HAPPY HOLIDAYS

HAPPY HOLIDAYS 

I am writing to wish one and all "Happy Holidays" for 2007. 

This will annoy the right wing to some immeasurable degree. Anyone who wishes "Happy Holidays" is apparently part of some grand scheme to subvert Christmas. This class of happy holiday wishers is either run by, or at the very least includes in large numbers, the following -- secularists, atheists, agnostics, the lapsed of any faith, and -- of course -- liberals. The appointed protectors of Christmas have a number of spokesmen and women, but chief among them appear to be Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Every year at about this time, the protectors can be counted on to man the barricades and warn of the latest assault on Christmas perpetrated under the banner of "Happy Holidays. " 

I always thought people wished each other "Happy Holidays" more or less to save words. It appears to me that the season is an incredibly busy and stressful one, with all the shopping, parties (planned and attended), decorating, cooking, etc. For those with young children, there are also the lists for Santa Claus and all the assuaging that has to be done as the kids wonder whether they have been naughty or nice; this sometimes extends to adults, who have a penchant for naughtiness. Invitations create a whole other source of potential stress -- who to invite to the party or the holiday (sorry, I meant "Christmas") dinner, who to exclude, how to explain you really didn't really mean to exclude the folks you really meant to exclude, etc. While all this is happening, the days are getting progressively shorter (and used to be getting progressively colder too), so the month is especially acute for the seasonally affected. Thus, I thought, what the hell (no doubt the beginning of my problem), if you say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" every time you greet people this time of year, the savings of four words per greeting starts to add up -- more breath as you run for the train or explain to the airline that your kid was supposed to be on that flight. 

But Sean and Rush and Ann will have none of this. My effort at efficiency is nothing but a well orchestrated attack on Christmas. I have perverted a sacred day, turned it into some sort of secular celebration of the winter solstice. With all of this "Happy Holiday" gibberish, I am giving Hanukkah and Kwanzaa equal billing, equating a high holy day with supposedly low ones, turning the sacred into the profane as I swim in a sort of unholy existential soup of my own making. (For some reason, I am also accused of taking the "Christ" out of "Christmas", but I find this charge a bit strange because I am never accused at the same time of taking the "Happy" out of "New Year", and I wonder if they are missing the full extent of my otherwise pernicious conduct.) 

I am now very nervous about this whole "Happy Holidays" thing. I am already on the outs with the higher ups in my religion -- the Pope, the Cardinals and the Bishops. This is because I do not believe that embryos are people, or that girls should only be nuns, or that Sunday Mass should be mandatory (either for me or some of the priests who say it), or that Cardinal Law is necessarily entitled to diplomatic immunity. I am also already on the outs with the Seans and Rushes and Ann C's. This is because I do not believe that all Republicans have good judgment, or that girls should not get equal pay, or that the Constitution is irrelevant, or that it doesn't matter that Gore got more votes in Florida in 2000. But now, in addition to all these transgressions, I have joined the list of apparently irreligious Happy Holidayers. 

I am a lawyer and this predicament requires a plea. So here it is -- Guilty . . .

With An Explanation. 

Actually, a few of them. 

First, I agree that the word saving thing is a bit of a stretch. But it is not off the charts. My children and their friends have invented a whole new form of communication where abbreviation is the norm. (R u showing 4 the pty. LOL.) At least "Happy Holidays" is intelligible, in English, and uses two words actually found in the dictionary. Rush and Sean and Ann maybe should thank me for not succumbing. I bet the abbreviators are going to start saying "Merry Xmas"; maybe they already have. How will Rush and Co. feel about that? Not good, I bet, with the abbreviators putting the "X" back in . . . well, you get the problem. I say, "Rush, Ann, Sean, maybe we are on the same side on this one." 

But we're not. 

Because I noticed that they really don't mean what they say. 

And this is the second explanation. 

I do not think the "Merry Christmas" protectors really want to protect "Merry Christmas." If they did, Jose Feliciano would be one of their patron saints. Jose is the singer and songwriter who gave us "Feliz Navidad," which is Spanish for "Merry Christmas." But I never see him on Hannity and Colmes, being grilled by Alan and fed softballs by Sean. And I bet he hasn't been mentioned in one of Ann's books or speeches (which, given the fact that he is blind, might have taken the edge off her gay bashing, or at least given MSNBC a reason to keep her on the air), or made an appearance with Rush (physically challenged in his own right, as we know, which explained all those prescription painkillers). What's up with that, I ask. Is "Merry Christmas" only sacred when it comes out in English? I guess so. Cause no one's ever accused me of taking Christ out of Feliz Navidad. 

