Andrew's Tiki Lounge

The Idiocy of Hope: Hoping that Obama will fail

Rush Limbaugh is not alone. Now Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal -- who, like Rush, is a Republican -- has hinted that he, too, wouldn't mind seeing President Barack Obama fail.

As Jindal announced at a political fundraiser: "Make no mistake: Anything other than an immediate and compliant, 'Why no sir, I don't want the president to fail,' is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience or political obstructionism. This is political correctness run amok."

Jindal is wrong. Dead wrong. It's not political correctness to hope that Obama succeeds. No, it's something else entirely. It's called sanity.

On the other side of the political spectrum, it may not be as easy to find fools who want to see Obama fail, but make no mistake: There are a few out there. On Counterpunch.org, a leftist website that fancies itself as a latter-day bunch of muckrakers, there's a steady stream of editorials slamming Obama as the next Bill Clinton. Typical are the comments of March 24 from Counterpunch contributor Michael Donnelly (titled "Obama's Team of Losers"), which shares the shrill tone of many of Obama's critics on the Right: 

Instead of 'change,' we have a record now of retained war-mongers and rejected anti-invasion/occupation generals; retained Wall Street crooks; tax cheat Democrat cronyism; and an administration where the Israel Lobby picks (Emmanuel) or rejects (Freeman) candidates for government offices.

Obama's critics on the Far Right and Far Left share one thing in common: An almost fanatical desire to see real liberalism lose. To the Counterpunchites, Obama is just another Clintonista. To Rush Limbaugh and Company, Obama is a raving socialist revolutionary who is trying to transform America into a worker's paradise. 

But less than a Hundred Days into his administration, what I see is a president who has pushed to set aside more lands to protect as wilderness; a president who is backing tougher laws to protect consumers; a president who is advocating the relocation of the 240 remaining inmates from Guantanamo Bay to mainland America; a president searching for a way out of two complicated wars that he didn't start; a president who has rejected the dangerous language of the "War on Terror" that his predecessor used so often and so recklessly, a language that only succeeded in polarizing America and the global community.

Most commentators -- pundits, Bloggers, talking heads -- who back Obama cannot fight the urge to slip in a comment like, "Of course, he's not perfect..." 

Not me. I would conclude by saying: We're damn lucky to have such a great man at the helm. 

More on Populism: My column from The Waterloo Region Record

Dear Blog Pals,

As promised, here is my latest column from The Waterloo Region Record. I hope you enjoy it.

AH

So why aren't Americans taking to the streets?March 21, 2009

ANDREW HUNT

Nowadays, you hear the word "populist" used quite a bit in the United States.

This should come as no surprise. Each day brings more unpleasant headlines about the state of the economy in the U.S. As conditions worsen, popular resentments toward the wealthy bubble to the surface.

You hear it all the time. Auto executives are slammed for taking trips to Washington, D.C., aboard their lavish jets. Significant chunks of multibillion-dollar bailouts are lining the pockets of the rich. Meantime, houses are being foreclosed all over, and jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate.

The latest wave of "populist rage" has been directed at the American International Group or AIG, a huge American insurance corporation. When AIG recently announced it was paying out $165 million in bonuses to retain its valued employees, the public outcry was deafening.

Congressional hearings are underway to figure out how bailout money is being spent. President Barack Obama tells crowds of outraged citizens that he, too, is angry. Jon Stewart has become something of a folk hero for taking on the host of CNBC's Mad Money, Jim Cramer, over his lousy financial advice. And one newscaster after another - on Fox, on CNN, on CBC Newsworld, on BBC - speaks of a "populist revolt" in America.

There's only one thing missing: Protests.

As Howard Zinn, the leftist historian who wrote A People's History of the United States, pointed out: "We're not seeing mass demonstrations. We are seeing individuals expressing anger, but it is not taking the form of organized protests."

He's right. So far, all the talk of populist anger has not translated into action. This contrasts with earlier economic downturns in American history, particularly the 1890s and 1930s, when populist upheavals triggered open clashes in the streets.

Why? Where are today's protests?

Reasons for the lack of militancy are complex. While the economy has been souring for a while now, the worst of the crisis began very recently, in the fall. Americans are still very much in the wait-and-see stage.

Obama continues to enjoy widespread support. Despite his declining poll numbers, the honeymoon persists. People are giving him a chance. And so far, he has backed economic stimulus packages that are unprecedented in cost and scope.

