Tiassa
09-28-04, 10:55 PM
A Lesson In Politics
There is a difference
Those who wonder why some are liberals or others conservatives, why some are Democrats and others Republicans, often make the mistake of assuming in their answer that the people are products of the parties. In reality, the parties are products of the people, but more importantly, they are only approximations.
To pretend that the right wing is Christian because of the GOP is obviously absurd, but in the end, those Christians feel they have no other allegiance; Democrats pass too many immoral laws. To many liberals, they side with the Democrats because they feel they have no other viable option: they do not become pro-choice, pro-speech, or advocates of the more-complex solutions simply because they are Democrats.
For what it's worth, I side with the Democrats because they're the closest viable alternative; perhaps someday I might write the party manifesto that outdoes the Democrats for American liberals, but that's a long time coming, it seems.
It happens that while I was out looking for what I thought was a Jon Meacham appearance on Hardball (I'm confused about either the guest or the show, and still haven't found what I'm looking for) I came across the following exchange. It is lengthy, so I will split it for commentary in order to reiterate themes noted above.
NORAH O‘DONNELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Chris, that‘s right. This was a very high profile visit by the interim Iraqi leader Prime Minister Allawi, invited by President Bush to address the joint session of Congress and then come here to the Rose Garden. The president trying to make that case, that they should stay the course in Iraq, that freedom is winning, that despite the violence, progress is being made on the ground.
And he had Allawi essentially echo many of the themes that President Bush says out on the campaign trail. It was as if Allawi‘s comments had been written by President Bush‘s speech writers. The two of them echoing that same very clear message, that progress is being made on the ground.
And with six weeks before our own election here in the United States, the president‘s advisers admit, this visit was in part to address the concerns of American voters about what is going on on the ground in Iraq.
Senator Kerry had a very different view today. And I think there was a clear contrast between the two candidates for voters to see. President Bush saying stay the course. John Kerry saying it is time to change the course.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Matthews went on to ask O'Donnell about whether or not Allawi was speaking against the idea of public discourse; she responded that Allawi was quite clear, in her opinion, that "the political leaders who sound the sirens of defeatism embolden the terrorists", and noted that this falls in line with the Bush campaign's recent rhetoric.
Turning to Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Matthews asked, "Congresswoman Tauscher, who is right? The president, the national intelligence estimates, or the press? Who has given us the best picture of what you saw in Iraq?"
REP. ELLEN TAUSCHER, (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, I can tell you I saw a much more chaotic Iraq than I saw a year ago, and a much more dangerous Iraq than I saw a year ago. And the idea that the interim prime minister came to the United States to bolster the president‘s argument that things are going fine, is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
We‘re supposed to bolster the Iraqi people, not only to secure their own borders and to defend their own country, but to have an elected government. And the mismanagement of this administration so far has left us with very few choices and very few—very little time to execute that plan.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Tauscher throws in a tiny amount of substance--Iraq to her eyes is more chaotic than a year ago--and then makes an assessment that is political inasmuch as she's a politician and constantly subject to political considerations. However, note the phrase, "And the idea that ...." It's a very effective phrase because many Americans simply don't pay reasonable attention. *The political hook at the end of that--"the exact opposite of what we should be doing"--has a furious barb on it that questions a broad portion of the administration's war policy.
It's a great phrase. We'll get back to it in a minute.
Matthews then asked Tauscher about the National Intelligence Estimate that notes a worst-case scenario of civil war in Iraq. "Could you see anything like that brewing?" Matthews said.
TAUSCHER: Absolutely. We‘re in a mini civil war as it is. And as you saw today, the Grand Ayatollah Sistani that is basically been kept quiet by agreeing with him that we have to have elections as soon as possible is beginning to believe that the elections that are coming up in January will be neither legitimate, nor around the country.
So I think frankly, the president has been just trying to mislead to American people one more time into the fact that things are going well. But the facts on the ground show that we have a dramatic increase in violence in September and the month isn‘t even over yet. That we have really no coalition there to support us. Certainly not a coalition of the capable. And that we don‘t have enough Iraqi troops so they can take this fight over for us.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
There's more politicking in here: "civil war" is an overstatement. Were there a cessation of the initial situation (e.g. invasion & occupation) I would agree, but the present condition of Iraq is still evolving through contiguous stages. That we're in a "mini civil war as it is" just reeks of oppositional exaggeration.