This, unfortunately, creates enormous problems for the Merry Christmas maniacs. The Savior came to save the whole world, as we Christians believe, and English wasn't even around when he arrived. The Pope speaks German, or Italian (and sometimes Latin) when he is on the job. Jesus spoke Aramaic and St. Paul spoke Greek, so whatever they would have said to celebrate Himself's birthday, it wasn't "Merry Christmas." It wasn't even "Feliz Navidad." Oh, I know, it wasn't "Happy Holidays" either. But that just gets me to explanation # 4 or 3 (depending on how you are counting). 

Which is this -- if we are respecting original intent here, "Happy Holidays" has the better claim. Unfortunately for the protectors, historically speaking, the churches actually stole the "secular" celebration of the winter solstice; it wasn't the other way around. The First Christmas, which is afterall what we are celebrating, did not actually take place in December. The prelates put it there, and then seized the seasonal solstice festival that occurred at that time and made it their own. It was sort of a religious preemptive strike, and of course an act of marketing genius. The whole point of the winter solstice celebration is that we really need something to celebrate at exactly this time of year . . . and not just because Aunt Gertrude is off the Christmas list. Life for those pagan warriors was hard, and cold, and you couldn't sack Rome in the winter anyway. Life for us is hard too, and the Democrats apparently can't sack Bush in the winter either. So we celebrate the solstice. But call it Christmas. 

None of this, of course, really matters. The commercial interests took "Christ" out of Christmas long before the much hated secularists ever got Hallmark to craft a line of Happy Holiday cards. The protectors do not complain about this, mostly because those interests are also their sponsors. The politicians say they have not taken "Christ"out of Christmas, and they are very careful about when, where and to whom they utter "Happy Holidays" (lest they lose the talk radio base or show up in Rush's sites). But the Iowa caucuses occur on January 3, and the two day "no call to voters" rule in force on December 24 and 25 looks more like a Flanders Field cease fire in World War I than it does a celebration of those who believe God was made Man. 

What we are really forgetting about Christmas is not the greeting, it's the message. Jesus preached peace, love, generosity, and forgiveness; not war, hatred, the individual accumulation of wealth and the ability to hold a grudge. He wouldn't recognize the Christmas celebrated by Sean, Ann, Rush and the bevy of protectors screaming about sacrilege, nor the one celebrated by most of the rest of us either. He wouldn't be all that jazzed about the gifts, or the self-induced stress, or the baited breadth of prognosticators wondering whether retail will be up or down this season. He wouldn't be thinking about Presidential candidates or listening to talk shows. And He wouldn't care about whether seasonal greetings were correct or incorrect, politically or otherwise. 

We shouldn't either. 

But we do. 

So "Happy Holidays." 

Maybe some day we'll be worthy enough to say "Merry Christmas." 

But we're not there yet.

DRUGGED

DRUGGED 

Just when you thought it was safe to assume that the Democrats would not self destruct, the Democrats prove they are more than capable of doing so. 

The latest in their long list of invitations to implosion comes in the form of comments from Billy Shaheen. Unknown nationally, Billy is very much known in the state of New Hampshire, home to the first primary. He is the husband of former New Hampshire Governor (and current Senatorial candidate) Jeanne Shaheen, and also is the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in that state. Today, under the guise of discussing the issue of electability, Billy told the press (and us) that Barack Obama's admissions of past drug use will haunt him in a general election campaign. Shaheen stated that Obama had "opened the door" to further questions from the GOP hit squad. According to Billy, "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" This apparently worries Shaheen in spite of the GOP having assiduously guarded the past drug use of its own standard bearer from any disclosure whatsoever, full or otherwise. In 1999 and 2000, W effectively declared all talk of his rumored drug use out of bounds, inventing a political statute of limitations that precluded discussion of anything he did before he was 40 and sober. The GOP will now apparently ignore that precedent as it unloads on Barack. 

Maybe I am missing something here, but at this point, I am worried less about the GOP hit squad than I am about the Hillary Hit Squad. No one will believe, nor should they, that Billy Shaheen went to the podium today with anything other than a green light from Hillary and her campaign. Nor will anyone believe, and again they should not, that Billy's ostensible concern reflects anything other than the fact that Obama is now neck and neck with Clinton in the polls not just in Iowa but also in New Hampshire. This has desperation written all over it. 