A lot of public discontent has been directed against years of Republican policies, which favoured the wealthy at the expense of everybody else. That's one of the reasons the reputation of the Republican party is now in the toilet (and the party isn't helped by a lack of effective leaders). Meantime, hopes are high that the Democrats can salvage the mess.

There's another reason why people aren't taking their anger to the streets. Most Americans reject a truly critical view of capitalism. Populism is OK, as long as it doesn't seek to understand the structural inequities that come with private enterprise.

People, for the most part, don't want to talk about social class. They don't want to probe the deeper questions about why so few have so much wealth, while so many are struggling.

Nobody wants to be labelled a Marxist. But if Americans - and the rest of us who are coping with the recession - have any hope of understanding the larger forces at work in the economy, it's time to take the sort of hard, critical look at capitalism that went out of vogue after the Cold War ended.

We've seen where slavish conformity to the free market system has gotten us. Instead of continuing to scapegoat a few reckless executives, it's time to start posing the tough questions.

Andrew Hunt is the chair of the department of history at the University of Waterloo.

We're all "populists" now...

I just finished writing my regular column for the Waterloo Region Record on the so-called "populist outrage" that seems to be sweeping across the United States. The column will appear on Saturday. It's only 600 words long, a space too limited to delve deeply into this most complicated of contemporary issues. 

In the column (which I'll post here after it runs this Saturday), I address the issue of why there aren't any mass protest movements taking off in the United States, despite the widespread outrage.

I won't discuss the reasons why in this Blog entry. But I will say this: All the "populist" rhetoric in the world -- in the words of Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) in Casablanca -- doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless it's backed up by some sort of militant protest. 

In The Washington Post, William Greider -- for my money, one of the most brilliant political pundits in the United States right now and someone who understands issues of globalization and mass protest better than anyone else -- wrote a column titled "Main Street is Speaking Out. But Will Obama Listen?" (It's going to appear in the Sunday Washington Post, but it's already on the WP's Website.) 

I've been reading Greider for years and have the highest respect for him. But like so many observers of the American scene, he is grossly exaggerating -- to the point of over-inflating -- the sense of "populist outrage" in America today. Greider writes as if a grassroots mass movement is on the verge of taking off in response to the gargantuan government bailouts and the recent revelations of huge cash bonuses being paid out by AIG and other companies that have accepted government assistance. 

At one point, Greider writes: 

Something fundamental has been altered in American politics. Encouraged by Obama's message of hope, agitated by darkening economic prospects, many people have thrown off sullen passivity and are trying to reclaim their role as citizens. This disturbs the routines of Washington but has great potential for restoring a functioning democracy. Timely intervention by the people could save the country from some truly bad ideas now circulating in Washington and Wall Street. Ideas that could lead to the creation of a corporate state, legitimized by government and financed by everyone else. Once people understand the concept, expect a lot more outrage.

Greider is not alone. From the leftist The Nation magazine (to which Greider often contributes) to the progressive Huffington Post, practically every other word you read out there is "populist" or "populism," and they're usually paired up with words such as "rage," "fury," "anger," "uprising," etc. 

Even the battered and weary Republicans are getting in on the act. "REPUBLICANS MOUNT POPULIST CAMPAIGN AGAINST AIG," cried a headline in The Washington Independent. 

But the so-called populists of today are not following the advice of nineteenth century Kansas populist Mary Elizabeth Lease, who counseled her fellow populists to "raise less corn and more hell." 

Today's populists are angry, but they're angry in the same ineffectual way that a large segment of the public has been angry for years at the Bush administration over the Iraq War. Since about 2005, one opinion poll after another has shown widespread public disapproval of the bloodbath in Iraq. In 2006 and 2008, voters went to the ballot box and gave control of Congress and the Presidency to the Democrats, in part in response to America's catastrophic intervention in Iraq. 

But the damage was done. And while the usual suspects of peace activists, nonconformists and hellraisers came out to protest the war in communities across the country, most people stayed home and didn't go anywhere near the antiwar demonstrations. 

Protest against the Iraq War got off to a promising start in 2003. But by 2005, 2006, the demonstrations had dwindled to a dedicated hardcore of activists. Where were the mass street protests? Where were the big rallies? Well, in fairness, there were a few. New York City saw one of its biggest demonstrations ever when the 2004 Republican National Convention was held there. For the most part, though, the resistance movement has been small and not terribly effective. 