Nonetheless, Tauscher masks it with a hard-punching point accusing the president of misleading the American people. Inherent in the ne'er-ending chorus is an almost sharklike response to the scent of legitimacy--as the Bush camp pushes its line harder and more nakedly, the deception becomes more definitive. Where Bush supporters have in the past said, "It was bad intelligence; the problem was away from him," they can't say the same about the rosy picture Bush constantly seeks to paint. And Tauscher's point has some bite: the coalition is collapsing; the capability of the collapsing coalition is such that I think most Americans think of this as a US venture in Iraq at this point. And it is true that Iraq hasn't enough of its own troops to hold the line.
Of course there are myriad questions: what exactly do those lacks indicate? In all the politicking, that aspect is rarely discussed beyond sound-bites.
But if Tauscher is more political than analytical, Rep. Dan Burton (R-IL) is merely grasping at political straws:
MATTHEWS: Let‘s go right now to Congressman Burton. Your sense, you were there in March, sir. What‘s your sense of what‘s happening on the ground over there?
REP. DAN BURTON, ® ILLINOIS: First of all, I was a little disappointed that Norah O‘Donnell indicated that President (sic) Allawi‘s speech was written by the White House. That is a bias that the media...
MATTHEWS: She didn‘t say that.
BURTON: Well yes, she did, Chris.
MATTHEWS: No she didn‘t. She said it could have been written.
BURTON: Well, it could have been. But the inference was there. And the fact that the matter is, Mr. Allawi was speaking from the heart. You know, if he said today that 15 of the 18 provinces over there could have an election today. The transfer of power took place on time. *The constitution took place on time. And he says the elections are going to take place on time.
Now, these prophets of doom go on and on and on because they want to elect Mr. Kerry president of the United States. The president is on the right track. We‘re going to have bumps in the road. There‘s going to be problems, but we are going to win this thing.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
(Random note: Is that a Microsoft thing? I know I had to turn off some switches in Word when I would write about politicians or try to make lists like (A) (B) (C); nonetheless, the phrase "rush transcript" should be mentioned here.)
At the outset, Burton drops the question, howls bias, and goes after O'Donnell; as Matthews reminds--although for splitting hairs, incorrectly--the distinguished gentleman from Illinois is incorrect.
Rather than answering Matthews' question about what's happening on the ground in Iraq, Burton then shifts to tell us what Allawi said, and goes on to attack "prophets of doom" who want Kerry elected.
Burton is clearly off-balance in this exchange; as Matthews brings the discussion back to the situation on the ground in Iraq--and specifically statements by Ayatollah Sistani expressing a lack of faith in the idea of the coming Iraqi elections--Burton chooses a general, nondescript response:
BURTON: Well, I think you‘re going to hear all kinds of statements from all kinds of leaders. But the fact of the matter is, we‘re going to have elections on time. As I said, they won‘t be real smooth. There‘s going to be terrorist activity trying to disrupt them. But the fact of the matter is, they want democracy and freedom over there, they don‘t want any more tyrannical governments like Saddam Hussein and they‘re willing to pay the price for it and we need to support them.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Burton seems to want to discount Sistani's influence. Certes, we might hear all kinds of statements from various leaders, but the fact of the matter is that Sistani holds wide influence.
The exchange goes on, and Tauscher admittedly has the stronger position. Where Tauscher is at least managing some analytical sense amid her politics, Burton seems to be reading talking points. The trend continues throughout their appearance on the show; Tauscher gives a speculative but reasonable assessment of the Sistani situation, and then takes Burton to task:
And with all due respect to my colleague, one of the reasons why all these foreign fighters and terrorists are coming through border is because we never had enough troops there. And that‘s why the president cherry picks who he listens to.
He didn‘t listen to General Shinseki when he said we needed 200,000 troops, fired him. And he didn‘t listen to his own CIA and national intelligence estimate.
So once again, cherry picking of facts, only agreeing with people who agreeing to you. And frankly, he has not set the stage for the kind of counter offensive we‘re going to have in November that‘s going to cost America a lot of fighting men and women.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
We could go on and on like this, but you can read the rest for yourselves. Burton, of course, agrees with the President that there is enough troops on the ground, though the transcript shows a one-two punch that leaves that response seemingly weak. The first is Tauscher on Bush: "He didn't listen to General Shinseki when he said we needed 200,000 troops ...." The second comes in a video clip in which President Bush responded to a question about General Abizaid's statement that more troops might be needed to secure Iraqi elections: "He didn‘t say that to me," said the President. "If he were to say that, I would listen to him. Just like I‘ve said all along, that when our commanders say that they need support, they‘ll get support."
