Two Dummies don't make an Argument

Two of the not-so-smartest guys in the lefty blogosphere tell us all about why Obamacare is such a good deal. Or not really.

TM has the details and does a far better job of ripping our esteemed know-it-alls then I could ever hope. First, from Kevin Drum:

Let's recap: the United States spends about twice as much on healthcare as any other developed nation in the world and in return receives just about the worst care. Can someone remind me again why there's even a debate about whether we should put up with this?

Brilliant...

Once you've recovered from the magnificence of that non-argument, we go to the guy who replaced Kevin over at Washington Monthly, one Steve Benen:

They've pulled it off, so far, by telling almost comically-ridiculous lies, and managing to get scared, gullible people to believe them. It's no small feat. Indeed, it's almost impressive. Conservatives have managed to create a debate out of nothing but partisanship, paranoia, and greed.

And here's where I give you over to TM and his sharp-knives:

Really? If memory, that unfaithful servant, can be relied upon the Dem leadership has yet to put forth a plan costing less than a trillion dollars over the next ten years. Medicare is projected to be racing towards bankruptcy (whatever that would mean for a government-funded program) and no one has suggested any credible means of controlling, let alone cutting, its costs.

And the Dem health care reform favored by the left is to spend even more money and envelop the rest of us in some sort of universal Medicare. I'm not sure it takes a conniving liar to wonder how that is going to save us money. "We're spending too much on health care and the answer is to spend even more!" - do Dems really think that will be a winning message?

Class is in Session

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic takes Kevin Drum to school.

I always get a kick out of that. I don't know what it is about Kevin. Whether at Cal Pundit, Washington Monthly or now at Mother Jones I've just seen him write too many head-scratchers to take him overly serious.

Maybe it's just me.

When measured meets insane

This is what you get when a left-leaning blogger attempts something resembling a measured argument about George W. Bush...in this case, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum.

LOL at the insanity. I especially loved the letter-writer:

I am appalled. Does Washington Monthly as a magazine support this errant, inaccurate, and uncaring opinion?

I daresay that those unfortunate souls who have been secretly, illegally, and unconstituionally renditioned in unmarked white CIA planes to other countries to be tortured for months -- without recourse to counsel, legal proceedings, or habeas corpus protections -- would be the first to say that Bush's crimes are worse than Bush's. And would they be wrong?

Well -- would they? I'm asking you to defend Kevin's assertion. And if you don't support it, to apologize to your readership. Whether on Kevin's behalf, or not, I don't care -- I'm talking to you. I'm making an ethics and morality check on YOU, the editors.

Yeah, I'm mad. This is how the country slides further and further down the slippery slope to authoritarianism and despotism, when the opinion leaders can't be bothered to call a war criminal a war criminal and a destroyer of the Constitution exactly what he is.

I await your response, and I expect to hear personally from one of you.

Regards,

Rob Conrad
Chicago, IL

The most obvious point (So obvious that it's one of those things you feel guilty pointing out but only for a moment) is of course his confusion of Bush's crimes with those of...Bush; apparently he's so angry he forgot who he was writing about.

Rob needs a big dose of Get Over Yourself...demanding answers from the magazine editors for Kevin's audaciousness. 'Cause after all, he's mad!

I'm no fan of most of Kevin Drum's work as anyone who looks around will notice. But he has all the sympathy in the world on this one.

Kevin's no fan of the President but undertook, as best I can tell, an honest appraisal of the difference, as he sees it, between President Nixon and Bush the younger. And what does he get for his trouble?

The lefty venom that so usually pervades his regular readership turned back onto the unsuspecting author, that's what. I guess though when you've been feeding the bears for years you shouldn't be surprised when one of them takes a bite out of you.

I guess that Settles It!

Kevin Drum is now convinced that Valerie Plame was in fact covert at the time her name was made public in 2003. All because Patrick Fitzgerald says so:

In a court filing today, Patrick Fitzgerald provides a summary of Valerie Plame Wilson's status with the CIA's Counterproliferation Division at the time she was outed to the press by members of the Bush administration. Guess what? She was covert:

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.