The brave men and women who've been waging this struggle against the Iraq War deserve applause. But the widespread complacency of the American public during the Iraq War has been -- to say the least -- extremely disconcerting.

Now pundits and newspapers and Websites and talking heads on televisions are talking about a "populist revolt." And the question arises: Is there really, truly a genuine revolt going on if people aren't out in the streets demonstrating? If Main Street is quiet, then who cares if "Main Street is outraged" by what's happening on Wall Street? 

Voting out the "corrupt bums" every few years and pointing fingers at greedy business executives doth not a protest movement make. Unless this toothless hound that is "public outrage" actually grows some fangs and bites back, then you can talk about "populist anger" all you want. You can talk about it until you're blue in the face. 

The fact is, when the only sound you hear in the streets is the wind blowing, nothing is going to change. 

The United States of Chuck Norris (or... You Don't F--- With Chuck!!!)

Time to kick a little East Coast, pinhead, do-gooder, liberal ass! And what better man for the job than spine-snappin', skull-bustin', rootin'-tootin', six-shootin', gun-totin', roundhouse-kickin' macho man Chuck Norris?

YEAH!!! No, make that: HELL YEAH!!!

On March 3, Norris went on that Great Bastion of Enlightenment, The Glenn Beck Show (for those of you who aren't in the know, Glenn Beck is sort of like Chuck Norris, but with decidedly smaller cajones). 

Chuck was macho as hell on The Glenn Beck Show. He made treason actually seem damn cool. He blasted that pinko stooge Barack Obama with both barrels. At one point in the show, the following exchange occurred:

BECK: Americans will, they just, they won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up. And they said, where's that going to come from? And I said Texas, it's going to come from Texas. Do you agree with that, Chuck, or not? 
NORRIS: Oh, yeah. You know, Texas is a republic, you know. We could actually -- 
BECK: It was a country before it was a state. 
NORRIS: Yeah, we could break off from the union if we wanted to.

He's so macho, he's scrapin' testosterone off the bottom of his shit-kickers.

In his syndicated column headlined "I May Run for President of Texas" (yeah, Chuck has a syndicated column; what're you smirkin' about, you Eastern Establishment a--hole? I'll kick your sorry, Obama-votin' butt!!! whoops, sorry, I got sidetracked...), Chuck Norris writes: "Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation." These right-wing cell groups are ready to kick a little granola-munchin' bootie. HIII-YAH!!! Take that, Hillary Clinton! Damn McGovern-votin' feminist.

If Chuck decides to run for president of Texas, he has my vote. I say it's time for the Lone Star Republic to send the tanks into D.C. to give Old Obama his "Eviction Notice." It'll say: "WE'RE TAKING BACK AMERICA, YOU AL QAEDA LOVIN' MUSLIM."

Elaborating on his plans to be president of a seceded Texas, Norris writes: "That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state."

Chuck is the man for the job. Chuck kicked commie ass when they tried to invade and take over America in Invasion USA (1985). In the Missing in Action movies, Chuck went back to Vietnam and single-handedly accomplished what a million-plus U.S. military personnel couldn't achieve in the 1960s and 1970s: He kicked Vietnamese ass! In The Delta Force (1986), Chuck kicked Lebanese terrorist ass (move over Israel, 'cuz Chuck is gonna school you good!). 

If Chuck could kick all of these asses in the 1980s, surely today, he is the one man who can become president of Texas when it leaves the Union. Just let those Tax-and-Spend Liberals send their tanks and fighter jets into Texas. I think we've got a killer action movie on our hands! LONE STAR STATE II: PRESIDENT CHUCK STRIKES BACK. The climactic karate scene pitting Chuck against Barack Obama will be worth the price of admission. 

Free Muntadher al-Zaidi -- the guy has been through enough already!