It also has hypocrisy written all over it. In 1992, when Bill talked about not inhaling, no one in the Clinton camp thought admitted use invited questions about dealing that threatened his electability. Nor do they now. This is true for many reason. W's "I take the Fifth" on this is one reason. But there are others. Obama did not do anything millions of us have not done, and there's a good chance that among those millions are a number of current GOP candidates for President, Congress, and a whole host of other offices . Whatever the GOP asks about Barack will be asked about them. The Justice Department hires prosecutors who have to answer the "drug question". I was one of them, and I am betting that, if an honest "I tried it" answer to that question doesn't eliminate you from being an Assistant US Attorney, it won't derail Barack's presidential campaign. 

But it may derail Hillary's. Her selling point is experience, but her campaign of late is looking like the gang that can't shoot straight. First there was the whole "he wrote that he wanted to be President in kindergarten" brouhaha, a comical attempt to claim that Obama was somehow inappropriately ambitious whereas Hillary was not. Wholly apart from the notion that Hillary attacking someone for having more ambition is about as credible as Bush announcing he has seen the light on global warming, the claim was silly and more than a little bit crazy. It used to be a good thing to want to be President, and it still is a great thing when you can write out any sentence at the age of five, especially if you could do that 40 years ago when most of us couldn't. Now, however, an overly ambitious five year old (who could write) is being turned into a twenty something Harvard educated potential drug dealer (just asking, mind you) because he didn't equivocate on the de riguer "did you inhale" question. 

Sounds to me like the Clinton campaign better exhale . . . 

Fast!

MITT'S MUDDLE

MITT'S MUDDLE

Mitt Romney went to Texas yesterday to allay voters' concerns about his religion. John F. Kennedy went to Texas forty-seven years ago to do the same thing. Kennedy succeeded. Romney failed. 

Here's why. 

JFK's speech was a clarion call for separation between church and state. He did not equivocate or temporize, and he annoyed many in the Catholic hierarchy by not doing so. He said that he believed "in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." This absolute separation meant that "no church or church school" would be "granted any public funds or political preference." It meant that "no prelate" or "minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." It provided a standard against which the consistency of his own votes "against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools" could be measured, a standard which -- in his public life -- Kennedy clearly met. 

Now listen to Romney yesterday at Texas A&M. No absolutism there. He said "I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us . . . from God." On his conduct in public office, he proclaimed that he "tried to do the right as best" he knew it, and while offering that he had never "confuse[d] the particular teachings of [his]church with the obligations of [his] office," he also asserted that "in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong." He proudly proclaimed his belief that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind." Finally, invoking our constitutional beginnings, he claimed, "The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square." 

It is a speech JFK never would have given. In fact, it is a speech neither Lincoln nor the founders would have given either. It is also a bad speech. Not because it will not do what it was designed to do for his Presidential campaign, which is to allay the irrational fears evangelicals have of Mormons. And not because it also will not allay the fears of the dreaded "secularists," about whose fears Romney cares not a whit. Instead, it is a bad speech because it is false as a matter of history and dangerous as a matter of policy, matters of which Kennedy was clearly cognizant and Romney is not. 

The history of church - state separation has been bastardized of late, and that is no accident. The evangelicals are intent on re-writing it to agree with their own views. On this re-writing, the founders become religious devotees when in fact they were nearly all deists who rejected trinitarian doctrine, came of age (as Garry Wills points out in his recent book, Head and Heart) during a fairly secular period in American history when religion was descendant rather than ascendant (a reality which changed shortly after their passing and which had emerged only shortly after their births), and actually succeeded is implementing disestablishment, a by no means certain outcome in a world where, at the founding, the states had established churches which received tax funds. It also took awhile. Massachusetts, for example, home to Mitt and JFK, did not disestablish the Congregational Church until the 1830s. 

In truth, the founders were what Romney and today's religious right would call "secularists." So was Lincoln. They were all perfectly comfortable referring to God, and even contemplating the mystery of God (which Lincoln's Second Inaugural does in spades), but they never substituted an appeal to God's judgment (which is more or less unknowable, as a practical matter) for their own. In that, they followed the advice of the Jesuits who taught me in high school: "Pray as if everything depends on God, but act as if everything depends on you." So, as a practical matter, for Jefferson and Lincoln, God was "eliminated from" the "public square," or at least from that part of the public square which created laws and politics. 

Romney and the religious right will truck with none of this. It is apostasy. JFK expressly said that religion -- "what kind of church he believed in" -- should be important "only to [him]," and refused to discuss the subject. Romney -- perhaps intending to out-paster Paster Huckabee -- proclaimed (and remember, this was a campaign speech by a guy running for President) Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of Mankind. JFK's point was that no one should care about this. Romney's is that everyone must. Romney also repeated the shopworn bromides the religious right now trots out every time it discusses the subject. So, the former Governor of Massachuseets claims that we are a nation "Under God", even though the anti-communists of the '50s -- not the founders -- were the authors of these words. 