Now Here's the Tricky Part
I know little about Rep. Tauscher. I admit I'm not much a fan of Rep. Burton. But the point of these considerations has little to do with any version of a simpleton's politic, such as "Democrat good, Republican bad". Rather, what you're seeing is the result of certain circumstances.
Tauscher is in a position where she would have to try to throw the debate; whatever prep pages they were given before they came on the air, she read and calculated. She mixed assertions of fact with classical politicking in order to put out a very reasonable appearance. Part of the comfort comes from being oppositional (in this case, Democrat), liberal (dependent on the more complex of any range of examinations), and by circumstance placed on the side of the rational. Burton is supporting an incumbency with a history of "difficulties", to put it kindly. He's throwing talking points around like they actually mean something, ducking questions and chasing after the messengers in order to give them a whack. This is what happens when you seek to defend the legitimacy and success of an incumbent officer despite the tale of history.
One last quote:
MATTHEWS: What do you make of the polls, we have a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. It‘s a damn straight poll, I can tell you. There‘s no bias in this. You talk about bias. I don‘t thing there‘s any damn bias. Look at this poll number here. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journals Poll: 52 percent of those surveyed think that removing Saddam Hussein from power was not worth it. That was 52 to 40.
What do you make of that number?
BURTON: Let me say this: you can‘t run a war by polls. From day to day, things are going to change, attitudes are going to change, the news that you see on television is going to change. What we‘re—we‘re in this for the long haul. This is a war against terrorism, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the terrorist that‘s come in and out of Iraq from Syria, from Iran, from Saudi Arabia, we‘ve got to root out all of these people. And so you can‘t judge on a day-by-day basis the attitudes of the war. This is a war we must win. We don‘t have any choice.
MATTHEWS: Congresswoman Tauscher, that number, 52, my gut estimate is it will probably grow a bit just because of the casualty figures now and the next couple months. The way things are going right now. That would suggest that John Kerry would be leading the polls right now. Why isn‘t he?
TAUSCHER: Well, I don‘t know why.
MATTHEWS: There must be some other factor here, because of the people on balance don‘t think we should have gone to Iraq, and the president has made that his main mission really, the last couple years, why aren‘t the people turning against him? They don‘t seem to be in all the polls I‘ve seen.
TAUSCHER: Well, I think the people have got to see the real facts. And I think my colleague is right, you don‘t run a war with polls. But you also don‘t run it by misleading and mismanaging, which is effectively what we have had right now.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Tauscher need not be a genius to pull off that exchange; Burton need not be an idiot to leave such a broad gap. Neither need be inherently good or evil.
It's a matter of circumstance. As it is, Burton makes a known point, that one should not run wars according to polls. But Burton overlooks in that the indication that this government of, by, and for the people is fighting a war that people now believe it should not have gotten into. Burton evades the point after a fashion. The gap is left because there's nothing Burton can do to cover it without lying outright; if e'er anyone needed reminding that Republicans do have limits, 'tis true you needn't look far.
So Tauscher seizes the gap: misleading, mismanaging. And Matthews gives her opportunity to echo that chorus again.
MATTHEWS: Who is it? Is the president misleading the country?
TAUSCHER: The president is misleading the country.
MATTHEWS: What is he saying that you know to be wrong?
TAUSCHER: He is misleading the country to believe that we didn‘t waste an entire year with a coalition provisional authority that didn‘t train any troops and didn‘t turn any power over to the Iraqi people. That we didn‘t put an Iraqi face on this. The idea that we have a coalition of more than just the willing and not the capable is stunning to me. There are many things.
MATTHEWS: That‘s not misleading though, is it? It doesn‘t sound like misleading. It sounds like you don‘t like his policy.
TAUSCHER: Currently he‘s misleading about what‘s going on in the ground. We‘ve had a major jump in the escalation of violence. 700 attacks on our troops in August, 2,700 this month and the month isn‘t over. That‘s a big difference.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Given a chance to respond, Burton obfuscates to the point that Tauscher starts showing her impatience. In the end, Burton is left pitching what sounds like a campaign speech, an appeal to the people despite the realities coming in more clearly each day:
MATTHEWS: Congressman Burton, respond.