This is getting to be absurd. Iraqi journalist Muntadher al-Zaidi (pictured right, in better days), the man who threw a pair of shoes at President George W. Bush at a December press conference in Baghdad, has already had the living daylights beaten out of him. Repeatedly. Now he has been sentenced to three years in prison by an Iraqi court. The punishment does not fit the crime. Three years in prison is three years too long, when you consider his actions against the larger backdrop of the devastation that has occurred in Iraq. The U.S. invasion of the country in 2003 has done little more than transform Iraq into a massive morgue under the domination of Washington, D.C. Where is the evidence that this intervention, mishandled from Day One, has brought an iota of good to the country? It will take generations and generations of Iraqis to rebuild from the disaster that started off as "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (not even George Orwell himself could have come up with an example of Doublespeak to match that misnomer). 

It is time to face facts: The Iraq War has been a total catastrophe. President Barack Obama is working hard to undo the damage done by the reckless Bush administration. President Obama realizes that an abrupt pullout might send the nation into a state of chaos and disarray. So much harm has already been done to this nation. American leaders have to handle the situation carefully, as Obama is doing now. But Obama has the right idea: At the end of the day, America must leave Iraq and give the Iraqis back their self-determination. This isn't a gift from America to Iraq. It is, rather, the right of the Iraqi people, at long last, after having their nation slashed, burned, gutted and skinned by a superpower that should have known better.

And while Obama is at it, he should consider a New Marshall Plan to help rebuild war-torn Iraq. It is the least Washington can do.

As for Muntadher al-Zaidi: The road to reconciliation in Iraq between the warring sides will be a long and painful one. The Iraqi court that sentenced him to three years would be aiding this process greatly if it would reverse the ruling and set him free. He did what he did out of love for his country. He is a patriot. He has suffered enough for his actions. Set him free. He -- and his fellow Iraqis -- have been through enough trauma and pain to last a hundred lifetimes.

Homelessness and Children: The Shame of the Nation

A report called "America's Young Outcasts," issued by the National Center on Family Homelessness, shines much-needed light on an age-old problem in the United States: the shame of homeless children across the country. Surveying the years 2005-2006, the report found that child homelessness is worse now that at any point since the Great Depression. 

Some interesting stats from the report (Source):

-- 1.5 million children are homeless (or 1 in 50 children in America) 

-- 25 percent of homeless children have witnessed violence of some sort

-- 22 percent of homeless children have been separated from their families

-- The report states: "20 percent of homeless preschoolers have emotional problems that require professional care." 

This is a problem across America. Consider some of the following examples:

-- Utah: More than 17,000 children are homeless (Utah ranks 43 out of the 50 states for its number of homeless children, 50 being the worst). The National Center on Family Homelessness described conditions in Utah: "24 percent of homeless Utah children live in shelters, 56 percent are doubled up with friends or families, ten percent are unaccounted for, seven percent live in hotels and motels, and three percent live on the streets with no shelter at all." (Source.) 

-- Texas: According to the Dallas Morning News: "More children are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless in Texas than in any other state...." There are 337,105 homeless children in the Lone Star State. Each night in Dallas County, an army of more than 1,200 children live out on the streets, with nowhere to go. 

-- Oregon: Oregon is in the middle of the list, about number 26. There are slightly fewer than 26,000 homeless children in the state. Thanks to "extensive planning" in Oregon to end child homelessness, the situation has actually improved for homeless children over the past several years. (Source.)  

-- Rhode Island: Rhode Island has the lowest rate of child homelessness in the United States. In 2006, RI had 797 homeless children. (Source.) 

-- Nevada: From Reno comes this heartbreaking television news report (courtesy KRNV TV News 4): "Every morning, school buses pull up to a street corner in downtown Reno. Children of all ages climb aboard, headed for schools around the district. They look like any other kids their age-- carrying backpacks and books, purses and jackets. Often, no one at school knows they're homeless." (Source). 

There are countless other examples. Some communities are handling the problem well. Others are ignoring it, hoping it will go away. Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of this report is that surveyed conditions that existed a few years before the current economic crisis. The years in review, 2005 and 2006, were actually considered to be a fairly prosperous time in the United States. 

Children are so vulnerable. They have no lobbying groups -- no NRA, no tobacco lobby, no AARP -- fighting for them. They can't vote, so most politicians ignore them. When they go to bed hungry, who feels the rumbling of their tummies? When they cry, who hears their forlorn sobs? 

Which leads to the obvious conclusion: We need a War on Poverty. Yesterday. And President Obama is the perfect figure in America to lead the charge in this long overdue crusade. 

America can do better.

America has to do better. 

Anti-Semitism rears its ugly head again and again...

