Steven Jonas

We liberals and progressives (I count myself one of the latter) were shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, when The New York Times took on one of the Far Right's loudest barking dogs, Bill Kristol, as a weekly columnist. "How could they do that?" the question was asked. After all, he's got his own weekly right-wing Republican ScreamPaper, Rupert Murdoch's The Weekly Standard. And he is a standard feature of the Fox "News" Channel's flock of "political analysts," otherwise known as Republican flacks. How could they? Well, now we know.

It has been becoming increasingly obvious that the reason The Times took on Kristol has nothing to do with "balance." They've got their resident right-winger, David Brooks (although admittedly somehow he does manage to say something sensible every now and then). And they are suppressive/censorial of certain types of real news such that the highly estimable Media Matters does go after them every now and again. So "balance" it ain't. Actually, with the publication of Kristol's latest column, "How McCain Wins" (The New York Times, Sept. 29, 2008) it has become clear that what The Times had in mind was nothing but exposure -- exposure of what a fatuous, outdated, head-in-the-sand "thinker" (if one can actually use that term to describe Kristol) the man is.
Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas

There has been much speculation both about the possibility of a Georgite "October Surprise" this year and if there is one, what it might be. Iran? Pakistan? A(nother) false flag attack on U.S. soil? Any of these could be used as an excuse to launch a military strike against another country (with what weaponry one is not sure, given the state of the U.S. armed forces, but that is another matter).

In going about figuring out what it might be, it is important to review the "Bush Doctrine." It was much in the news a couple of weeks ago. At that time, Charlie Gibson of ABC News inadvertently determined that Sarah Palin didn't have a clue, not only about its original meaning, but also about the various variants that have appeared over time. The doctrine has in fact had numerous variants, not just the original one that the U.S. can attack any other country at any time on the slightest suspicion that at some (indeterminate) time in the future that country might become a threat to the United States.

A variety of right-wing Republican commentators, such as Charles Krauthammer, tried to blunt the discussion by referring to just one of its several manifestations, the "spreading democracy" dictum. But in any discussion of the Doctrine and how it might be used in support of some October Surprise during this election season, before engaging in that discussion, it is useful to go to the horse's mouth to determine just what it really is. And so, let us turn to the estimable Dana Perino, the current White House Press Secretary.

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas

As I noted recently in a BF Short Take, he who controls the agenda wins elections. From FDR through Lyndon Johnson before he got trapped in Vietnam, the Democrats knew this very well, and except for the Eisenhower years, they won consistently. They did so by for the most part focusing on the substantive issues. Goldwater was the first modern Republican who recognized that one could never win by going after programs. What was needed was going after what paid for the programs -- taxes, and then separating the two in the public's mind.

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas Barack Obama John McCain campaign tactics Lee Atwater Karl Rove

As a lifelong Secular Humanist of the Jewish persuasion, it is very difficult for me to admit to the title of this Commentary, but I have finally become convinced of its truth. The events of the last few days have been the culmination of a series of them that began with the election of George W. Bush. And so, there is simply no way around the recognition of the fact. I just want to briefly share my thought process and reasoning with you.

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas

You Can't Tell the "Cut-and-Runners" Without a Scorecard

Even as Bush (wonder if Cheney went along with this one) announces an agreement "in principle" with the Iraqis to withdraw American forces by some given date (2010? 2011? 2012? it's not quite clear, but by some sure date, McCain proclaims over and over again that while the "surge has worked," unlike the policy of his lily-livered, politically opportunist, unpatriotic opponent, his approach will have the U.S. staying in Iraq until "victory is achieved." (Except that McCain too might order a withdrawal, of some sort, at some time not exactly certain but certainly not uncertain, but certainly in less than 100 years, too). The little details of how exactly "victory " is to be defined and how much it, whatever it is, will cost in American lives and borrowed money, is left unstated by the McCain campaign.
 

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas Bush Cheney. Iraq Obama cut and run McCain

Consider the following. A new Mexican government decides to revisit the "Spot Resolutions" offered in 1847 by the then soon-to-be-one-term Congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had challenged President James Polk's claim that Mexican troops had killed several Americans on U.S. soil, a claim Polk used to start the Mexican War. Later, historical research showed that indeed the shootings occurred on disputed territory, to which Mexico had laid a long-standing claim. And so, this new, nationalistic Mexican government decides to take military action to take back some small bits and pieces of the land that the U.S. took from it in that war, which included much of the Southwest and California. The bits and pieces include such places as Brownsville and El Paso, Texas, home to many Mexicans, significant numbers of whom are being subject to increasing harassment by forces of the U.S. "Homeland Security" Department.

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas Russia Georgia war Bush Cheney oil Iraq Cold War McCain

Since he secured the Democratic nomination for President, Sen. Barack Obama has been moving rapidly to organize, re-organize, and expand his policy staff. One feature has been the increasing presence of "Clinton people" such as Robert Rubin and Madeleine Albright. The response to this from an increasing number of progressives and leftists has ranged from raising caution flags to expressing outright horror: "what's he doing on Israel?" "what's he doing on FISA?" "what's he doing on campaign finance reform?" "what's he doing on 'free trade'?" There are three principal issues to consider here. First, do these appointments indicate any major changes in Sen. Obama's principal campaign theme of "Change We Can Believe In?" Second, whether yes or no, were they predictable? Third, what should the progressive/leftist response be?

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas Barack Obama John McCain lesser of two evils

In December 2000, Jim Baker, Republican Controller Extraordinaire, lead the engineering of the prevention of any recounts in the Florida "election" so GW Bush could take over (not "win") the Office of the Presidency by the width of one vote on the Supreme Court. In December 2006, Jim Baker, by now the leader of the "Thoroughly Disillusioned indeed Disgusted with GWBush" sector of the Republican Power Elite produced the final report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, created by Congress. The timing of the Report's publication had been conveniently arranged so it would appear after the 2006 Congressional elections. While the Group was indeed bipartisan, its unanimous report was endorsed by, among others, its two most right-wing members, former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, whose greatest claim to fame has been as the shepherd of the early career of Dick Cheney, and former Attorney General Ed Meese, under Ronald Reagan easily the most partisan Attorney General this side of John Ashcroft and Al Gonzales.

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas George W. Bush Dick Cheney Iraq Barack Obama timetable al-Maliki the surge

So we have had Charlie Black's comments about how useful for the GOP another terrorist attack on the U.S. would be, preferably if it came before the election. "Certainly it [such an attack] would be an advantage to us," he said. The quote first surfaced a couple of weeks ago in a leak of a Fortune magazine interview with him. It got a bit of play last time. Let's hope that it gets more now, for it is really worth while looking at and evaluating.

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas Charlie Black John McCain terrorist attack