The "public square" is also a funny place in Mitt's world. A large chunk of the public appears not to be part of it (God must need a lot of room). Romney asserted that "Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs." And who, precisely, would that be? The dreaded secularists? Certainly. Pro-choice divorced Catholics like me? Who vote for Democrats? Gone. Perhaps not "removed" from the public square like the God we ostensibly refuse to invite to the party, but decidedly on the sidelines, like the boring kids in high school, just so . . . tiresome. Something of a blown dry hipster himself, Romney is a perfect incarnation of the populist religio-media age in which we now live. God is cool, with it, a ratings buster (for God's sake). Check out those Sunday morning televangelist broadcasts from "churches" larger than concert halls and louder than the Super Bowl at halftime, and then go ahead and try to talk yourself into the notion that more people are watching "Meet the Press." If you really think Tim is getting more action than the preachers, you must be among those belief-jettisoners with whom the hipsters have just grown tired. 

Kennedy attacked the then sacred cows of 1960 Catholic politics. Aid to parochial schools? He was against it. (This was not a popular position in middle and working class Boston, Chicago or New York, where thousands of kids like me were going to Catholic schools. ) An ambassador to and diplomatic status for the Vatican? He was against that too, to the consternation of many of my co-religionists. 

Mitt said he'd never take orders from the Mormon bishops, but he didn't name one policy favored by the religious right that he would oppose. How about President Bush's faith based inititatives, which funnel taxpayer money to religious groups engaged in ostensibly non-religious projects (like drug counseling), which are nothing but subsidies for religious organizations (the money they would have spent on counseling, now provided by the fed, can be re-directed to proselytizing)? Kennedy would never have been for this, or for the open electioneering which now goes on as religious leaders tell their followers how to vote. Romney was silent on both counts. And he has already flip-flopped on the mother of all quasi-religious issues, abortion. Formerly pro-choice, Romney is now avowedly pro-life. Kennedy's policies were opposed in many instances to his religious interests. Romney seems intent on demonstrating that his are compelled by those interests. 

In Texas forty seven years ago, on the subject of religion, Kennedy was principled, unyielding, and right. In Texas yesterday, on the same subject, Romney showed a lot of profile but not much courage. And he was wrong.

PERSIAN PASSION

PERSIAN PASSION

So, they do not have a nuclear weapons program after all.

What to make of the just released National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE" for the acronym-meisters) -- which states, with "high confidence", that Iran four years ago abandoned its plans to build a nuclear bomb and, with "moderate confidence," that the Iranian program remains "suspended" -- is the buzz in Washington (and elsewhere) today.

Here's my take.

I have "no confidence" that the Bush administration cares much about the new NIE. Upon its release, the Bushies engaged in their usual double talk and denial. The National Security Adviser said the NIE proves that the pressure of economic sanctions worked, which is odd, since the Iranian program ended in 2003, or before the sanctions were really ratcheted up. The Secretary of Defense said, in effect, so what, they (Iran) had one (a nuke weapons program) before and can start one again, especially given the program they now have in place for the development of nuclear energy. He neglected to note that the administration approves of the Iranian nuclear energy program -- bombs bother them but nuclear waste is just fine.

Not to be outdone, however, the President eclipsed his aides with the type of assessment of which only he is capable. He said "the NIE provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community . . . to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program"; he followed that up with the statement that the NIE means "nothing's changed."

Sometimes I think this guy is not living on the same planet as the rest of us. Unfortunately, however, he is the President and we already have a bomb (which he can launch), so we have to take him seriously, despite the ever present need this creates to engage in hand to hand combat with logic, the English language and empirical reality.

But enough about us. Really . . . what's up with this guy? And how dangerous is he? To begin, assuming the NIE is right, whatever it means we have to do, it cannot mean that we have to pressure Iran to suspend its nuclear weapons program. Because this, apparently, is what they already have done. If I were the Iranians, however, I'd be worried. Bush has a lot of trouble accepting "Yes " for an answer. No nukes! You'd think we won and Bush would graciously accept the victory. But "nothing's changed," according to W. This is crazy talk -- illogical, un-empirical, ill advised, and just plain stupid.

But it's also Bush's m.o. In the run up to the war in Iraq, as the weapons inspectors found no wmd and as the Iraquis issued their required report to the UN stating (quite accurately) that they then had no wmd, the President did not care. He said, in effect, that the Iraquis were lying (they weren't) and that he did not care what Hans Blix found (or did not find).