BURTON: Let me just say that as we get closer to the election, you may rest assured that the terrorists coming in from Iran, from Syria, from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are going to do their very best, their damndest, to disrupt that election.
TAUSCHER: Why haven‘t we closed the border then, my colleague?
BURTON: We haven‘t closed the border between us and Mexico. Let me just say this. This is a war that‘s going to be very difficult. It‘s going to take some time, it‘s going to take some effort, but I‘m confident that the government of Iraq, working with the coalition forces and the United States of America, will prevail. The elections will take place on time. And the terrorists will be defeated.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
The lesson is simply that behind the "politics" are clear signs of reality. Tauscher losing her patience? Matthews closes the segment by swiping a second time after Burton's "bias" remark.
Do Democrats or Republicans have to be good or bad in order to be right or wrong? Hardly. Circumstance--what becomes history--is all the difference in the world.
How many of us at Sciforums could do the requisite reading of articles and get up and give any of these congressional guests a run for their money on Hardball? I could wax the floor with Burton compared to that appearance. Hell, I could probably wax Tauscher as well.
Yet in this age of a rising conservative political-correctness, there seems to either be much confusion about, or total disregard for the differences that come in degrees.
After all, it can be said that the Swift Vets and MoveOn are "equal" inasmuch as they both criticize a candidate. Yet the devil is in the detail, the differences in the degrees. Burton and Tauscher can be said to have had "equal" appearances because they were both on a talk show and both had their say. Yet as I hope to demonstrate above, there is a difference in the brands of blather.
Is it always politics? No. Even for politicians, there are some realities that simply stare you in the face. I think the real test, for instance, would be for George Bush to go to Iraq, stand up in front of a crowd, and say, "I just wanted to say to you all that you're very welcome. I am very happy you are so much better-off today than you were at any other time in your Saddamized lives." Even if we managed to keep the "insurgents" away for such a stunt, Bush might not make it out alive. Of course, then nobody would be able to tell him to his face that they told him so. It's a win-win. Sure, he would be dead, but things would be equal, right? Right? He told them what he thought, and they told him what they think.
There is a difference, folks. When columnists have to plead with their readers to go back and read the speeches from which the sound-bites are extracted, and when politicians call for an end to the public discourse, or claim that the solution is the retraction of fundamental rights, there's a problem if people think the pros and cons are the same thing.
And, for the record, yes I think there's something fundamentally askew about President George W. Bush that makes him evil insofar as his best intentions seem to damn people. It plays out like a caricature; is there any such thing as "innocent evil"? And yes, I think there's something definitively askew about the GOP and its politics. Yes, I think there's something horribly wrong with conservatism as we know it in the United States today. But none of these things need come into play above. In the political arena, Tauscher wins by TKO in the late round; Burton's response to her drilling of the word "misleading" was to not even come out for the round. I know she at least takes it on the scorecard. It has little to do with the fact that Tauscher is a Democrat and Burton a Republican. I mean, for some reason, I've got it in my mind that there's something severely wrong with Tauscher, too, inasmuch as I don't like her as a Democrat (I'll have to look around). But in this case it's a matter of circumstance: what is is what it is.
Perhaps in a statistical sense, things are going well; after all, we could have lost twice as many or even ten times as many people over there; we could have killed twice as many innocent Iraqis. Prior wars have been so dangerous. But how can one change the conscience of a nation to harden their tolerance for the deaths of their sons and daughters, and the "necessary" pulverizing of innocent people?
And so the people will decide. Sort of. We hope. Possibly. Something like that.
It's not long before my American neighbors get to choose between better and worse, or perhaps worse and worst. As to the lack of sterling choices, we've nobody to blame but ourselves, though in the meantime, I would ask my fellow Americans to watch closely the detail. There is a difference, and that difference is great. If we are merely people standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon, the gap seems significant. But if we presume ourselves gods among men, we won't necessarily notice it at all.
Remember the lesson: Behind the "politics" are clear signs of reality.
For it is from these signs that we learn the route to follow, and where to lead our neighbors.
There is a difference.
