* * political doodle * *

If You Can't Find Some, Make It Up [John Ennis]

The Washington Post went fishing for sexism and put the catch on its front page:

Does a Glass Ceiling Persist in Politics?

Kennedy's Withdrawal Illustrates a Double Standard, Some Say

By Anne E. Kornblut

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 23, 2009; Page A01

With her abrupt exit this week from consideration for the Senate, Caroline Kennedy added her name to a growing list: women who have sought the nation's highest offices only to face insurmountable hurdles.

Caroline Kennedy sought a seat that was previously occupied by a woman. The seat was vacant because the woman who held it had been appointed to a higher office. Instead of Kennedy, a different woman will replace the earlier occupant.

How can the "insurmountable hurdles" faced by Kennedy have anything to do with her gender? Not only is it inconceivable, an argument can be made that her gender actually helped her. (I suspect Governor Paterson was under pressure to fill Hillary Clinton's seat with a woman).

So, the thesis of the article is unsupportable. How did it make it onto the front page of a national paper? Is it because even the most spurious claim of discrimination will receive earnest attention from the mainstream media?

Ironically, when the Post publishes unsupportable charges, they undermine the cause of decreasing discrimination by adopting the role of the 'boy who cried wolf'. If the Post were to find actual discrimination, their credibility would be undermined by this piece.

Why would they unwittingly diminish their credibility on sexual discrimination issues? Is it because actual cases of discrimination are harder to find, so they're reduced to blowing the whistle on false claims? Does this piece, by using a ridiculous example to charge that there is a glass ceiling, inadvertently serve as evidence that actual sexual discrimination is almost non-existent?

The Language of Diplomacy [John Ennis]

Early last year, President Bush commented that he didn't expect to have U.S. troops out of Iraq by the time he left office. Hillary Clinton, while campaigning in Iowa, said “I think it’s the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." She urged the President to "extricate our country" from Iraq by January 2009.

Worse for Mrs. Clinton, it now seems the Iraqi Parliament is also conspiring to keep American troops in Iraq past said date. This is from yesterday's International Herald Tribune:

With a substantial majority, the Iraqi Parliament on Thursday ratified a sweeping security agreement with the United States that sets a course for the end of the war and marks the beginning of a new relationship between the two countries.

The pact, which still must be approved by the three-person Iraqi presidential council, a move expected in the next few days, sets the end of 2011 as the date by which all American troops must be out of the country.

That would leave troops in Iraq almost three years after Bush's departure.

While Clinton won't inherit Iraq as Bush's successor, but as the next Secretary of State, her resentment must still be palpable. I eagerly await her statement about the "irresponsibility" of the Iraqi Parliament's vote.

 

JOHN: Obama's Re-election Bid

The Left is fretting over Obama's continuing stagnancy in the polls. Conventional wisdom dictates that the Democratic Party should have an easy time this November once one considers how many Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction and President Bush’s unpopularity. History shows that the party of the sitting President tends to get creamed in similar circumstances.

So, what's keeping McCain in the race?

LUCILLE: Back to the Future

Now the going it going to get hot. . . as though it hasn't been for the last several months. But now you're going to see some sharp differences between the two major candidates who - despite what you may hear - are at very different ends of the spectrum.

You can only guess who my choice for President is. . . okay, you know it's Barack Obama. I tried not to tip my hat during the primaries, but he has been my choice almost from the beginning, based on his ability to create consensus in a  terribly divided country. . . you know, a uniter, not a divider (I opine that he'll do a better job than you-know-who; who couldn't?). Obama is also eloquent, and since the strongest power the President has is his/her ability to influence, this skill is not to be taken lightly.
Even with a majority Democratic Congress, which we will no doubt have, a consensus builder will be needed now more than ever, and this is Obama's forte.