ITEM: Three Jewish youths were attacked in Antwerp, Belgium, a few days ago, struck by an anti-Semitic attacker with a metal rod. (Source.)

ITEM: A report last week by the Vienna-based European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights reported that -- according to an Associated Press report -- "a number of attacks against Jews and synagogues have been reported by the media in France, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Britain.... It also cited recent reports of anti-Semitic incidents in Cyprus, Spain and the Netherlands." (Source.)

ITEM: Judea Pearl, father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl (the Wall Street Journal reporter murdered by Al Qaeda terrorists in 2002) expressed concerns about the violent intimidation experienced by students in California during the so-called "Israel Apartheid Week" events on campus. As Pearl put it: "The verbal abuse is there, the intimidation is there, the feeling of helplessness is there, not only among students but among faculty." Pearl was personally threatened. "I received hate messages from someone at UCLA who did not identify himself and said, 'I saw you in Ackerman Union and I know where your office is and I'm going to beat the (expletive) out of you. I handed it to the campus police, and they did not do anything." (Source.)

ITEM: Last month, the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism held its first summit in London. Participants from 42 countries took part. The Summit noted a spike in anti-Semitic activities around the world, especially in Europe. As British lawmaker Denis MacShane noted: "Parliaments now have to acknowledge that anti-Semitism is back. It's a potent ideological force, causing fears to Jews in many different countries, and it has to be combated by all people that care about democracy." (Source. And Here.)

ITEM: In Caracas, Venezuela, the Jewish Community Center was bombed by attackers last month. Abraham Garzon, president of the center, noted: "It seems there are people in the country dedicated to sowing terrorism." (Source.)

ITEM: At York University in Toronto, mobs last month shouted anti-Semitic comments to students, who had to be escorted by police for safety. "Jewish students are not feeling secure," noted Daniel Ferman, president of York Hillel. "But I think most importantly though, they're not happy with the situation. I think they're disappointed that there hasn't been more action. The university administration needs to take responsibility for its campus and ensure that its a safe environment for all students." (Source.) 

There are countless other examples of anti-Semitism that, due to time and space restrictions, I've overlooked here. There are, in fact, too many to list here. They all point to a disturbing truth: Anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world. The horrific events in Gaza earlier this year do not, in any way, justify anti-Semitic violence, which now probably surpasses Islamophobic violence in intensity in Europe and North America. Defenders of human rights have a duty to add their voices to the growing chorus condemning anti-Semitism around the world. 

This is not a new problem. Anti-Semitism dates back thousands of years. It has evolved over the centuries, assuming new forms. The rhetoric has changed. The tactics have been altered. But the goal -- dehumanizing Jews -- remains the same. This is not about Israel. That Jews continue to face discrimination, hostility and violence is as unacceptable as Muslims -- or any other group, for that matter -- being on the receiving end of such treatment. 

Socialists to the left of me! Socialists to the right of me! Everywhere you look, socialists, socialists, socialists!

You hear the word "socialist" all the time these days. In fact, the word probably gets more usage now than it did back in the heyday of American Socialism, in the early 20th Century, when Eugene V. Debs could be counted on to run for the Socialist Party candidate every four years. 

Ever since last year's presidential election, conservatives have been labeling Barack Obama a socialist. In the home stretch of the campaign leading up to Election Day, just about every other word coming out of the mouths of John McCain and Sarah Palin was "socialist." You can hear it all now: "Barack Obama's a socialist." "The Democrats are socialists." "The economic stimulus program is a socialist policy." 

Obama consistently denies being a socialist. After all, he wasn't trying to hand over the "means of production" to the workers or the state. 

But the word socialism is still being thrown around recklessly. Some recent headlines:

Mr. Obama brings ‘Socialism’ to Washington? (Christian Science Monitor) 

Are We All Socialists Now? (RealClearPolitics) 

Debate Heats Up: Capitalism versus Socialism (Vineland Daily Journal, N.J.)

Neo-Socialist Mindset Just Around the Corner (Toronto Star)

Not to be outdone, Obama hinted that his predecessor, George W. Bush, was actually the real socialist in the White House. As he noted:

I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement - the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. And so I think it's important just to note when you start hearing folks through these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can't say the same.