___________________
• MSNBC.com. Hardball with Chris Matthews. September 24, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/
There is a difference
Those who wonder why some are liberals or others conservatives, why some are Democrats and others Republicans, often make the mistake of assuming in their answer that the people are products of the parties. In reality, the parties are products of the people, but more importantly, they are only approximations.
To pretend that the right wing is Christian because of the GOP is obviously absurd, but in the end, those Christians feel they have no other allegiance; Democrats pass too many immoral laws. To many liberals, they side with the Democrats because they feel they have no other viable option: they do not become pro-choice, pro-speech, or advocates of the more-complex solutions simply because they are Democrats.
For what it's worth, I side with the Democrats because they're the closest viable alternative; perhaps someday I might write the party manifesto that outdoes the Democrats for American liberals, but that's a long time coming, it seems.
It happens that while I was out looking for what I thought was a Jon Meacham appearance on Hardball (I'm confused about either the guest or the show, and still haven't found what I'm looking for) I came across the following exchange. It is lengthy, so I will split it for commentary in order to reiterate themes noted above.
NORAH O‘DONNELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Chris, that‘s right. This was a very high profile visit by the interim Iraqi leader Prime Minister Allawi, invited by President Bush to address the joint session of Congress and then come here to the Rose Garden. The president trying to make that case, that they should stay the course in Iraq, that freedom is winning, that despite the violence, progress is being made on the ground.
And he had Allawi essentially echo many of the themes that President Bush says out on the campaign trail. It was as if Allawi‘s comments had been written by President Bush‘s speech writers. The two of them echoing that same very clear message, that progress is being made on the ground.
And with six weeks before our own election here in the United States, the president‘s advisers admit, this visit was in part to address the concerns of American voters about what is going on on the ground in Iraq.
Senator Kerry had a very different view today. And I think there was a clear contrast between the two candidates for voters to see. President Bush saying stay the course. John Kerry saying it is time to change the course.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Matthews went on to ask O'Donnell about whether or not Allawi was speaking against the idea of public discourse; she responded that Allawi was quite clear, in her opinion, that "the political leaders who sound the sirens of defeatism embolden the terrorists", and noted that this falls in line with the Bush campaign's recent rhetoric.
Turning to Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Matthews asked, "Congresswoman Tauscher, who is right? The president, the national intelligence estimates, or the press? Who has given us the best picture of what you saw in Iraq?"
REP. ELLEN TAUSCHER, (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, I can tell you I saw a much more chaotic Iraq than I saw a year ago, and a much more dangerous Iraq than I saw a year ago. And the idea that the interim prime minister came to the United States to bolster the president‘s argument that things are going fine, is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
We‘re supposed to bolster the Iraqi people, not only to secure their own borders and to defend their own country, but to have an elected government. And the mismanagement of this administration so far has left us with very few choices and very few—very little time to execute that plan.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Tauscher throws in a tiny amount of substance--Iraq to her eyes is more chaotic than a year ago--and then makes an assessment that is political inasmuch as she's a politician and constantly subject to political considerations. However, note the phrase, "And the idea that ...." It's a very effective phrase because many Americans simply don't pay reasonable attention. *The political hook at the end of that--"the exact opposite of what we should be doing"--has a furious barb on it that questions a broad portion of the administration's war policy.
It's a great phrase. We'll get back to it in a minute.
Matthews then asked Tauscher about the National Intelligence Estimate that notes a worst-case scenario of civil war in Iraq. "Could you see anything like that brewing?" Matthews said.
TAUSCHER: Absolutely. We‘re in a mini civil war as it is. And as you saw today, the Grand Ayatollah Sistani that is basically been kept quiet by agreeing with him that we have to have elections as soon as possible is beginning to believe that the elections that are coming up in January will be neither legitimate, nor around the country.
So I think frankly, the president has been just trying to mislead to American people one more time into the fact that things are going well. But the facts on the ground show that we have a dramatic increase in violence in September and the month isn‘t even over yet. That we have really no coalition there to support us. Certainly not a coalition of the capable. And that we don‘t have enough Iraqi troops so they can take this fight over for us.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
There's more politicking in here: "civil war" is an overstatement. Were there a cessation of the initial situation (e.g. invasion & occupation) I would agree, but the present condition of Iraq is still evolving through contiguous stages. That we're in a "mini civil war as it is" just reeks of oppositional exaggeration.
