Desperate to perk up ratings (and wake up viewers), the producers of Big Brother (8 p.m., CBS) are offering a suitcase full of money tonight to any inmate who wants an excuse to leave. Unbeknownst to the cast, if someone takes the dough, a replacement housemate will be brought in with the express purpose of creating some tension. Please, somebody, take the money! Biography (8 p.m., A&E) continues “Batman” week with a profile of Julie “Catwoman” Newmar. Maria Shriver interviews Gov. Jesse Ventura on Dateline NBC (8 p.m., NBC). On a rerun of The West Wing (9 p.m., NBC), the staff awaits the results of a new poll on Bartlet’s popularity and Sam is caught on camera giving his hooker friend a graduation gift. ABC’s mesmerizing documentary series Hopkins 24/7 (10 p.m., ABC) continues its look at the workings of Johns Hopkins Hospital. Tonight, a doctor is exposed to HIV-infected blood and an organ recovery team races to deliver a set of lungs in time for a transplant. Where Are They Now? (11 p.m., VH1) catches up with Nigel, David and Derek as they launch a Spinal Tap comeback. HBO begins reruns of its Emmy nominated miniseries The Corner (11 p.m., HBO), a searing drama about Baltimore junkies directed by Charles S. Dutton. Khandi Alexander and T.K. Carter star.
Sports
Baseball: A’s at Red Sox (7:30 p.m., ESPN) Diamondbacks at Braves (7:30 p.m., ESPN2)
Tennis: U.S. Open (11 a.m., 7:30 p.m., USA)
Talk
Rosie O’Donnell (syndicated) Katie Couric, Matt Lauer David Letterman (CBS) Jamie Foxx, Ben Harper Jay Leno (NBC) Howie Mandel Politically Incorrect (ABC) Bruce Vilanch, Fred Willard Conan O’Brien (NBC) Al Franken, Jann Wenner Craig Kilborn (CBS) William Shatner, Ray Park (rerun)
U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D- Mich. the chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee talks during a press conference accompanied by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Jan. 13, 2010.
Michael Hastings has a weird, maybe shocking story in Rolling Stone. Gen. William Caldwell, the man training Afghan troops in preparation for our eventual withdrawal from the country, apparently ordered an “information operations” cell to perform what the military used to call “psychological operations” on visiting dignitaries — including American members of Congress.
That is probably illegal. Psy-ops are to be used only on “hostile foreign groups,” and the military is explicitly banned from using propaganda campaigns on Americans. (Though everyone basically “knows” that the CIA and others perform psy-ops on the American people all the time, right? Or is that paranoid of me?)
At first, the orders were administered verbally. According to Holmes, who attended at least a dozen meetings with Caldwell to discuss the operation, the general wanted the IO unit to do the kind of seemingly innocuous work usually delegated to the two dozen members of his public affairs staff: compiling detailed profiles of the VIPs, including their voting records, their likes and dislikes, and their “hot-button issues.” In one email to Holmes, Caldwell’s staff also wanted to know how to shape the general’s presentations to the visiting dignitaries, and how best to “refine our messaging.”
Congressional delegations – known in military jargon as CODELs – are no strangers to spin. U.S. lawmakers routinely take trips to the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they receive carefully orchestrated briefings and visit local markets before posing for souvenir photos in helmets and flak jackets. Informally, the trips are a way for generals to lobby congressmen and provide first-hand updates on the war. But what Caldwell was looking for was more than the usual background briefings on senators. According to Holmes, the general wanted the IO team to provide a “deeper analysis of pressure points we could use to leverage the delegation for more funds.” The general’s chief of staff also asked Holmes how Caldwell could secretly manipulate the U.S. lawmakers without their knowledge. “How do we get these guys to give us more people?” he demanded. “What do I have to plant inside their heads?”
And it got more blatant:
In March 2010, [Col. Gregory] Breazile issued a written order that “directly tasked” Holmes to conduct an IO campaign against “all DV visits” – short for “distinguished visitor.” The team was also instructed to “prepare the context and develop the prep package for each visit.” In case the order wasn’t clear enough, Breazile added that the new instructions were to “take priority over all other duties.” Instead of fighting the Taliban, Holmes and his team were now responsible for using their training to win the hearts and minds of John McCain and Al Franken.
The leader of the psy-ops unit was not thrilled with the assignment, and in what is the most damning part of the story, he alerted a JAG lawyer, who agreed that the entire thing was “contrary to IO policy.” Shortly thereafter, the whistle-blower claims, he was the victim of a retaliatory Army investigation into his personal conduct.
Sen. Al Franken stopped being funny once he began his campaign for the U.S. Senate, but since taking office he has, every now and then, allowed himself to crack a joke. At a Mark Dayton rally in Minnesota recently, he performed his own version of Barack Obama’s now-tiresome “ditch” routine. His lengthier, funnier version.