So that settles that. I hope the wingosphere can finally stop bleating about how she wasn't "really" covert and there was no harm in what Libby et. al. did.

Right wingosphere Plameologist Tom Maguire begs to differ. He writes, actually in response to the typically snarky Glenn Greenwald, that:

1. As to "Plame's covert status is based upon the CIA's own internal documents which make clear she was covert", I have labored at length to point out that the CIA, in its own vernacular, uses "covert" and "classified" interchangeably without regard to the IIPA. This was emphasized in my discussion of the Waxman hearing (linked above under "noted at the time") and is not a new point. However, I did allude to it in the original post above by saying "Waxman quite clearly danced around the question of whether Ms. Plame was "covert" as defined by the IIPA rather than by the less exacting in-house CIA standard". This semantic point - "covert" is used interchangeably with "classifed" by the CIA but is not consistent with "covert" a sper the relavant [sic] statute - is simply not controversial, subtle, or new.

Perhaps irrelevant in the short-term. Val may very well have been covert as defined under the IIPA and I remain open to the possibility, but seems to me the source for that conclusion ought to be the CIA, not Fitz.

Don't ignore Maguire's point that the CIA still has, presumably, not done the leg-work necessary to clearly, concisely and once-and-for-all put the question to rest: So what was the opinion of CIA Counsel on Ms. Plame's status under the statute? That would not be fully dispositive either, but it would certainly carry some weight. Bob Novak followed up on this with various annoyed Republican Congressman, and wrote this on April 12:

On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

So as of April 2007 the CIA had not yet done the homework to form an opinion.

This of course is all irrevelant in the bigger picture. Sim rightly pointed out in another venue that the narrative on this has already been written. We'll sooner see it fossilized than changed at this point.

What of course is only slightly humorous is that neither Kevin nor Glenn nor any of the usual suspects triumphant over today's revelations have anything to say about the Changing stories of Valerie Plame.

Like I'm surprised.

Downing Street-ish

Kevin Drum discussed Jonathan Schwartz's take on Peter Eiser's tome, The Italian Letter in this blog post yesterday. I understand the reason folks want to run with his highlighted quote but it all struck me as somewhat Downing Street Memo-ish.


The funny part was, apparently more than a few commenters were less-than-convinced as I was. Highly unusual for Drum's crew.

Refresh my Memory

Today at the Washington Monthly blog Kevin Drum highlights a piece from McClatchy's Greg Gordon discussing the politicization of the Bush Justice Department. Kevin calls it Banana Republicans:

Greg Gordon of McClatchy on the politicization of the Justice Department:

For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.

The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.

....On virtually every significant decision affecting election balloting since 2001, the [Civil Rights] division's Voting Rights Section has come down on the side of Republicans, notably in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington and other states where recent elections have been decided by narrow margins.

At first blush I wasn't sure who to be most appalled by...Kevin or Greg. For all his success--after all he blogs for a living, I do not--Kevin is not exactly the most astute blogger in the world.

Upon further review however, the ridiculousness of all this is all on Gordon. Kevin, as good bloggers do, only highlighted the bad logic. He just forgot to call it that.

It's that last quote that kills me. Essentially we're to believe that part & parcel with a systematic shredding of the Constitution over the last 6+ years the Bush Justice Department has acted inappropriately--dare we say illegally--to influence elections!?

Let's hit the refresh button for a minute and reflect; was it Republicans that car-pooled homeless folks to the polls in Wisconsin, enticing them with free cigarettes in 2004? Did Republican would-be student activists vote multiple times in 2004?

Was it dead Republicans voting in both 2000 and 2004? Or maybe it was Republicans who sought recounts in only certain counties, applying different standards across Florida in 2000?

Well, no it wasn't. And perhaps the reason the Voting Rights Division "sided" with Republicans so often since 2001 is that Democrats were responsible for the majority of documented voter rights violations and attempts at voter fraud.

Just a thought.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Kevin Drum offers proof again that...well, the Peter Principle is alive and well. Harsh you might ask?

Probably, but this is the guy who told us that Bill Burkett was credible.

I have a List and I'm not afraid to not Publish it!