Nonetheless, Tauscher masks it with a hard-punching point accusing the president of misleading the American people. Inherent in the ne'er-ending chorus is an almost sharklike response to the scent of legitimacy--as the Bush camp pushes its line harder and more nakedly, the deception becomes more definitive. Where Bush supporters have in the past said, "It was bad intelligence; the problem was away from him," they can't say the same about the rosy picture Bush constantly seeks to paint. And Tauscher's point has some bite: the coalition is collapsing; the capability of the collapsing coalition is such that I think most Americans think of this as a US venture in Iraq at this point. And it is true that Iraq hasn't enough of its own troops to hold the line.
Of course there are myriad questions: what exactly do those lacks indicate? In all the politicking, that aspect is rarely discussed beyond sound-bites.
But if Tauscher is more political than analytical, Rep. Dan Burton (R-IL) is merely grasping at political straws:
MATTHEWS: Let‘s go right now to Congressman Burton. Your sense, you were there in March, sir. What‘s your sense of what‘s happening on the ground over there?
REP. DAN BURTON, ® ILLINOIS: First of all, I was a little disappointed that Norah O‘Donnell indicated that President (sic) Allawi‘s speech was written by the White House. That is a bias that the media...
MATTHEWS: She didn‘t say that.
BURTON: Well yes, she did, Chris.
MATTHEWS: No she didn‘t. She said it could have been written.
BURTON: Well, it could have been. But the inference was there. And the fact that the matter is, Mr. Allawi was speaking from the heart. You know, if he said today that 15 of the 18 provinces over there could have an election today. The transfer of power took place on time. *The constitution took place on time. And he says the elections are going to take place on time.
Now, these prophets of doom go on and on and on because they want to elect Mr. Kerry president of the United States. The president is on the right track. We‘re going to have bumps in the road. There‘s going to be problems, but we are going to win this thing.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
(Random note: Is that a Microsoft thing? I know I had to turn off some switches in Word when I would write about politicians or try to make lists like (A) (B) (C); nonetheless, the phrase "rush transcript" should be mentioned here.)
At the outset, Burton drops the question, howls bias, and goes after O'Donnell; as Matthews reminds--although for splitting hairs, incorrectly--the distinguished gentleman from Illinois is incorrect.
Rather than answering Matthews' question about what's happening on the ground in Iraq, Burton then shifts to tell us what Allawi said, and goes on to attack "prophets of doom" who want Kerry elected.
Burton is clearly off-balance in this exchange; as Matthews brings the discussion back to the situation on the ground in Iraq--and specifically statements by Ayatollah Sistani expressing a lack of faith in the idea of the coming Iraqi elections--Burton chooses a general, nondescript response:
BURTON: Well, I think you‘re going to hear all kinds of statements from all kinds of leaders. But the fact of the matter is, we‘re going to have elections on time. As I said, they won‘t be real smooth. There‘s going to be terrorist activity trying to disrupt them. But the fact of the matter is, they want democracy and freedom over there, they don‘t want any more tyrannical governments like Saddam Hussein and they‘re willing to pay the price for it and we need to support them.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Burton seems to want to discount Sistani's influence. Certes, we might hear all kinds of statements from various leaders, but the fact of the matter is that Sistani holds wide influence.
The exchange goes on, and Tauscher admittedly has the stronger position. Where Tauscher is at least managing some analytical sense amid her politics, Burton seems to be reading talking points. The trend continues throughout their appearance on the show; Tauscher gives a speculative but reasonable assessment of the Sistani situation, and then takes Burton to task:
And with all due respect to my colleague, one of the reasons why all these foreign fighters and terrorists are coming through border is because we never had enough troops there. And that‘s why the president cherry picks who he listens to.
He didn‘t listen to General Shinseki when he said we needed 200,000 troops, fired him. And he didn‘t listen to his own CIA and national intelligence estimate.
So once again, cherry picking of facts, only agreeing with people who agreeing to you. And frankly, he has not set the stage for the kind of counter offensive we‘re going to have in November that‘s going to cost America a lot of fighting men and women.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
We could go on and on like this, but you can read the rest for yourselves. Burton, of course, agrees with the President that there is enough troops on the ground, though the transcript shows a one-two punch that leaves that response seemingly weak. The first is Tauscher on Bush: "He didn't listen to General Shinseki when he said we needed 200,000 troops ...." The second comes in a video clip in which President Bush responded to a question about General Abizaid's statement that more troops might be needed to secure Iraqi elections: "He didn‘t say that to me," said the President. "If he were to say that, I would listen to him. Just like I‘ve said all along, that when our commanders say that they need support, they‘ll get support."