And he's doing it again. The NIE means "nothing's changed" because for him, it hasn't. We still must do today what we were doing yesterday, or pressure the Iranians to suspend their nuclear weapons program, even though there is no such program to suspend. Question: how precisely could Iran demonstrate future compliance with this latest demand? Answer: it can't, any more than Iraq could demonstrate compliance with the UN wmd mandates in late 2002 and early 2003. At least not to this guy.

Joe Biden recently said that if Bush bombs or goes to war against Iran, he (Biden) would move for impeachment. If I were Biden, I'd get the resolution ready. Because, "nothing's changed."

BACK TO THE FUTURE

BACK TO THE FUTURE

The French have a saying, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose -- the more things change, the more they remain the same. Presidential politics has that character these days, with a vengeance.

Bill Clinton said yesterday that he opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning." I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word "beginning" is. The New York Times said the statement "was more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003," and President Clinton's aides characterized his Delphic utterances from that period -- namely, that he would have given the weapons inspectors more time -- as the sort of modified limited hang out an ex-President owes a sitting President. It turns out, of course, that his opposition was very modified and very limited, because at the same time, the former President also spoke approvingly of the Senate's 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. This is the resolution Senator Clinton voted for, which the Republicans will wrap her in come the Fall of 2008 if she is the Democratic nominee.

The scary part of Bill Clinton is that he can offer these kind of John Kerry-ish "I was for it before I was against it" encomiums without sounding nuts, which unfortunately (for the country) is how Kerry sounded when he tried it. Some people hate this about Bill Clinton (Sen. Bob Kerrey once said that Clinton was "very good" at lying, which wasn't a compliment). Others think it is a sign of genius (F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that "The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function"). Bill Clinton is, shall we say, very functional.

Functionality aside, however, this sort of stuff stokes the fires of Clinton fatigue that are, at this point, only a few Santa Ana winds from blowing out of control. The problem is that, by January 2001, the country was tired of Clinton, his great economy, general state of peace and hands on governing style to the contrary notwithstanding. We have now totally forgotten that sense of ennui because, today, we are really tired of Bush, the only guy capable of reminding us how much we miss Clinton. But we miss the economy and our place in the world during Clinton's eight years. We miss his competence. We do not miss his tortured efforts to conjugate the verb "is". And unfortunately, this "from the beginning" remark on Iraq reminds us more of the latter than the former.

I am writing this post before the Republican You Tube debate tonight and will venture a hardly bold prediction. They will give Hillary Clinton a lot of "face" time in their debate. They have been doing this in all their debates so this hardly counts as an insight. But the point is that they are doing this not merely because they oppose her, which is not news, but rather (and mostly) because they all really want to run against her, which is news. Politicians stuck in the volatile world that is the GOP Presidential primary campaign do not typically hype the opposition's potential standard bearer to the degree Hillary has been and will be mentioned. Usually, they are trying to increase their own numbers and nail down their own nomination before taking on the other side. Not this time, however. Despite the fact that none of them can really be called the front runner at this point (pace the national polls which boost, slightly, the former Mayor), Rudy and Mitt and Huckabee and McCain and Thompson collectively can't get enough of Senator Clinton. The question is: Why?

The answer is: Clinton fatigue. They want her back. They want them back. The disquisitions on present tense, the health care debacle, the '94 rout, Monica, the pardons, the whole thing, which for them carries with it the potential for (1) reminding Americans how tired we were by the time we got to January 20, 2001, and (2) forgetting how angry we are today. By any reasonable standard, the period 1992 - 2000 was a reasonably good one for the average American (who, after twenty years of stasis, finally saw his wages rise at least a bit) and a great one for the better off. But not the way the GOP tells it now (in fact, Rudy recently gave a speech warning of a return to the 1990s, a proposition he treated -- without explanation -- as the Q.E.D. on why Hillary should not be President), and not the way they positioned it then either (Monica, the pardons, and on and on). Similarly, by any reasonable standard, we are collectively in much worse shape today (the Bush administration long ago abandoned trickle down -- in favor of gush up --as an economic policy, and on the war, the Bushies have given the super majority which opposes it nothing but a three fingered salute). But that's not the way they tell that part of the story either.

Now, here, they have a big problem. Because, on the current state of the union, they really have no story to tell, at least not one that can put lipstick on the pig they have created. So they have decided not to bother. Instead, here's their answer to today's sad state of affairs -- the Clintons. You got it. They can't defend the economy, or the war, or the Court, at least not to the 70% who are not part of their base. So they do not plan to. Instead, they plan to remind us of -- and win based on -- . . . Clinton fatigue.