Do I doubt his ability to fight? Hey, this is a guy that worked all the parties in Chicago, and that is a tough town, even by NJ standards. This guy is no shrinking violet.
Why else do I think he's the man? Hey, he beat the giant, the Clinton machine; no mean feat.

So, the campaign will take front and center - but not all. Have subjects you want me to broach? Email me at lucille@politicaldoodle.com. I write about what irks me, what surprises me and what engages me.

Stay tuned.

LUCILLE: George W Bush has approved this message of Torture

This is absolutely incredible to me. George Bush's top advisors - Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney,  Condi Rice - not only approved torture but choreographed exactly what could be done to whom, how often. They decided who should be physically hurt, who should be waterboarded, who should be attacked by trained dogs.

But that's not the worst.

George Bush told ABC News that he personally approved of the approval of torture by his top advisers. Our President personally approved torture. Have you heard about it in the news? Only if you're watching  The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or Countdown. No front page stories. No replaying the news clip, over and over on Fox News. Not a peep from most of the media.

Well, it makes me sick. And maybe these pictures will make you sick, too. Now that we know - because he admitted it himself - that torture in Iraq wasn't the work of a "few rogue soldiers" but approved and choreographed by the sickos inhabiting the White House - I want you to look at these pictures - a chronology of one night of torture in Iraq approved by George W Bush - and tell me that this is your America.  

Abu Ghraib prison, Baghdad Iraq
December 12, 2003 10:47:25 PM





December 12, 2003 10:47:30 PM




WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PICTURES ARE GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING



 

December 12, 2003 10:48:03 PM





 

December 12, 2003 10:48:09 PM











December 12, 2003 10:48:13 PM








December 12, 2003 10:51:44 PM






December 12, 2003 10:52:45 PM








December 12, 2003 10:55:47 PM













December 12, 2003 10:59:08 PM






 

LUCILLE: Let's Not Talk About Iraq

We need to stop talking about Iraq. It's not really an issue in this presidential campaign. We need to talk about everything but Iraq. Why? Because  Republicans know that they have to take that issue off the table if they have  prayer in hell of winning this fall.

But I'd like to talk about someone who took unilateral military action with virtually no strategic planning, using way too few troops resulting in an embarrassing failure. Not  George Bush (fooled you). I'm talking about Iraqi Prime Minister, Maliki who planned (if I can loosely use that word) a failed assault on the Shi'ite militia in Basra late last month which left Sadr more secure in his position of power than before.

Maliki is like Bush's twin; arrogant, divisive and none too smart. His little romp down in  southern Iraq  has absolutely weakened him and, by association, weakened the US. Of course, George Bush praised him. After all, it's what he would have done.

The most amazing thing is that while Bush is calling it a "defining moment in the history of a free Iraq" GOP presidential nominee John McCain seems to be unaware of what is happening.

So, was it really a debacle? Consider this: There were huge casualties. American and British forces and air power had to come to the rescue. About 1000 Iraqi soldiers either defected or just went home in the midst of the fight. And Mr Maliki's boys sought a cease fire. 

By Bush standards, that was a victory.

Everyone is discussing whether or not Obama has the wherewithal to operate on the big stage, whether Hillary is "more experienced." My friend Monty wants to put the Iraq War on the back burner and talk about the economy and free trade and probably gay marriage.

But what I (and millions of Americans) want to know, with George Bush on the way out,  is how does McCain - Mr Experience himself - see the war?

I'll tell you how he sees it - through rose colored glasses.

LUCILLE: Osama Bin WHO?

Notwithstanding the "success" of the surge (almost as successful as my attempt to regain my virginity), I found myself arguing with a co-worker about the original decision to go into Iraq. He gave the usual reasons - Saddam was a terrible person, we thought they had WMD (don't even go there); and, then he brought up 9/11. My former brother-in-law (my niece's father and a friend of mine), Rod Coppola was in the WTC on that day and was one of the victims. It was a terrible, tragic event and a  very sad time for all of us. It hit me and my family personally.