The other day while I was asking why no one has outed David Corn for the rotten journalist that he is, Tom Maguire was asking other questions...some not so strong, others stronger:

Mr. Corn's position on outing Republicans is clear enough but he does not explicitly state a position on the merits of outing gay Democrats. However - if he had any journalistic integrity at all he would have to be opposed to "stealth advocacy". A black man arguing for "black" issues does not need to separately declare his personal stake in the discussion, nor does a woman discussing "women's issues".

But surely Mr. Corn agrees that it is unseemly to advocate for gay issues under the pretense of having been swayed by force of argument when, in fact, the advocate is touting his own self-interest. So presumably Mr. Corn, troubled as he is by closeted Republican gays, is equally troubled by closeted Democratic gays.

Or maybe not.

Let's be clear as mud - the Foley scandal is not about homosexuality but it would not be unreasonable to out gay Republicans in response to it. Can anyone follow that? I would suggest the outing of those who are abusing their power but that logic may be too linear for someone from the reality based community.

I also love this evasion of responsibility - "anytime a gay Republican is outed by events". No, David, it won't be "events" that post that list, it will be activist Democrats trying to win an election. Hope that helps your understanding. A likely candidate would be Mike Rogers of BlogActive.com, who has spent years outing gay Republicans and whose current fund raising appeal says this:

Please help me with this effort. We have five weeks to save our nation from these right wing homophobes in the closet -- and there are more in Congress!

As to "What about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay?", well, what about those GOPers who favor lower taxes (and happen to be gay), or who favored a robust national defense in the Reagan era (and happened to be gay), or who favor gun owner's rights (and happen to be gay), or for some other reason don't fit themselves neatly into the special interest group boxes drawn up by earnest Democratic strategists?

Or what about GOPers who were put off by Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" debacle or by Clinton's signing of the "Defense of Marriage Act", or by John Kerry's insistence that his position on gay marriage did not differ from Bush's? Are they allowed to think that maybe the Dems are more talk than action, and that other issues are more important? Does David Corn really agree with 100% of the Democratic Party platform?

This is the current state of the left - sexual privacy rights for their political opponents are trumped by a desire for power.

Later on Larry and Curly join up with the other stooge with some utter ridiculousness of their own: Ahh, Plan B - Josh Marshall is pretending that it is Republicans who are going to out these gay Republican staffers, and Kevin Drum is playing along.

That is quite a working theory - a group of evangelical Reps, outraged by the gays in their midst, worked up a list of gay Republican staffers ands then leaked it to their natural ally, David Corn. Mr. Corn then choked back his abhorrence at this sexual McCarthyism and penned a few paragraphs rationalizing their effort. Uh huh. Can I guess the rest - some lefty blogger will print it "just to show us what awful tricks those crazy House Republicans are up to".

Please.

Personally, I figure that since there are Dem activists who do this routinely, my money is there. But we have nothing to fight about since we all agree this is awful. And since Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum think "The List" will be coming from Republicans, I encourage them to denounce the concept unequivocally and pre-emptively, as I am doing here.

If The List appears, they will be on record as having condemned it, and perhaps other Dems will join them. And if it is the work of crazed evangelical Republicans, condemning it should be easy, yes?

This is me holding my breath.

The best zinger is saved for last of course. TM points to an almost-but-not-quite confession of conscience at The American Spectator:

I am guided to evidence of Dems with both a brain and a conscience:

"We're getting into very dangerous territory, and I've warned my colleagues to be careful." That's what a Democrat leadership aide was saying on Wednesday, as word circulated about David Corn's blog posting that revealed that a list of gay Republicans congressional staffers was circulating through emails.Such a list has been talked about for months, if not years, by more militant homosexual activists, who have threatened to out Republican congressional staffers or even congressmen if they take positions counter to their gay lifestyle. ..."If that list is made public, all of the political gains we've made in the past 96 hours get flushed down the toilet," says the leadership aide.

I apologize - this may not be evidence of a conscience at all. just a recognition that as a pragmatic matter this is dumb idea for Dems. But one can hope.

And one can wonder - why, if the list is coming from the homophobic right, would it reflect badly on Democrats?