Here's my counter to their strategy. Let's borrow from F. Scott Fitzgerald. Let's get a little "functional." We were tired of Bill and Hil on January 20, 2001. We were also a lot better off with him (or them) in charge. I recently wrote a politically despondent friend in Atlanta that any Democrat with a chance at the nomination will be better than any Republican similarly situated. I love Obama. He'd be a good President, much better than anything the other side now has on offer. So would Edwards, or Biden or Dodd or Richardson or Kucinich (who my son loves).

And so would Hillary. Even if what's his name is still conjugating verbs.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

The Dow is down. . .a lot. We are still in Iraq notwithstanding an election a year ago that made it pretty clear 70% of us do not want to be. Lawyers are being arrested in Pakistan while Taliban are being set free. The home run king has been indicted. Global warming proceeds apace as the US bides its (and the world's) time, which we now know is rapidly running out. Broadway is black, as effectively are Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, SNL and a whole host of other shows (OK, this very last reality -- namely, the other shows -- may not be so bad). And the only Republican making any sense is the libertarian, Ron Paul.

So what precisely are we thankful for this Thanksgiving?

Those of spiritual bent, myself included, thank God for the bounty, fortune, and sheer good luck which many of us enjoy. To that should be added thanks for our friends, family and good health. But let's be honest here. After the usual suspects, the candidate list for thanks this year is a little thin. Absent the annual turkey whose life he just saved, very few outside his family and the GOP base are thanking W for his performance this year; I bet Cheney has even lost some members of his family. And Rudy never had a lot of his family to begin with, so he doesn't make the cut. The Dems are not getting thanks because they have not done what we elected them to do. Their only excuse -- the GOP minority threat of filibuster -- shows you cannot even be thankful for our system of government. After all, 60 votes are needed in the Senate to do anything, making majority rule somewhat beside the point (and therefore perhaps not worthy of the thanks we give it. . . or the Founding Fathers). As a lawyer, I would always like to be able to at least thank the Supreme Court. But they entered a semi-permanent realm of no thank you after Bush v. Gore. Perhaps one day they will be entitled to forgiveness. . .but never thanks.

I thank my wife. . .for marrying me and for being a great stepmother. But that's not unique in any way to 2007, and I thanked her last year as well. There's of course no harm in repeating the thanks. But the holiday is an annual one, so I think good form at least requires some additions to the list that constitute a basis for thanks au courant as it were. For the same reason, thanking my parents and sister is fine but doesn't really save 2007. Ditto, my children, although my soon not to be teenage son is back among the living (after a very short, but typical, adolescence). So I thank him (and Colorado College, which seems to have been more responsible for this certainly than me) for that. And I thank his friend Max, who is one of the inspirations for my blogging (though others may not thank Max, for the same reason).

I thank my dog, who is cute and always friendly (albeit blind). But not my cat, who is often mean and wakes me up at 6 am every day in ways that I do not find amusing. I thank my mother-in-law (obviously for my wife, but also for refusing to allow me to do the cleaning and for the cookies she sneaks into the house). I even thank my erstwhile right wing (he says he is now an "Independent") radio talk show host cousin, who has me on his show from time to time, to the consternation of the right wing.

OK, I admit it. I do have reasons to celebrate this holiday. And can now eat turkey, mashed potatoes and apple pie in abundance, having given due thanks.

But c'mon people. Let's improve the list for 2008. My cat is not going to get any better.

PSYCH-OPS

PSYCH-OPS

The Repubican Party in my lifetime has routinely touted itself as tougher and more competent than its Democratic competitor in matters of foreign policy. From the (false) claim that President Reagan won the Cold War via his military build-up and unwillingness to compromise on Star Wars (false because the build-up began in his predecessor's administration and was only marginally increased in his own, because Star Wars was ignored by the Soviets once Gorbachev was convinced that it was chimerical, and because the Cold War ended only after Reagan reversed his years of neo-con rhetoric to sign back on to the bipartisan policy of arms reduction that untimately allowed Gorbachev to sell internal reform to his own generals), to the beating Dukakis took over that goofy Alfred E Newman picture of him in the tank, the drumbeat of criticism that Clinton was weak on terrorism (when in fact he did more and came closer to beating our adversaries than the current administration), and the manic refrain of the current set of GOP candidates that they can be counted on to stay in Iraq and/or bomb the Persians into a no-nuke Iran, the party of Lincoln in its decidedly post-Lincoln phase has never ceased to remind voters of its claimed toughness.  

