Later Update: The Andy Griffith Show fans are making a late push. Writes TPM Reader JR:

Sorry, but the best example in sitcom land of a bully getting a blackeye is the "Opie and the Bully" episode No. 33 of Andy of Mayberry. In fact, it is far more relevant to the current House-White House showdown than the Brady Bunch. Opie had previously been giving the bully his milk money whenever the bully demanded it. Andy tells Opie a story about how Andy had faced down his bully when he was younger and how even when the bully hit him, it didn't hurt. So, Opie refuses to give up his milk money the next day, takes a shot from the bully (which he doesn't feel) and punches out the bully, who runs home crying.

Pop Culture Arcana Update: TPM Reader SS does the honors:

In that Brady episode, Peter doesn't bloody Buddy Hinton's nose, he knocks his tooth out, giving Buddy a lisp much like the one he mocked Cindy for having.

It's the Issues, Stupid!

After my somewhat vainglorious experience at caucus on Saturday, speechifying on behalf of and voting for a candidate who won't be on ballot in November, thereby sacrificing any value my actual vote might have had, this post resonated with me like the call of returning springtime migrant.

I'm going to run this back-to-front; my motive for posting was the trailer, but there is some thought-provocation in the lede also, on the score of the "Clinton Rules," so designated by the invaluable Paul Krugman.

This from Big Tent Democrat at Talkleft:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

We live in a time of the personality-cult. Glitterati-worship is a national obsession! People magazine and the like are truly abominations. And, alas, this unfortunate phenomenon is pervasive in politics too. Thanks to BTD for spelling it out so emphatically; it has to be our issues and platforms that matter.

Candidate X may have the charisma, Candidate Y may have the political machinery. So what! Tell me what they stand for! Do they give a damn about fighting poverty and reversing the appalling disparity between the haves and the have-nots, pushed to point of absurdity by thug-bush, the frat-boy bully, but also strongly fostered by Clinton and Reagan, among others?

What would it take for our candidates to face down the corporate sponsors who have donated hundreds of thousands to their campaigns? As one specific example, are they prepared to act in defiance of the almost-certain "contributions" (i.e., in every respect, payoffs or bribes for their complicity, just "the way it is done") they have received from those telecommunications corporations who wilfully broke federal laws to the tune of huge profits in aiding the bush cabal in illegally spying on us?

My vote goes to the one who acts on a people-first, corporations-second program, with a progressive rather than regressive tax structure, a pay-as-you-go approach to the federal budget, and a return to checks-and-balances. That latter is critical, and will be possibly the toughest of all. bush/cheney/rove have done everything in and beyond their power to enlarge the hegemony of the executive branch, and we the people cannot afford to allow that to persist. Even when it is power that will be wielded by our candidate. It will be bitter, but we are going to have to force a take-back of the egregious power-grabbing by fear-mongering that these little vermin have promulgated (incremental usurpations by Clinton et al similarly need redress).

But, getting back to the Clinton Rules, where my linked post actually starts:

I always envisioned the progressive blogs and the progressive base as the Left flank of the Democratic Party, holding both our pols AND the Media accountable. The blogs have certainly held Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on issues, and I applaud them for that. But the blogs generally have not held Barack Obama's feet to the fire. Worse than that, they have not only NOT held the Media to account, too often they have echoed what Paul Krugman labels the Clinton Rules:

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

If folks wonder why I rail about the Media and the progressive blogs on this, I think Krugman offers an explanation:

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

But more important even than that for me is that we are not engaged in politics to see particular candidates triumph. We are engaged in politics to see particular ideas and issues triumph. When we accept, even echo, the biases of the Media, in order to serve a candidate we prefer, we debase our commitment to the issues we claim to care about.

Paul Krugman understands this and has spoken faithfully to his views on the issues and to basic fairness. He is wrong on many things. But he is not shading his views to support the candidate of his preference. He argues for his issues and supports candidates based on how he perceives the issues he argues for will be effected by particular candidates.

Other Pimpees: New York Times and Washington Post

Those who read their email know I am keeping my powder dry on the presidential candidates. Unlike a surprising number of partisans, I am prepared to vote with at worst a meld of tranquility and misgivings for whichever candidate the Dems manage to agree on.

But it is certainly disappointing how much press time and energy seems to be continually siphoned off on sideshow issues related to what seems to amount to bad behavior - by candidates, candidate staff, and the press.