Now Here's the Tricky Part
I know little about Rep. Tauscher. I admit I'm not much a fan of Rep. Burton. But the point of these considerations has little to do with any version of a simpleton's politic, such as "Democrat good, Republican bad". Rather, what you're seeing is the result of certain circumstances.
Tauscher is in a position where she would have to try to throw the debate; whatever prep pages they were given before they came on the air, she read and calculated. She mixed assertions of fact with classical politicking in order to put out a very reasonable appearance. Part of the comfort comes from being oppositional (in this case, Democrat), liberal (dependent on the more complex of any range of examinations), and by circumstance placed on the side of the rational. Burton is supporting an incumbency with a history of "difficulties", to put it kindly. He's throwing talking points around like they actually mean something, ducking questions and chasing after the messengers in order to give them a whack. This is what happens when you seek to defend the legitimacy and success of an incumbent officer despite the tale of history.
One last quote:
MATTHEWS: What do you make of the polls, we have a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. It‘s a damn straight poll, I can tell you. There‘s no bias in this. You talk about bias. I don‘t thing there‘s any damn bias. Look at this poll number here. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journals Poll: 52 percent of those surveyed think that removing Saddam Hussein from power was not worth it. That was 52 to 40.
What do you make of that number?
BURTON: Let me say this: you can‘t run a war by polls. From day to day, things are going to change, attitudes are going to change, the news that you see on television is going to change. What we‘re—we‘re in this for the long haul. This is a war against terrorism, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the terrorist that‘s come in and out of Iraq from Syria, from Iran, from Saudi Arabia, we‘ve got to root out all of these people. And so you can‘t judge on a day-by-day basis the attitudes of the war. This is a war we must win. We don‘t have any choice.
MATTHEWS: Congresswoman Tauscher, that number, 52, my gut estimate is it will probably grow a bit just because of the casualty figures now and the next couple months. The way things are going right now. That would suggest that John Kerry would be leading the polls right now. Why isn‘t he?
TAUSCHER: Well, I don‘t know why.
MATTHEWS: There must be some other factor here, because of the people on balance don‘t think we should have gone to Iraq, and the president has made that his main mission really, the last couple years, why aren‘t the people turning against him? They don‘t seem to be in all the polls I‘ve seen.
TAUSCHER: Well, I think the people have got to see the real facts. And I think my colleague is right, you don‘t run a war with polls. But you also don‘t run it by misleading and mismanaging, which is effectively what we have had right now.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Tauscher need not be a genius to pull off that exchange; Burton need not be an idiot to leave such a broad gap. Neither need be inherently good or evil.
It's a matter of circumstance. As it is, Burton makes a known point, that one should not run wars according to polls. But Burton overlooks in that the indication that this government of, by, and for the people is fighting a war that people now believe it should not have gotten into. Burton evades the point after a fashion. The gap is left because there's nothing Burton can do to cover it without lying outright; if e'er anyone needed reminding that Republicans do have limits, 'tis true you needn't look far.
So Tauscher seizes the gap: misleading, mismanaging. And Matthews gives her opportunity to echo that chorus again.
MATTHEWS: Who is it? Is the president misleading the country?
TAUSCHER: The president is misleading the country.
MATTHEWS: What is he saying that you know to be wrong?
TAUSCHER: He is misleading the country to believe that we didn‘t waste an entire year with a coalition provisional authority that didn‘t train any troops and didn‘t turn any power over to the Iraqi people. That we didn‘t put an Iraqi face on this. The idea that we have a coalition of more than just the willing and not the capable is stunning to me. There are many things.
MATTHEWS: That‘s not misleading though, is it? It doesn‘t sound like misleading. It sounds like you don‘t like his policy.
TAUSCHER: Currently he‘s misleading about what‘s going on in the ground. We‘ve had a major jump in the escalation of violence. 700 attacks on our troops in August, 2,700 this month and the month isn‘t over. That‘s a big difference.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
Given a chance to respond, Burton obfuscates to the point that Tauscher starts showing her impatience. In the end, Burton is left pitching what sounds like a campaign speech, an appeal to the people despite the realities coming in more clearly each day:
MATTHEWS: Congressman Burton, respond.