Unfortunately, however, in the war on terror, this testosterone politics is not only shallow, it is positively dangerous. At the outset, certain facts cannot be disputed. They are these. Neither Iran (with an economy roughly the size of Connecticut), Al Qaeda (a remnant in Afghanistan and a marketing arm with some IEDs in Iraq), Syria (with an economy smaller than Iran's), Hamas and Hezbollah (political operations with guns) or the leftover Afghani Taliban (now holed up in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan) can beat the United States militarily, economically, culturally or politically. In fact, the war on terror against these various "enemies" is not really lose-able, at least not in the sense that our enemies have any realistic chance of winning as a consequence of their own initiative. They simply do not have the military or financial wherewithal to mount an effective campaign, nor can they obtain effective power (i.e., durable control) in any particular region of the world. The ease with which the Afghani Taliban was routed demonstrated as much, as does the inability of groups like Hamas or Hezbollah to actually govern the areas where their writ (legal or de facto) runs. Thus, wherever they rule or even pretend to effective power, the hold exercised by these groups is unsteady at best and often transitory, roughly the equivalent of a gang's ability to "control" an extended urban neighborhood in America. So, in fact, they can't beat us. (Repeat that to yourself every time you hear someone mention the war on terror as the consuming generational struggle of our time; it'll make going to work, taking out the garbage, and sundry other mundanae tasks seem much less dangerous than they might otherwise appear.) 

The Administration accepts this "they can't beat us" reality, but responds by claiming "we can beat ourselves". And the Administration is right. But not for the reasons it thinks. And therein hangs the tale. 

The terrorists know they cannot beat us militarily, but they do believe they can win a psychiological war. And in that effort, they have a not so secret weapon. That weapon is fear, and at this point its best delivery system is Rudy Guiliani. In his campaign for the Presidency, as Joe Biden has aptly noted, Guiliani's sentences contain three things -- a noun, a verb, and the word "9/11". Under his watch, we will (1) be in Iraq until whenever, (2) go to war with and/or inititate a non-stop bombing campaign against Iran, (3) forever troll the domestic and international communications networks without warrants, (4) continue to illegally hold detainees at Guantanamo, and (5) torture those we think have information while denying we do so with double-talk. Indeed, though a lawyer by training and well publicized professional experience, Guiliani (along with his cohorts, with the notable, courageous, and useful exception of Sen. McCain, who happens to be the only Presidential candidate in either party who actually has been tortured) has baldly pretended that he cannot categorically preclude waterboarding because he does not know the specific circumstances in which it has been or will be used or the precise details of the actual technique. As the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, prosecutor Guiliani routinely laughed at defendants who made similar claims about the nature of racketeering in an effort to avoid prosecution. As a candidate, it is now the height of mendacity that he recurs to such falsehoods in his non-stop effort to sound tough. (Memo to Rudy: waterboarding has been illegal for decades, much like loansharking, murder, theft and a host of other crimes that you regularly prosecuted during your stints at the Justice Department and in New York.) 

Only the terrorists are cheering (and the 30% who still think W is a good President, but for a different reason). The terrorists know that a President Guiliani will replace FDR's famous nostrum -- "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" -- with the reality that "our only policy is fear itself". And they also know that the consequences will be precisely those Franklin Roosevelt warned against -- an irrational hatred that saps our energy for any productive enterprise, a series of mindless but expensive and largely ineffective escalations against third rate nuisances, the alienation of our friends, and a pyschological xenophobia that walls off the larger world as it locates recurrent threats of 9/11 in anyone who disagrees. 

FDR and Harry Truman taught us that it is entirely possbile to fight an enemy without becoming the enemy or sacrificing the freedoms that make America what it is. FDR did it in World War II and Truman gave us the game plan of containment that led to the successful conclusion of the Cold War (and the demise of Communism) decades later. All this, moreoever, was done without repealing the bill of rights; in fact, it was done while the nation began to redeem its promise of equal rights to minorities and women, and while it educated a new class of ex-GIs who themselves gave a fuller meaning to Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness" as they created a large, vital and vibrant middle class. Guiliani is a child of that progress. Shame on him for not respecting the values that made it possible, even (indeed especially) in the face of the the then global threats that made it by no means certain. 

The terrorists do not have to launch a nuke or deploy a chemical or biological weapon to win their war. They just have to root for Guiliani. And my bet is that this is what they are doing.

TEXAS TEA AND TEHERAN

TEXAS TEA AND TEHERAN 

Finally, we now have a credible reason why the Bush administration will not start a war in Iran. 