The danger of this sort of thing is that because Franken is a former professional satirist, this basically sounds like he is mocking the president’s (and the party’s) message:
Seriously, add one or two more laugh lines and this is superior to every single “Saturday Night Live” political cold open of the last two years.
Worrying about “voter fraud” is a convenient way for Republicans and conservatives to practice voter intimidation and old-fashioned suppression of minority voters without drawing as much negative attention as, say, an outright poll tax would. In truth, there is hardly any “voter fraud,” and even if it was as rampant as they pretend, it wouldn’t actually work., as Christopher Beam explains today. (For it to swing an election, it would require the participation of a ridiculous number of people willing to commit a felony, including, in the fevered conservative imagination, illegal immigrants willing to risk deportation in order to support Harry Reid.)
The Bush administration dedicated itself to fighting this imaginary menace of voter fraud, either because conservatives have deluded themselves into believing it a legitimate problem or just to, again, throw minorities off voter rolls. But in five years they managed 86 convictions, some of which were accidents and all of which were incredibly small-scale.
Conservatives have seized on the election of Al Franken as their own Bush v. Gore, except in this case the winner actually got more voters than the loser. But they can’t accept that (Senator Al Franken!!), so they’ve spent years convincing themselves that they’re one lawsuit or investigation away from proving that Franken’s 312 vote margin of victory was based on voter fraud. The most extensive conservative investigation to date alleged that over a thousand fraudulent votes were cast. Except that in reality it was more like 205 instances of someone who might have been a felon maybe voting. (For whom? There’s no way to know.)
Based on this group’s exhaustive study, Hennepin County has charged 47 people with committing voter fraud. 43 felons voted (many of them just didn’t know that felons aren’t allowed to vote) and four people double-voted.
Meanwhile psychotic hate-blogger Michelle Malkin is appearing on Fox to warn the old people that any time a Democrat wins an election, it is because thousands of illegal immigrant felons triple-voted for him or her. Malkin commands Fox viewers to declare themselves the “voter fraud police,” which means harassing people who look poor or foreign. (Why won’t the Justice Department arrest the New Black Panthers who keep stealing elections, hmm?)
Should the Democrats maintain a slim majority in either legislative house, expect conservatives to blame fraud. Aided by, of course, the currently non-existent ACORN.
After Tuesday’s vote, Joe Miller looks to be the Republican nominee for Senate from Alaska. But absentee votes are still being counted, and the incumbent senator, Lisa Murkowski, has a lawyer. Which means dirty pool! Miller went on Fox Business News, for some reason, to explain the problem:
“It concerns us any time somebody lawyers up and tries to pull an Al Franken, if you will. We are very concerned that there may be some attempt here to skew the results.”
In a fact-based world, “pull an Al Franken” would mean “win an election by receiving more votes than the other person.” In the world of constant conservative persecution at the hands of the liberal media, activist judges, and trial lawyers, it apparently means steal an election, somehow, with lawyers. (Norm Coleman also had lawyers, I feel I should note.)
To “pull a Joe Miller,” I submit, is to preemptively plant the germ of the idea that in the event of a candidate losing an election by a small margin after a recount, the election was stolen. By liberals.
The bizarre, ginned-up controversy surrounding the Park51 project — a proposed Islamic community center, like the 92nd Street Y, including a space for worship, to be built at the site of an old Burlington Coat Factory (which is a store, not a factory) on Park Place in lower Manhattan, near, but not in sight of, the site of the World Trade Center — has exposed not just the blatant Islamophobia (and cheerful willingness to exploit bigotry) of many luminaries of the right, but also the cowardice of many supposed liberals. Just so we know where we stand, and using, as criteria for placement, my own inexact impressions of their public statements, I present the official War Room lists of “ground zero mosque” heroes, villains and cowards.
Heroes
It’s not a particularly hard case to make: The Constitution guarantees the right of the Cordoba Initiative to construct a house of worship on private land without any interference from the government, “Muslims” as a whole did not attack “us” on 9/11, Feisal Abdul Rauf is a well-respected, progressive imam with a history of performing outreach for the Bush administration, and even if the project was a “ground zero mosque,” celebrating its construction would demonstrate an admirable commitment to the founding ideals that we are supposedly fighting for Over There. At a time when Islamophobia appears to be on the rise, in part because xenophobia always tends to get louder during periods of economic uncertainty, liberals and progressives should be forcefully making the case for tolerance and liberty. But only a couple have bothered. Still, we should celebrate them!
Rep. Jerry Nadler, whose district actually includes ground zero, has been a loud and unflinching supporter of the project. He makes the case well, and without tossing in wishy-washy qualifications:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s speech in support of the Park51 project has been rightly celebrated as a courageous moral and intellectual defense of religious freedom.
Outside of New York, Sen. Russ Feingold accused mosque opponents of “gutter politics” and affirmed his support for “freedom of religion,” the simple answer that all Democratic politicians and candidates should give. Minnesota’s Al Frankenalso attacked opponents, and even cracked a joke.