Now that Obama is pushing for health care reform and more spending to stimulate the economy, the word "socialist" is being thrown around all over the place. It's being used recklessly, as if to suggest that government spending is "socialistic." Notice how selective Obama's right-wing critics are. It's "socialistic" to spend money to jump-start the ailing economy, but when equally huge sums of money are spent on the arms race and the so-called War on Terror, it's not socialism. 

Socialists and communists in the United States -- all seven of them -- have gone to great lengths to insist that Obama ain't one of 'em. "What will be the goals of our socialist society?" asked the Communist Party. Its answer: 

1. A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.

2. An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.

3. Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.

Hmm, doesn't sound so awful. But people aren't lining up to join the Communist Party. In fact, it's quite miraculous that there is still such a thing in America. 

Many people on the left do not consider themselves "socialists." In fact, some progressives and lefties are even joining in on the Pinko Baiting. A Blog headline on the left-of-center Talking Points Memo warned against "The Right-Wing-Socialist-Military-Industrial-Complex."

Thus far, the American public doesn't seem to care too much about the "socialist threat." The attacks against Obama by the far right aren't really sticking. His opinion poll ratings are higher than ever. A USA Today headline (March 4) said it all: "Poll: Obama 'more popular than ever.'"

Republican partisans may want to rethink their strategy (or lack thereof). The socialist charge isn't hurting Obama. If anything, it might even be feeding into his overwhelming popularity. In the eyes of most Americans, he at least appears to be doing something about the economy, while conservatives seem to be dragging their feet and lacking direction. 

This isn't 1919, when the Red Scare raged out of control. And it isn't 1951, when McCarthyism was at its peak. The last time America even had a famous socialist was when Michael Harrington was alive and -- sadly (in the opinion of this Blogger, who thinks Harrington was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived) -- he died twenty years ago, in 1989.

It's nice to see that the "S"-word doesn't alarm Americans anymore. They don't care about it. They've got bigger fish to fry. And the Republicans of today are starting to look and sound like an earlier generation of GOP leaders -- that sorry bunch in the depths of the Great Depression who had nothing better to do than to call Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- yep, you guessed it -- a "socialist." 

Franken Watch: Maybe Norm's right after all...

We're in March now and we still don't know exactly who won Minnesota's United States Senate race. Of course, in the most recent recount, humorist/author/politician Al Franken emerged the winner by 225 votes. Despite his "victory," people aren't quite calling him "Senator Franken" yet. But Franken (pictured here with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada) is slowly wiggling his way into the United States Senate. 

The legal battles are dragging on in Minnesota. Court cases promise to last a long time. There is now a Senate vote recount trial going on in St. Paul to determine what to do next. 

Republican incumbent Senate candidate Norm Coleman is now suggesting that a new election might be necessary. Of course, the Franken camp is balking at the prospect of another election (if Franken was the one down by 225 votes, you can bet they'd be calling for another election). 

I'm afraid I have to side with the Republican on this one, folks. 

One of Coleman's attorneys, Jim Langdon, made a convincing argument for another Senate election in Minnesota: "Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates -- and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast -- the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election." (Source.)

Langdon's right. This election is too close to call and the recount was full of irregularities and spawned all kinds of legal battles. Another recount is likely to do the same thing. 

Democrats have been complaining loudly and bitterly for almost a decade now about the outcome of the 2000 elections. They are right to lament that moment as a crippling setback to American democracy. If they are consistent in their ideals, they'll see the need for another election in Minnesota. 

Don't hold your breath, though. Franken isn't going to demand another election. And if the outcome in the latest court case favors him -- which might very well happen -- then Mr. Franken is going to Washington. That doesn't necessarily mean the legal battle is over, though, and if Franken really wants to clear the air and minimize the partisan hostility that this race has already caused, he should agree to another election. 

For conservatives, Franken has already become a target -- a veritable poster boy for caustic, over-the-top, edgy, sarcastic liberalism. A dubious victory on his part will only cement the image of him as an excessively irreverent figure who followed a questionable pathway to the hallowed halls of power. 

A tale of two radio men: Paul Harvey (the Good Conservative) & Rush Limbaugh (the Bad Conservative)

The news that radio legend Paul Harvey died marked the end of an era. And it put me in a reflective mood.