But what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

And, why can't my co-worker - and so many of you - remember who attacked us on that day?

It was the Saudi, Osama Bin Laden, with the help of mostly Egyptian co-conspirators, calling themselves Al Qaeda and working in tandem with the Taliban. . . centered in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Where the real "war on terror" is being fought? And where the violence is growing at an exponential rate. . .  like the amount of money spent in Iraq? And where Osama is quite close to, in the border region of Pakistan (according to military intelligence experts)?

LUCILLE: Welfare Kings Rule!

Let me see if I understand: Bear Sterns employed lax lending practices and ended up with about $46 billion in risky mortgages and related securities. And it lost billions for its clients last summer when two hedge funds that invested heavily in mortgage securities crumbled. Do I have it right so far? Last Monday Bear put out a press release claiming, "there is absolutely no truth to the rumors of liquidity problems that circulated today in the market." Three days later, the Welfare Kings had their hands out for one of the biggest welfare payouts in history, a $30 billion dollar bailout. . . from your tax dollars.

LUCILLE: George Bush's "Romantic Adventure" and other True Stories

Here's one for the books. George Bush actually called the war in Afghanistan a "romantic adventure" when speaking to troops there last Thursday. He even claimed he was "a little envious" of them.  I have an idea; why doesn't he have his own adventure and finish his military service (cut short to help Daddy get elected) and join the troops over there? It's interesting how the loudest supporters of war - Iraq as well as Viet Nam - feel it unecessary to actually fight them. By contrast, even Prince Harry made it to Afghanistan to fight - by choice. George Bush's choices have all been a little more self centered.

Speaking of choices, who in God's name is choosing his words for him? Or have they just given up and let him speak for himself? He was absolutely giggly over the economy, calling the news on the US's economic meltdown "a interesting moment." (My high school English teacher, Dan Flynn, must be apoplectic over that interesting grammar.)

Any economist will tell you that the price of a currency reflects the country's overall economic health. And our has been diving for so long that pretty soon we'll be lucky if we can afford to even buy stuff made in China. Oil has gone up to over $110 a barrel, the Dow has been hovering under 12,000 and retail sales fell by 6/10ths of a percent last month.

"I'm coming to you as an optimistic fellow" was what Bush had to say to the Economic Club of New York just this past Friday, while acknowledging that we poor folks "are concerned about making their bills." Can he have fallen off the wagon or is he just trying to act like Herbert Hoover after the crash in 1929?

LUCILLE: Emily Litella is McCain's New PR Director

Remember Emily Litella? She was one of Gilda Radner's amusing characters; the old woman who gave angry and misinformed editorial replies on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" on topics such as "violins on television," and "protecting endangered feces." Once she realized her error, Litella would end her segment with a polite "Never mind".

That's what John McCain is saying to the Federal Election Commission. Back when he couldn't rip a dime from a sleeping two year olds hands, he went begging to the FEC for public financing. Then he used that promise of tax payers' money to get a bank loan. Yes, he promised the public financing money that the FEC was giving him was the collateral for a bank loan for his campaign  (he also had to get an insurance policy because they thought his advanced age made him a poor risk - more on that later!). Think about it: when you offer a bank something as collateral, it means it's something you have, right? Not something you might possibly get. . .  maybe. . .  if you really need it.

Not according to John McCain. After desperately clinging to public financing for months, now he's saying he doesn't want it anymore. The FEC just didn't understand - he just wanted to know if they would give him the money if, just maybe he needed it. Now that he can dig into the deep pockets of the GOP base, he doesn't need it and they can have it back. Not that he ever really took it. . .

It's kind of like ordering something in a restaurant, smelling it, pushing it around the plate, then realizing you can eat your friend's french fries instead, and calling the waitress to take it back, because you decided you didn't need it.

John McCain. The Champion of campaign finance reform. What's that? The Champion of campaign finagling reform?

Never mind.