Author: howieinseattle

Pink tries it her own way: “Dear Mr. President.” (video).

Katherine van Wormer takes on the problem from a different angle:

One of the rituals well known to the addiction treatment world is the formal Intervention. The classic Intervention starts with meetings of concerned significant others that are called during a time of crisis. The result is a confrontation of the individual in trouble and an ultimatum of some sort for a drastic change in course (the most famous examples are Interventions of Betty Ford and Elizabeth Taylor for pill use and drinking.)

The long-anticipated report of the Iraq Study Group has been likened in some media reports to the classic treatment Intervention provided to drug users and alcoholics who have “hit bottom.” Seething in its criticism, the report (Intervention) made a number of take-it- or-leave-it recommendations. “This is not like fruit salad,” the head facilitator later explained; the recommendations must be followed as a whole. Characteristic of a person with an addictive mentality, the president responded in a state of denial as do the “enablers” around him. His supporters are getting fewer and fewer, however. And even his father recently broke into tears. We will return to that later.

The addictive mentality I am talking about is a cognitive impairment that is associated with alcohol-drug use, and may have preceded or followed the addictive behavior. George W. Bush, over his lifetime, has gone from one extreme-extensive and long-term binge drinking and at least some cocaine use-to another-affiliation with religious fundamentalism and authoritarian belief systems that cannot be explained by his religious upbringing. From an elitist background, the junior Bush was able to build a political base from a cultural group that was arguably alien from his own. (See What’s the Matter with Kansas?)

For an understanding of this phenomenon of how the drinking and drug use affects patterns of thinking, we need to look at brain research. The most recent brain research, now revolutionized by technological advances in brain imaging, confirms what members of A.A. have known for years, labeled by them, the dry drunk phenomenon. Rigidity, poor impulse control, grandiosity, and all-or-nothing or black and white thinking are the classic characteristics. (See “the dry drunk syndrome” on google.) We now know that once the heavy drinking and/or other drug use stops, a certain amount of cognitive impairment may persist. We also know, however, that the brain can actually be “rewired” through cognitive work.

“You’ve got to work at it.” This is a commonly heard saying of George W. Bush. One thing he has not worked at, however, is what is sometimes called in alcoholism treatment parlance, “the second recovery.” Treatment centers specialize in cognitive work, as does A.A., in effect, aiding persons in recovery to replace irrational, grandiose, and self-centered thoughts, with healthier and more moderate ways of thinking.

The kind of intervention that our president needed was a personal intervention, one aimed at the reasons that Bush fool heartedly and dishonestly (pushing for false intelligence assessments of the international situation) led the nation in a fantasy mission that was doomed to failure against “evildoers” in the Middle East. As I described as early as 2002 and as psychiatrist Justin Frank later, in Bush on the Couch, also concluded, to understand the motives behind the ill-fated invasion of Iraq, we have to consider Bush’s role in his family, the unique psychological dynamics. As any Bush biography makes clear, the younger Bush was not only named for his father, but he was somehow destined to follow in his father’s footsteps most of his life- at Andover, Yale, as a military pilot, in the oil business-only to fail at each juncture until he would enter politics and as commander- in-chief be able to stride triumphant in 2004 and declare “mission accomplished” on the carrier flight deck. Then he would have proven himself to his father and to the world.

In December, 2006, the elder Bush’s tears shed at the tribute to his son, Governor Jeb Bush, told it all. “The true measure of a man is how you handle victory, and also defeat”-these were his exact words uttered at the moment that he got too choked up to continue. Though his loss of control was later claimed to be related to his younger son’s (Jeb’s), earlier defeat in a governor’s race in 1994, it seems far more likely that his tears were shed over the disgraced presidency of his elder son and in recognition for the significance of this debacle for the entire Bush dynasty.

In the future, it will be left to psychologists and historians to ponder the real reason for George W. Bush’s selection as members of his team, the very men like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Rove, who, strikingly, had served under his father. Even Rumsfeld also had a historic relationship with Bush, Sr., albeit a problematic one. Above all, the challenge to psychologists and historians will be to ponder the real reason why the younger Bush was driven to an unnecessary and unbelievably costly war “mission impossible.” The Iraq Study Group, which, interestingly, was headed by Bush Sr.’s former secretary of state, James Baker, was summoned in desperation to find a way out of a disastrous course, failed to tackle causality, which, in the final analysis is the most significant issue of all.