BURTON: Let me just say that as we get closer to the election, you may rest assured that the terrorists coming in from Iran, from Syria, from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are going to do their very best, their damndest, to disrupt that election.
TAUSCHER: Why haven‘t we closed the border then, my colleague?
BURTON: We haven‘t closed the border between us and Mexico. Let me just say this. This is a war that‘s going to be very difficult. It‘s going to take some time, it‘s going to take some effort, but I‘m confident that the government of Iraq, working with the coalition forces and the United States of America, will prevail. The elections will take place on time. And the terrorists will be defeated.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/)
The lesson is simply that behind the "politics" are clear signs of reality. Tauscher losing her patience? Matthews closes the segment by swiping a second time after Burton's "bias" remark.
Do Democrats or Republicans have to be good or bad in order to be right or wrong? Hardly. Circumstance--what becomes history--is all the difference in the world.
How many of us at Sciforums could do the requisite reading of articles and get up and give any of these congressional guests a run for their money on Hardball? I could wax the floor with Burton compared to that appearance. Hell, I could probably wax Tauscher as well.
Yet in this age of a rising conservative political-correctness, there seems to either be much confusion about, or total disregard for the differences that come in degrees.
After all, it can be said that the Swift Vets and MoveOn are "equal" inasmuch as they both criticize a candidate. Yet the devil is in the detail, the differences in the degrees. Burton and Tauscher can be said to have had "equal" appearances because they were both on a talk show and both had their say. Yet as I hope to demonstrate above, there is a difference in the brands of blather.
Is it always politics? No. Even for politicians, there are some realities that simply stare you in the face. I think the real test, for instance, would be for George Bush to go to Iraq, stand up in front of a crowd, and say, "I just wanted to say to you all that you're very welcome. I am very happy you are so much better-off today than you were at any other time in your Saddamized lives." Even if we managed to keep the "insurgents" away for such a stunt, Bush might not make it out alive. Of course, then nobody would be able to tell him to his face that they told him so. It's a win-win. Sure, he would be dead, but things would be equal, right? Right? He told them what he thought, and they told him what they think.
There is a difference, folks. When columnists have to plead with their readers to go back and read the speeches from which the sound-bites are extracted, and when politicians call for an end to the public discourse, or claim that the solution is the retraction of fundamental rights, there's a problem if people think the pros and cons are the same thing.
And, for the record, yes I think there's something fundamentally askew about President George W. Bush that makes him evil insofar as his best intentions seem to damn people. It plays out like a caricature; is there any such thing as "innocent evil"? And yes, I think there's something definitively askew about the GOP and its politics. Yes, I think there's something horribly wrong with conservatism as we know it in the United States today. But none of these things need come into play above. In the political arena, Tauscher wins by TKO in the late round; Burton's response to her drilling of the word "misleading" was to not even come out for the round. I know she at least takes it on the scorecard. It has little to do with the fact that Tauscher is a Democrat and Burton a Republican. I mean, for some reason, I've got it in my mind that there's something severely wrong with Tauscher, too, inasmuch as I don't like her as a Democrat (I'll have to look around). But in this case it's a matter of circumstance: what is is what it is.
Perhaps in a statistical sense, things are going well; after all, we could have lost twice as many or even ten times as many people over there; we could have killed twice as many innocent Iraqis. Prior wars have been so dangerous. But how can one change the conscience of a nation to harden their tolerance for the deaths of their sons and daughters, and the "necessary" pulverizing of innocent people?
And so the people will decide. Sort of. We hope. Possibly. Something like that.
It's not long before my American neighbors get to choose between better and worse, or perhaps worse and worst. As to the lack of sterling choices, we've nobody to blame but ourselves, though in the meantime, I would ask my fellow Americans to watch closely the detail. There is a difference, and that difference is great. If we are merely people standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon, the gap seems significant. But if we presume ourselves gods among men, we won't necessarily notice it at all.
Remember the lesson: Behind the "politics" are clear signs of reality.
For it is from these signs that we learn the route to follow, and where to lead our neighbors.
There is a difference.
___________________
• MSNBC.com. Hardball with Chris Matthews. September 24, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090681/