I used to love Paul Harvey. When my family moved to Salt Lake City in 1978 (shortly after I turned 10), I was a lonely and awkward kid and a non-Mormon in Mormon-dominated Utah. I was a loner. I looked for ways to keep myself busy. I watched old movies, spent lots of time in a countercultural bookstore called the Cosmic Aeroplane and I listened to Harvey on KALL 910 AM. 

Harvey, a legendary radio personality from Oklahoma, was a stickler for consistency. "Hello, America. This is Paul Harvey. Stand by … for news," he'd say. He'd pause between news items. He'd pause for effect. There'd be dead air time. You could hear a pin drop. When he'd get to the bottom of the page, he'd turn it -- and you could hear him turn it -- and he'd say, "Page 2..." or "Page 3..." or whatever page he happened to be reading. 

This was in the days before I scooted over to the left side of the political spectrum. This was the first time I dabbled in politics. I got my start as a "Paul Harvey Conservative." Harvey was an anti-communist. But he was more than that. He was a populist. He loved ordinary folk. He imagined a front-porch America, where lemonade-sipping little people still mattered. He was curiously out of place in late 1970s and early 1980s America, where the cities and suburbs were growing fast, small towns were shrinking, factories were closing in the Rust Belt, new technology was sweeping across the nation and political elites in Washington were more powerful than ever. 

In this America, Paul Harvey was anachronistic, a man from different era. Yet he was also very much the product of his times, and he also spoke to ordinary folks who felt like they had no control over the pace and tempo of the changes going on around them. He was a voice of small towns. He celebrated simple people (notice I don't say "simple-minded" people -- unlike the hoity-toity elitist liberals of the day, Harvey took his listeners very seriously). He spoke of an America where people left their doors unlocked and made canned preserves for their new neighbors and were basically decent to one another.

Pat Aufderheide, a brilliant left-wing journalist and professor at the School of Communication at American University, wrote a piece on Paul Harvey about a quarter of a century ago in The Progressive magazine that was surprisingly sympathetic toward the radio man. At one point, she wrote:

He may get showered with grateful attention by the likes of the American Legion, and construction industry moguls may pay him big money to speak at their conventions, and the account managers at various advertising agencies may pray nightly for his continued health. But look to the history books, to the clip files, to the studies of the power of mass-media news, and the man who strolls the top of AM radio's ratings charts is nowhere to be found. ... But he is not after a place in the history books, especially those of historians who focus on the public and the political. His authority derives from being the voice of invisible Americans, the representative of their emotion in the face of cruel and complex pseudorationality.

Paul Harvey symbolized a vanishing America. As he grew older, he became less and less conservative -- in fact, he seemed to drift away from politics altogether with his witty "Rest of the Story" series. His wife, Lynne, produced his radio shows (Lynne Harvey passed away on May 3, 2008, at age 92... by that time, the Harveys had been married just two years shy of 70 years). His son got in on the business as a successful radio personality in his own right. 

Around the same time that Paul Harvey died, another famous, larger-than-life radio personality, Rush Limbaugh (right), was in the news. Rush spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. He was dreadful. He ranted and raved about Obama. "President Obama: Your agenda is not new, it's not change, and it's not hope," he said. No wonder David Letterman called Rush a "bonehead" and said he was dressed like an "East European gangster." 

Rush was bellicose. He lashed out like an angry rattlesnake against the "socialistic" Barack Obama. Rush's behavior drove an appalled David Frum -- one of the most thoughtful conservatives in America today -- to describe the talk-radio figure as:

A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as 'losers.' With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence.

It's no coincidence that Rush Limbaugh's hateful anti-Obama diatribe occurred right around the same time that Paul Harvey died. Paul Harvey represented an older style of conservatism: inclusive, hopeful and speaking for millions of Americans without a voice in American politics. By contrast, Limbaugh represents a new strain of the Far Right: abrasive, hateful, dogmatic, blind, distrustful of virtually everybody (including potential comrades), knee-jerk in its defense of disastrous neo-conservative interventions overseas, and contemptuous of any sort of humanitarian impulses. 

If conservatives can somehow resuscitate the optimistic conservatism of Paul Harvey, they might be able to repair some of the damage done to the movement by eight years of George W. Bush's disastrous presidency. But as we saw in the last election, the GOP is determined to fight Rush Limbaugh's self-destructive jihad against all things decent. And the end result is a caustic brand of right-wing politics that has alienated an awful lot of people, including many thoughtful adherents of American conservatism.