I think the best response for a non-New York politician to give is probably Sherrod Brown’s.Brown said, first of all, that it’s a local, New York issue, which it is, and also said, “We’re not at war with a religion,” which is the sort of thing that needs to be said, constantly, by people with consciences, in order to rebut assholes like Gingrich.
Pennsylvania candidate Joe Sestak has been accused of “dodging” the question, but his answer seems straightforward to me: He believes it’s a New York issue and he supports the Constitution. (He has received the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg.)
Some perhaps surprising heroes include Grover Norquist, who makes the political case for supporting the project, and Ted Olson, a longtime Republican attorney whose wife died on 9/11. Olson forthrightly said, “We don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith.”
Cowards
The coward’s usual formulation of wishy-washy nonsupport is to proclaim that “they have a right to build it, but …” While I’d argue that even if you don’t feel like issuing a spirited defense of the specific project being debated, you can simply stop at “they have a right to build it” and retain some dignity, these politicians seem to think that they have to balance their respect for the Constitution with a healthy dose of skepticism about Muslims and acknowledged sympathy for hysterical opponents whipped up into a frenzy by lying propagandists.
Harry Reid decided to point out that while the First Amendment protects the rights of religious minorities to practice their religion, that doesn’t mean that they should practice it where it might upset someone.
Howard Dean, too, thinks that religious minorities should respect the wishes of majorities of Americans and not go around building houses of worship in places where Americans don’t want them. (Memo to Gov. Dean: One of the reasons so many Americans polled about the subject are opposed to it is because right-wing liars defined the entire debate from Day One. If you’d polled everyone in the nation back in, say, March, and asked, “Should there be an Islamic community center with a pool and an auditorium in lower Manhattan near City Hall and, yes, the WTC site?” I’m guessing it would’ve been a three-way split between support, oppose and don’t give a shit. And even if “oppose” had still won that theoretical poll, it still wouldn’t have been a good reason for the organizers to be more “sensitive” and find a new building.)
Some New York Democrats are just completely punting on the issue. Anthony Weiner refused to say anything about it for weeks, then issued a baffling letter that says nothing.Chuck Schumer, a man who stands no chance of losing reelection, and from whom a defense of religious liberties would’ve been celebrated and important, will only say he isn’t opposed to the project.
Villains
They are mostly the obvious ones: Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani — all Republicans with a history of exploiting racial and ethnic tensions and resentments without regard for the consequences.
New York Democrats John Hall, Tim Bishop, Mike McMahon and Mike Arcuri all decided their best shot at reelection was joining the chorus against the project. Cowardice may have inspired them, but Arcuri’s move, in particular, seems more villainous.
The proposed $100 million Muslim center offered one such contrast. Greene echoed President Barack Obama’s recent defense of religious freedom but said, “When those families go to mourn their losses, they shouldn’t be looking at a mosque right there.”
(His opponent, Kendrick Meek, merely said he wouldn’t “step in front of a decision that’s already been made in New York City,” which is halfway between cowardly and acceptable.)
The Confused, and Confusing
I think New York politicians have a responsibility to defend the project itself, while I’ll let most non-New Yorkers off the hook for stopping at a defense of the principles involved (as long as they don’t add a Reid-ian “but …”) and an acknowledgment that it’s a “New York issue.” But what about New Jersey politicians?
Back in New York, Carolyn Maloney and her primary opponent, Reshma Saujani, both signaled their support for the project, but Saujani (a born panderer) supports it super hard, and claims Maloney only kinda supports it. I’m not convinced by Saujani’s argument, but you can read Maloney’s statement for yourself.
I might need to invent a separate “I think he actually means well but what the hell” category for Gov. David Paterson, who is, I think, trying very hard to be a peacemaker, as part of his “fuck it, I’m out of office soon anyway” tour ’10. But his claims that he will give state land to the developers (which would be constitutionally iffy) and his repeated insistence that he’s meeting with Cordoba Initiative representatives about moving the site (which they keep disputing) are just serving to support the idea that there’s some compelling reason why they should move.
Kristen Gillibrand’s support for the project seems halfhearted and overly cautious, but it’s there.
And, yes, then there’s the president. Had he stopped at his Friday night statement, a simple defense of religious liberty, I’d happily put him in the heroes category. But his Saturday non-clarification, stressing the fact that he doesn’t explicitly support the project, completely muddied the issue. Was it a walk-back? Sort of! But also not quite! His response is a Rorschach test, and interpretations of it necessarily depend on impressions of the president himself.
The heroes list is depressingly short, the cowards and villains lists populated with people I wish weren’t included, and while I understand that defending the project could be interpreted as “politicizing” the issue, I’m still depressed at how few “progressive” leaders are unable to mount simple, surprisingly necessary defenses of the fundamental rights of Americans to worship, or not, as they see fit.