The "pimping" comment by Schuster of MSNBC is just the latest ridiculous debacle of this sort. I will refrain from recirculating the original material here, as planned link will no doubt provide at least as much as you need. In short, foolish - no, stupid -, tasteless on-camera comment by mainstream media person. Demand for apology, semi-apology offered, demand for firing follows, followed by pretense that there was no such demand. Whatever!

But, with no intent of defending the undefendable Schuster, I think this post is more on the mark, namely that MSNBC as an organization (and far from the only one) is to a horrifying extent a community of misogyny (and racism), surprisingly also featuring Keith O, Rachel Maddow, and maybe a couple others who actually have feet on ground. Schuster went brain-dead for a moment and has been deservedly chastised - why do we still endure the drivel of Chris Matthews et al, routinely embodying misogyny and bigotry as they do? For that matter, why does Tim Russert still have any platform as a supposed newsperson at all, NBC? Britney with balls and facial hair? In reality, with few exceptions (several noted above), doesn't the concept of "pimping" seem to more or less define the vast majority of what goes on in the guise of "journalism" for most mainstream media these days?

Please help me get over my despair as to what it will take to get back to an independent media, critically monitoring government actions. Obviously having more than a handful of right-wing demagogues controlling the majority of the media, as is the case today, is important. I'm just embarking on audio of Cronkite's "A Reporter's Life." Doubtless that will be interesting, but I am braced for depressing comparison to the corrupt state of our media today. I believe self-induced pain will inevitably be required just to begin restoring the delicate balance between the three houses (one now of course poisoned by judicial appointees who are ideologues and do not actually do judicial work as conventionally understood, another toxic with overdose of hubris, and the third in the late stages of arsenic lacing) And then there is the fourth branch, where even the former hallowed mainstream NYT and WaPo have stumbled repeatedly in the last 20+ years in repeatedly serving as shills for (i.e., being pimped by) a corrupt rightwing thuggery. Shame on all of them. How in the hell do we fix it?

Speaking of masochism, Andrew Golis must have a cast-iron stomach:

I watch a lot of MSNBC. I watch Morning Joe every morning as I wake up and get my work day started at home, and the channel runs (usually on mute) non-stop in front of me at the office. On election nights (which seem to come a few times a week these days), it's usually on with volume for a few hours. I've watched hundreds of hours of MSNBC in the last few months.

So I say this with some level of expertise: David Shuster is the least of our problems.

I watch MSNBC because it's the cable channel that has the most straight-junkie political coverage. CNN seems to have gradually lost it's broader view of the world (when they flash over to CNN International sometimes it becomes quickly apparent how awful CNN US is), and has decided to mix Blitzer's beard, King's suspenders and Cooper's impeccable suits with fluff and flashing pictures. And Fox is, well, Fox. For a political junkie like myself, MSNBC is sadly the only real option.

But only a single day of viewing is required to notice how consistently misogynistic the station's leading men are. I've always been blown away that Don Imus in the morning was replaced by Joe Scarborough. Joe Scarborough, who regularly calls his co-anchor Mika Brzezinski his "girl," off-handedly dismisses her opinions like a 1950s husband who tells his wife how to vote, and generally embraces the George W. Bush/George Allen "good 'ol boy" political persona. Glad we fixed that Imus problem, eh?

And of course there's Chris Matthews. Matthews is practically a tragic figure to me because he's so fundamentally sexist that no matter how well-meaning he is he can't help himself. He repeats over and over in his conscious mind that he believes women should be equal and respected, but he just can't convince himself that what they really want isn't a John Wayne figure to pat them on the ass. And boy does he wish he could be John Wayne.

And let's not forget Tucker "I Beat Up Gay People" and "Hate Hillary's Shrill Lecturey Voice" Carlson and the bizarrely omnipresent paleocon Pat Buchanan. Or the fact that there are exceptions. Brzezinski herself, along with the network's real star Keith Olbermann and the thankfully more-often-present Rachel Maddow, are superb as cable news folks go (Brzezinski will forever have my respect for this moment alone). But, theirs is an uphill battle.

All of which is to say that put in the context of his un-punished colleagues, I find Shuster's suspension deeply absurd. Shuster, for anyone who missed the hubub yesterday, said that Hillary Clinton was "pimping out" her daughter Chelsea because Chelsea is campaigning for her. Stupid on the merits and an obviously gross and sexist metaphor. But worse than the persistent misogyny that comes from Scarborough, Matthews, and Tucker? Worse than, hour after hour and day after day, laying out a sexist worldview that might actually persuade viewers?

-clip-