Howie opinion: The only practical intervention at this point for this patient must rely on the legal and political system, not the treatment model or a tragically beautiful song.

…whether or not you live in WA-8.

Not just because Al Gore and Barack Obama are campaigning here with Darcy Burner this week.

Not just because she is “Netroots Endorsed” and is considered one of the best chances Democrats have to pick up another seat in order to become the majority in the House.

Not just because the Northwest Netroots have supported and rallied behind Darcy.

Here’s what Jim Dean, Howard’s bro who is now in charge at Democracy for America (DFA), the national grassroots organization with chapters in 49 states and a mailing list with 500,000 supporters, had to say last night in Seattle:

“We’re blessed to have people like Darcy Burner.” Why?? Because DFA “brings new people in” and supports and develops new leaders like Darcy who will “move up the political food chain” and become our progressive leaders in the future. Without the next generation of candidates like Darcy Burner, we cannot change the political course of our country. DFA has brought in one of their staffers, Charles Chamberlain, to work in WA-8 until November 7th.

Darcy Burner is our future.

We can’t succeed if she, and many more new candidates like her, can’t succeed.

No offense to Goldy, Atrios, Matt Stoller and David Postman, but after their Saturday night gig at Seattle’s Town Hall on media and politics, I find myself thinking mostly about Janeane Garofalo’s comments there. She’s an actress, or performing artist if you prefer, and she made the point that in the corporate media it is always easy to discredit such folks as her, since they aren’t official pundits and journalists.

Nevertheless, Janeane’s observations about language and how we need to be mindful of how we think and talk about politics hit home. The metaphor of counterfeit money and language goes like this. If everybody accepts the fake money (fake language and lies) it can be spent (used) just like real money (the truth). She said a lot more, but I am not smart enough to have written it all down and/or remembered it. So I will have to continue to stalk her when she next shows up around here.

In the meantime, here’s a short list of liars who peddle counterfeit language in the corporate media that were singled out for disdain tonight:

Cokie Roberts
Tim Russert
Thom Friedman
Chris Matthews

“Good night and good luck!”

Update [2006-9-19 0:12:15 by howieinseattle]: Fortune’s Washington bureau chief writes about “Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull politician” and tells us how he is working hard to beat the Rethugs at their own game. “Democrats’ Spending Gives Edge to GOP” in the LA Times covers some of the same territory but gives credit to Howard Dean for delivering “more resources toward building the party at the state level than any other DNC chairman.” Meanwhile, Al Gore calls

for the “elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes, principally on CO2.”
But Gore said it’s up to the American people to demand action.

“When the politicians are paralyzed in the face of a great threat,” he explained, “our nation needs a popular movement, a rallying cry, a standard, a mandate that is broadly supported on a bipartisan basis.”

The former Presidential candidate plans to spend the next year campaigning for the cause.

As David Sirota reminds us, some House Democrats are “bragging about how they are shaking down Big Money interests for cash.” And while I agree with Matt Stoller that “it’s time the blogosphere begin to focus on organizing problems instead of just our obsession with message,” too many people still see no difference in the two political parties when it comes to the corrupting influence of Big Money.

Stoller is also upset about a certain House Democrat in the leadership who is “pandering to Wall Street.”

Evans-Novak Political Report:

The Democrats’ chances at the House are very real right now. Republicans are hobbled by the fact that they have so many shaky seats to defend and so few that they can legitimately target. If they are to tighten the gap — and a USA Today poll released Tuesday indicates that they may now be doing so on the generic ballot — they must give voters a reason to come to the polls for them. They will probably lose any election that merely pits them as the status quo against Democrats who could be even worse — who could, for example, impeach President Bush. Republicans must also offer something positive to voters, but their lack of legislative accomplishments in this Congress makes it difficult.

The big X-factor is the Republicans’ vaunted micro-targeting turnout program, which is light-years ahead of anything the almost non-existent Democratic National Committee will be able to put together this year. The GOP turnout program produced a minor miracle in 2004, as new Republican voters showed up in droves. How many of those new voters will show up again this year? Republicans are honing the 2004 model and will experiment with new methods, as they typically do in off-year elections. Given the historically low turnout in mid-terms, how much this could soften the blow of 2006 is unknown.

