Laugh, then cry

A must see: Colbert interviews Stephen Colbert vs. Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (GA) about posting the 10 Commandments in public buildings.

Check it out.

It's hilarious, but I kinda wonder, Westmoreland sounds like he might have a mild mental retardation. Don't know whether that's inspiring that he managed to get to Congress, or sad that's the best Georgia has to send to DC.

ok, now for the tears, from Frank Rich's column this week.

What's most impressive about Mr. Rove, however, is not his ruthlessness, it's his unshakable faith in the power of a story. The story he's stuck with, Iraq, is a loser, but he knows it won't lose at the polls if there's no story to counter it. And so he tells it over and over, confident that the Democrats won't tell their own. And they don't — whether about Iraq or much else. The question for the Democrats is less whether they tilt left, right or center, than whether they can find a stirring narrative that defines their views, not just the Republicans'.

What's needed, wrote Michael Tomasky in an influential American Prospect essay last fall, is a "big-picture case based on core principles." As he argued, Washington's continued and inhumane failure to ameliorate the devastation of Katrina could not be a more pregnant opportunity for the Democrats to set forth a comprehensive alternative to the party in power. Another opportunity, of course, is the oil dependence that holds America hostage to the worst governments in the Middle East.

Instead the Democrats float Band-Aid nostrums and bumper-sticker marketing strategies like "Together, America Can Do Better." As the linguist Geoffrey Nunberg pointed out, "The very ungrammaticality of the Democrats' slogan reminds you that this is a party with a chronic problem of telling a coherent story about itself, right down to an inability to get its adverbs and subjects to agree." On Wednesday Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were to announce their party's "New Direction" agenda — actually, an inoffensive checklist of old directions (raise the minimum wage, cut student loan costs, etc.) — that didn't even mention Iraq. Symbolically enough, they had to abruptly reschedule the public unveiling to attend Mr. Bush's briefing on his triumphant trip to Baghdad.

Those who are most enraged about the administration's reckless misadventures are incredulous that it repeatedly gets away with the same stunts. Last week the president was still invoking 9/11 to justify the war in Iraq, which he again conflated with the war on Islamic jihadism — the war we are now losing, by the way, in Afghanistan and Somalia. But as long as the Democrats keep repeating their own mistakes, they will lose to the party whose mistakes are, if nothing else, packaged as one heckuva show. It's better to have the courage of bad convictions than no courage or convictions at all.

I couldn't agree more. And here's a case in point: Tony Snow's comment about "it's a number," referring to 2,500 US deaths in Iraq. And the Democrats respond? Sort of.

Harry Reid gave a speech.

We should have fucking pounced. From Reid to Pelosi to Kerry to Murtha to Dean to every member to every blogger to every state party chair to the DNC veterans caucus to Cleland, there shoud have been a unanimous call for a formal apology from the White House or for Snow's resignation. You know that's what the other side would have done had McCurry said a dumbass comment like that.

Callie Houston at CHB blog has the right take:

Just when you think the assholes who control our government can't possibly get any more callous about the escalating loss of human lives as a result of their failed policies, along comes Presidential mouthpiece Tony Snow to tell us that 2500 American military deaths in Iraq is just "a number."

Just a number?

[...]

Yes, I'm mad. Damn mad. Goddamned mad. I've lost two relatives in George W. Bush's illegal Iraq invasion and far too many other Americans grieve lost loved ones because a mass murdering President sent them off to die in a useless war that had nothing to do with his so-called "war on terrorism."

Of, course, why should we expect unanimous strategic messaging from Dems about a Tony Snow comment when we can't even do it on a war resolution?

At first I was tempted to say "screw you" to the 42 Dems who voted to say Iraq is part of war on terrorism and they support Bush's position

But the bigger screw you is to the Dem leadership that led themselves get stuck in this position. How about the Ds 1) it's ridiculous to have a resolution in which you cannot be in favor of the troops of but against the absurdity that this is part of war on terror and Bush's idiotic war plan, 2) refuse to vote on this. yes, seriously, walk out, don't show up for the vote -- it's a resolution!, 3) hold press conference blasting Rs for a) wasting time on politicking while "numbers" mount, and b) trying to force a false choice. 4) At this press conference, issue (near) unanimous resolution from Ds on Iraq. Say what you want to say the D plan is.

This would force press to cover contrasting resolutions, and moreover, I think, highlight the waste of time the resolution is. Why do we agree to play their games?

Instead, we play their games by their rules and get headlines like this:

House supports Bush on war policy

By Jill ZuckmanWashington Bureau
Published June 17, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Following a day and a half of emotional debate, the House voted overwhelmingly Friday to affirm President Bush's policies in the Iraq war and to reject a specific timetable for withdrawing American troops.The vote was 256-153, with 42 Democrats joining 214 Republicans to support a non-binding resolution that declared the war in Iraq is a central front in the war on terrorism.

Even some in the GOP better managed to article how dumb this was:

Not everyone thought it was worthwhile to hold a debate about an issue that is causing GOP lawmakers great difficulty with voters.Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), for example, repeatedly called the debate a "dumb idea" and did not participate. "I don't think it served any purpose except to pontificate about the war," he said.

Three Republicans, Reps. John Duncan of Tennessee, Jim Leach of Iowa and Ron Paul of Texas, voted against the resolution, while Reps. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan voted present.

McCotter called the resolution "strategically nebulous, morally obtuse and woefully inadequate."

Somebody buy McCotter a drink.