Not because the administration believes in diplomacy, let alone can practice it effectively. Not because there is no factually identified casus belli, despite the administration's repeated claims that Iran is attacking US troops in Iraq. Not because Iran has stopped aiding Iraqui Shiites. And not because Iran's faith based and fact denying President without portfolio, Ahmadinejad, a somewhat rhetorical mirror image of our own faith based and fact denying chief executive, has started to make any sense. 

No, the reason Bush will not go to war with Iran is that oil experts are now predicting the price of oil will skyrocket if such an attack is launched. 

A president so committed to freedom and democracy, as Bush claims he is, would, of course, not be deterred by such proletarian concerns. Afterall, if freedom is not America's gift to the world but rather God's gift to humanity, as Bush claimed in one of his first term State of the Union speeches, the devil's gold of oil (or, as Jed Clampett called it, "Texas tea") could hardly constitute a sound basis for stopping freedom's march at the Persian border. 

But, as Mr. Dooley either said or should have said, with this administration, things get "curiouser and curiouser." 

 Despite his pretended support for the troops, Bush is the first president in American history to actually send American forces into combat without all the tools they needed for success. Check the record. When has any American commander in chief fired (that's what it was) generals who told him they needed more troops to succeed. Even LBJ and Nixon put 500,000 soldiers on the ground in Vietnam. And there were drafts for the Korean War, World Wars II and I, and the Civil War. 

Similarly, despite his constant refrain that he intends to follow the advice of his generals, Bush certainly makes certain that the advice will never go where he is loathe to venture. America's premier expert in counter-insurgency warfare is General Petreas. Having studied the Vietnam war thoroughly, and armed with his advance degrees, Petreas wrote the book on counter-insurgency. Bush should read it. If he did, he'd know that a successful counter-insurgency takes at least a decade to succeed (and often longer), and requires a force to citizen ratio far higher than the one we have in place in Iraq, surge or no surge. 

Petreas hasn't told us this because the administration has not asked him, and because he knows that the only way he can preserve his own credibility is by radically narrowing the questions on Iraq that he is willing to answer. Notice that General Petraes has never told us that we actually will win in Iraq or that the surge will do it. Either statement would be refuted by his own writing. 

Which brings us back to oil. 

Facts, as the above makes clear, have never stopped the Bushies from mindlessly plunging ahead. So why should this one? 

For three reasons, actually. 

First, although Bush is not running again, the rest of the GOP is. For them, Iraq is an electoral ball and chain, and they do not need another. The economy at present is a jump ball, with high tech staving off the recession that the sub-prime induced credit crunch would otherwise invite. It won't take much to cross that line, and with oil at 90 plus bucks a barrel, another round of oil inflation would probably push us into the recession we are for now avoiding. A mismanaged war combined with a tanking economy is not a record that any Rove-like magician could spin the GOP's way out of. 

Second, Rudy and the rest of the GOP presidential candidates do not really need a war with Iran; they just need a rhetorical battering ram to ceaselessly hammer and appear tough (now that Saddam is gone and the Chinese have cabined North Korea). This lesson was made crystal clear during the the cold war. Part of the reason both Reagan and Bush I could regularly play the national security card was that war with the Soviet Union during their tenure was so entirely remote, unlike, for example, during the Berlin crisis of the late '40s and or the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, where the real possbility of war was met with far less bellicose rhetoric and far more diplomatic effort -- remember, JFK secretly traded the Soviet missiles in Cuba for ours in Turkey, in stark contrast to his present successor's refusal to even speak to our adversaries. It's easy to talk tough when you do not need to act tough, and right now, the Republicans are far more interested in tough talk because they are betting this is the best way to avert electoral disaster. So, avoiding an oil spiked recession fits very neatly into the rhetorical war on terrorism the GOP thinks it can use to win elections. 

Finally, right now, the electorate hates Congress as much as it hates the White House, and the administration is not going to do anything to change that perception. Imagine the demand for a windfall profits tax -- and the price gouging investigations -- if oil climbs to over $100 a barrel as the administration tries to slay the would be Iranian dragon between now and election day, 2008. Nancy Pelosi will look like an avenging angel as her erstwhile San Francisco liberalism dissolves as a voting issue. The Democrats will add thirty seats to their House majority, as well as a veto proof (or close to veto proof) Senate. No more filibusters when President Clinton (or Obama or Edwards) proposes a timetable for an exit from Iraq or (what is worse for the right wing) puts two new Justices on the Supreme Court. 

This oil story so constrains the administration and its neocons that they are probably wishing they had long ago followed the advice of the Gore-acle. 

Think how many more options they'd have if we were truly energy independent. 

So keep on driving America. 

It's what stands between you and Thanksgiving in Teheran.