I received this email today from MoveOn.org and they are now embracing micro-targeting as well:

The techniques we’re hoping to use to boost our impact—”microtargeting” and “banking” votes—aren’t something we can do half way. So we’re only going to accept these donations if people pledge the remaining $72,060. Think of it this way—every dollar contributed today to put us over the top will unleash almost $5 in money that’s already been pledged.

We don’t have the high-dollar corporate donors Republicans rely on to afford these voter turnout techniques. But we are 3 million people strong, and we’re ready for a change.
(snip)
Microtargeting:
Republicans use “microtargeting” to find and communicate with all their supporters.
Without microtargeting, most campaigns simply target voters in supportive neighborhoods, and those who live elsewhere get skipped.
Microtargeting uses sophisticated statistics to find supporters wherever they live.
Microtargeting can more than double the number of voters you talk to!

Do you think micro-targeting is as hot as these two opposing strategists do?

At the end of Seattle’s Drinking Liberally gathering each week, David Goldstein of horsesass.org moderates a podcast with local bloggers, elected officials and activists. This last week, in David’s vacation absence, Lynn Allen from Evergreen Politics gathered together a gang of political and social activists from the Vietnam War era who are still active locally. We talked about activism then and now and how activism gets transmitted across the generations. Joining Lynn were Don Hopps of The Institute for Washington’s Future, Alice Woldt of the Washington Association of Churches, Michael Hood of the blog, blatherWatch, and me. We discussed the demise of political parties, the impact of right-wing consolidation of the media, the impact of the blogs and much more. You can hear it here.

My brother and his nine year old son flew in from eastern Canada last night and our two families are heading out today to the Olympic Peninsula for four days of hikes and campfires. Before I take off, I have to do some last minute grocery-shopping. I also have to clean out some thoughts that are kicking around in my head about the need for progressive Democrats to get our fellow citizens fired up and engaged in the political process as we approach the fall elections.

One of the points that was made in the podcast is that people have a hard time believing that they can make a difference by “doing politics.” Sadly, this feeling even extends to the act of voting. In Washington state in 2004 we witnessed an election where Democrats came together and achieved a victory in the governor’s race with the help of recounts and the judicial system. The effort was partially financed by Howard Dean’s leadership as well as John Kerry’s campaign and many progressives who got involved via Air America. Our opponents attempted to discredit this effort, but failed. I am told that should the initial results this fall return either or both houses of Congress to the Democrats, our opponents will attempt to overturn any victories with charges of voting “irregularities” and once again seek to discredit the political process and manipulate the system, as they did so successfully in Florida and elsewhere in 2000 and 2004. We need to be prepared to win, again.

Here are bunch of videos from the Lamont netroots, via YouTube.

Update [2006-7-4 9:22:25 by howieinseattle]: “…sources say that Hillary Clinton believes that it’s important to respect the will of Connecticut voters and that she will commit to support the Democratic candidate — whoever that is — in November. It should be interesting to watch and see if others follow suit.”-from Crooks and Liars, quoting Jane Hamsher.

With Lieberman fading and threatening to divide the votes of those opposing the Republican candidate for U. S. Senate in Connecticut, we need Ned to do really well (not just “win” the primary) and send Joe way out to pasture, as soon as possible. Not just because we need this seat to be occupied by a Democrat, but also to send a message about who our candidate for president should be in 2008.
 

“Senator’s Plan B Puts Democrats in a Bind,” from the NY Times:

Leaders of the national Democratic Party, like Mr. Dean, the chairman, and Charles S. Schumer, who is leading the effort to regain control of the Senate, may have to choose between Mr. Lieberman and an antiwar Democrat in the fall, when they had hoped to make Iraq squarely the president’s problem.

“Lieberman fights for political life,” from the BBC:

What has turned this local political tussle into a contest of national significance, is the fact that Mr Lamont has become a standard-bearer for activists who believe the Democratic leadership lacks any coherence over Iraq. (snip)

When Howard Dean was running for the presidency two years ago, the mainstream media leapt at the net-roots’ activism that it spawned, before helping to bury the candidate, after the celebrated “Dean scream” in Iowa.