I've maintained this week that there are two distinct things going on in this Foley mess. First off, the disgraceful, inexcusable behavior of the Congressman is outrageous. I'm not sure I've heard or read of a single person who disagrees with that.

It is good and right that he has left the House and should it become evident that he committed actual crimes, I have no problem with seeing him prosecuted for them. Likewise, pretty much every Republican I know of agrees.

The other issue is of course the political fallout and manipulation of the matter by certain folks on the left. Mainstream Democrats are trying to make hay out of it as is of course their right to do. The questionable timing and sourcing of the information however--and as TM notes, "I figure that since there are Dem activists who do this routinely, my money is there"--is leading some to scream about rank political opportunism and a smear job of the highest order.

"The List" is no less a part of that and is equally reprehensible in my book. Corn, Marshall and Drum (the collective brainpower is truly stunning) should frankly be ashamed that they've even touched this at all.

That is though, as I said of Corn earlier, if they ever had any to begin with.

Who Cares

Yesterday, Kevin Drum reviewed the most recent document(s) alleging a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the 1990’s. His bottom-line analysis? “Who cares.”

Who cares?!

Exactly…Drum is the guy who, back in his days as a somewhat-well-known California blogger at Calpundit, told us that Bill Burkett was a credible critic of the President’s National Guard service.

Who cares indeed.

Scoreboard

Funny goings on in the center- and far-left blogosphere tonight. Jason Zengerle blogging at TNR's blog posted this about the big-mouths at Daily Kos:

But more often than not, these liberal bloggers (especially Kos) act like they already have taken over the world--writing manifestoes, issuing threats, and engaging in all sorts of chest-thumping behavior. But, like I said, their batting average is still a big fat zero.

A bit later Zengerle posts again, noting that certain folks are unhappy with his analysis:

Kevin Drum and Laura Turner are taking issue with my post about liberal bloggers' latest losing campaign. Specifically, both object to my notion that Ciro Rodriguez's defeat is a defeat for Kos et al's "ideology of winnerism." Turner writes:

Doesn't Zengerle posit there might be, like, a reason the blogs launched themselves behind Rodriguez that might have to do with ideology, in the sense that Cueller is (and he really is) a very bad Democrat? If Kos and Atrios just wanted a win for somebody with a D behind his name, they probably would have stayed out of Texas-28, which already gurantees such an outcome given that the GOP doesn't even run candidates in the district (somehow the Republican revolution never took hold there). The blogs took a chance on the underdog Rodriguez. Isn't that the opposite of a blind Democratic "winnerism"?

To wit, Zengerle's reply leaves me thinking that my own take on Kos and his minions is pretty much spot on:

In fact, the liberal bloggers' involvement in the Cuellar-Rodriguez race--sparked as it was by a hug--struck me as an exercise in juvenile pique. Which is their right, of course, except these very same bloggers are constantly claiming they aren't juvenile or fevered and are in fact cold-blooded tacticians and strategic grandmasters. But is it really all that strategically smart to enter a campaign (about which you know virtually nothing) a mere month before election day? Aren't you basically setting yourself up for failure? Isn't it even possible that you risk helping the other guy by creating a backlash (a la all the Orange-hatted, out-of-state Dean volunteers who ticked off Iowa voters)?

Now, in the wake of Rodriguez's defeat, these bloggers are talking about how they drew a line in the sand and sent a message, etc., etc. One of them, Chris Bowers at MyDD, is even proclaiming, "If Cuellar makes fewer appearances with Bush, then we will have succeeded." And some success that will be!

Again, I don't dispute that, on the merits, Rodriguez wasn't a better candidate than Cuellar. I just think that the blogosphere's involvement in the race was indicative of the scattershot, emotional, sometimes almost counterproductive approach it takes to politics. Drum, while acknowledging the liberal bloggers' terrible batting average, notes that "Rome wasn't built in a day." True enough. But, Kos et al's grand pronouncements to the contrary, I don't think that they're building Rome.

It's one of the biggest echo-chambers going. Frankly, I think they're deluded; their endorsements haven't succeeded in helping a single Democrat into power in 4+ years.

Scoreboard, Markos.



P.S. I'll be adding The Plank to the blogroll. Good stuff, Maynard!