American Realistan

The Times of London published a rather astonishing story the other day. It seems that Israel appointed a Muslim, veteran Labour Party member Ghaleb Majadleh, as a minister without portfolio in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s shaky coalition. There was, of course, the customary tired objections and denunciations from the usual Israeli suspects, but the precedent has been established. As the Arab community constitutes 20 per cent of the population in Israel, the appointment of Mr Majadleh is historic, and might eventually lead to an easing of the tensions between Israeli Jews and non-Jews as they enter the government.

One has to wonder if the flap over Muslims entering American government hasn’t reached the point where, because the precedent has now been established, the dinosaurs of American politics will have find something else to rant about besides the real or imaginary religious affiliations of the duly-elected representatives of We, the People.

As one of my faithful regular readers VS-) put it:

What’s there to brag about in the “Obama Madrassa” non-story? Well, not the story itself–with CNN and Nightline pretty thoroughly debunking the Insight Rag story, there is not much to add on that particular subject.

Sure, the Muslim “parents” (father and step-father) and the school in Indonesia were an easy target that I spotted early, as Obama-for-President stories began to boil over a few weeks ago. (I also spotted the “not-Black-enough” angle that I still believe will be picked up by the Right wing media.)

But there is not much noteworthy in the story itself–some conservative rag and Fox News create a tempest in a teapot, making things up, then get slammed for the slime job. Who cares! That’s not news!

And just what is news? Read on:

(more…)

According to an AP-AOL News poll, two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and only 44% think that George W. Bush is an honest man. Worse yet for George, 83 percent of Americans polled think he is stubborn, too resistant to changing his ways.

Is this why the expectation that after the State of the Union address, the Congress - including Republicans - will remain skeptical that Bush is serious about making his administration “accountable” for the events of Iraq? A Washington Post poll seems to suggest that to be the case, with the doubt on Capitol Hill reflecting the view of more than half of the public who are “strongly disapproving” of the job Bush is doing.

(more…)

The Republican dream world of Washington DC is about to celebrate the service of its lapdog White House Correspondents’ Association membership with an event hosted by impressionist Rich Little, believing that last year’s host, comedian Stephen Colbert, went too far roasting the president. Is the rough, tough White House press corps exuberantly drinking the disbelief suspension flavored with a sprinkling of Red State kool-aid? Or, is there another explanation? (more…)

I have been an opponent up to now to the idea that George W. Bush should face impeachment, but not for the reasons one might think. I happen to believe he and his administration deserve impeachment. But for impeachment to be a viable option, one has to have clear evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors in order for such an effort to be successful. It would take clear evidence to get Republicans off their positions of blind support for a man who is attempting to destroy America in order to save it from competition from other nations.

I’m old enough to remember Watergate. I remember how long it took to accumulate enough evidence of Richard Nixon’s violations of the Constitution so that even his most loyal defenders could no longer ignore them. I remember reading the Chicago Tribune editorial which convinced Nixon that he had lost his battle to retain power. It took well over a year, and when that time came, there was no doubt that Nixon would have been impeached - and convicted. At least Nixon chose to submit to the inevitable and resign.

We are in that phase today concerning the many crimes of George W. Bush. All one has to do is look at how he attempts to rule as if he were all three Constitutionally-defined branches of the government rolled into one.

(more…)

Now that the Democrats have achieved control of the Congress, one has to be concerned that the Democrats will not live up to the voters’ expectations. Some of the comments made by prominent Democrats since the elction do leave one cause for pause, especially on the hot-button topics of Iraq and a Bush impeachment. But the one that caused the most heartburn was the promise of bipartisanship:

Democrats start off on a divisive foot
Star Tribune Letter of the day
by GORDY SCHMIDT, LORETTO, MN
Published: January 09, 2007

The Democrats — who, along with the media, were responsible for the uncivil conditions in Washington the last five years — promised during the last campaign that they would create a new civility in Congress. Yet Republicans are practically shut out of the first 100 hours.

If it had been President Bush,
we would have heard outrage from every corner
of the Democratic media machine.

As it turns out, Mr. Schmidt, according to Gallup, Americans want Democrats, not Bush, at helm. But be forewarned. This public favoratism could be the heady power liqueur that turns the Democratic head away from a principled stance toward one of personal opportunism as practiced by the Republicans.

(more…)