A Connecticut primary is a far more manageable field, and after attending a Lamont rally in a trendy New York bar, it is clear that hundreds of liberals from out-of-state will be donating both money and time to the cause, over the coming weeks.

“Lieberman To Go Indie? And Why Hillary Should Care,” from The Nation:

This primary race is–or should be–important to her and other Democrats because it shows how the war can split the party. And that could become the dominant theme of the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. If the war in Iraq remains a mess a year-and-a-half from now, the Democratic presidential primary will be all about what to do in Iraq. Many Democratic primary voters will be looking for an antiwar, pro-withdrawal candidate (Senator Russ Feingold?) and reluctant to vote for any candidate who has supported the war and stood by it (as has Hillary Clinton). Clinton will certainly have the deepest pockets of any of the candidates–and money usually beats all else (though that didn’t work for Howard Dean in 2004). But if Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of the war (as far as most Democratic primary voters are concerned), the race will be a bitter and divisive one.

Helen Thomas asks

Are the Democrats going to be such easy prey again, neutralized by phony wedge issues and neglectful of the real issue, which is the administration’s flagrant use of falsehoods to justify a war of choice?

Ed Walker responds

Rove and Helen share more of a perspective than I thought they would. He understands her points completely. Today, the roll-up of what appears to be a hapless group who could not afford shoes, camera memory cards or a plane ticket to Chicago. Tomorrow? We will certainly see there is more to come until elections. The in-our-face lie is elegantly simple. Cheney in Chicago is so obvious it will most likely work again. It does not matter, I fear, that it all appears so obviously staged. The gut reaction of “we got them this time before they could hurt you and your loved ones” will be what is recalled by most. I assume that the Fox crowd is premptively attacking the spineless fools who will, again, not grasp the mortal danger we constantly face from all possible sources of threat. As Satan’s Prince says, “it is not the quality of our analysis but our response to any possible threat.” They are good at this.

Their unrestrained brashness recalls a scene in a Dallas episode where J.R. Ewing was dining with someone whose reputation, career, marriage and finacial security he had destroyed in order to remove him as a potential obstacle to a business venture’s success. When the victim asked in choked voice, “How could you do this to someone who posed no real threat to you or your family…how can you live with yourself?” JR replies, as he raises a bottle of very expensive wine, “It not as hard as you seem to think. Once you get beyond integrity, the rest is a piece of cake. More wine?”

This is only the opening volley. “Home-grown terrorist” is now already in place in case there is a troop reduction sufficient to soften the public mood about Iraq. And, it is better than the color coded alerts that were effective for awhile.

In response to today’s op-ed by Helen Thomas, “Democrats need a new script,” from Ed Walker in Marin County, California:

Rove and Helen share more of a perspective than I thought they would. He understands her points completely. Today, the roll-up of what appears to be a hapless group who could not afford shoes, camera memory cards or a plane ticket to Chicago. Tomorrow? We will certainly see there is more to come until elections. The in-our-face lie is elegantly simple. Cheney in Chicago is so obvious it will most likely work again. It does not matter, I fear, that it all appears so obviously staged. The gut reaction of “we got them this time before they could hurt you and your loved ones” will be what is recalled by most. I assume that the Fox crowd is premptively attacking the spineless fools who will, again, not grasp the mortal danger we constantly face from all possible sources of threat. As Satan’s Prince says, “it is not the quality of our analysis but our response to any possible threat.” They are good at this.

Their unrestrained brashness recalls a scene in a Dallas episode where J.R. Ewing was dining with someone whose reputation, career, marriage and finacial security he had destroyed in order to remove him as a potential obstacle to a business venture’s success. When the victim asked in choked voice, “How could you do this to someone who posed no real threat to you or your family…how can you live with yourself?” JR replies, as he raises a bottle of very expensive wine, “It not as hard as you seem to think. Once you get beyond integrity, the rest is a piece of cake. More wine?”

This is only the opening volley. “Home-grown terrorist” is now already in place in case there is a troop reduction sufficient to soften the public mood about Iraq. And, it is better than the color coded alerts that were effective for awhile.

I first met Ed Walker over thirty years ago, when he was a student at Sonoma State College (CA). A Vietnam-era vet, Ed is a shrewd and articulate observor of the political scene.