by hilzoy
From the Washington Post:
"House Democrats elected Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) the new majority leader yesterday over strong opposition from Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), exposing a deep political divide even before the party takes control.The 149 to 86 vote for Hoyer over Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.) was viewed by many in the party as a repudiation of Pelosi's strong-arm tactics and a recognition of Hoyer's tireless work to elect a new Democratic majority for the first time in 12 years. If the Hoyer camp's head count was correct going into yesterday's secret balloting, Pelosi and her allies may not have swayed a single vote for Murtha, a close associate. (...)
"Basically, she got spanked," said a House Democrat close to both Pelosi and Hoyer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions. "She got taken to the woodshed. If she doesn't get it, this is going to be a big problem over the long run."
"Maybe it will help Nancy understand the use of power, the time and place for it," said a senior Democrat with close ties to Capitol Hill.
But others think the dust-up may have been useful in clearing the air between Pelosi and Hoyer. "Here's the deal -- she's apparently been irritated by a perception that Steny has been undermining her, and it's an incorrect perception," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "Look, someone told me she hasn't liked him since 1963, and it has had zero effect on how well they have worked together. We don't have to guess at this. We have seen it. They can and will work well together as we move forward.""
It probably goes without saying that I'm happy about the outcome of all this. I'm not exactly wild about Steny Hoyer, and I wish there had been a better third candidate, but given a choice between the two, I pick Hoyer every time. What might not go without saying is that I'm not particularly distressed about the process that led to it. I flipped on the news as I was eating dinner, and there were various CNN-droids talking in grim tones about what this might mean for Nancy Pelosi's speakership, and what it might mean for the Democrats to have a speaker who had been so badly wounded so early. To which I say: Bah.
I would have preferred that Pelosi not pick this particular fight, both because it would have been smart to pick only fights she could win, and because picking a fight for the sake of Murtha, of all people, seems like a particularly bad idea. That said, I can't see that this will cause any lasting damage. As Barney Frank said, Pelosi and Hoyer have not liked each other for a while, and that doesn't seem to have gotten in the way of their working together effectively. And their ability to work together is what matters.
More importantly, though, I like the fact that the Democrats work out their differences in this messy way. I could try to explain why, but since Mark Schmitt said it better than I could back in early 2005, in a post called "What The Republicans Could Learn From Hayek", I'll just quote him:
"A command-control system like the White House-led Republican congressional system can be absolutely formidable for a certain period of time. But when it breaks down, it breaks down completely. The collapse is sudden, and total. Signals get crossed, backs get stabbed, the suddenly leaderless pawns in the system start acting for themselves, with no system or structure to coordinate their individual impulses.Is this happening? I don't know, but it's getting close. I thought I'd seen it before, but each time they've pulled it back together. This time, I think there's too much happening at once.
The irony of all this for conservatives is that if they actually read Hayek and got anything out of it other than "government sucks," they would know this. Hayek's libertarianism was very pragmatic. Centrally controlled systems are flawed above all because they have no mechanism to correct their own errors, unlike distributed, self-organized systems. The Democrats in the Clinton years always operated in chaos, no one followed the party line, and there was a cost to that, but in the chaos and improvisation they found ways to get out of the holes that they had dug for themselves. The Rove/DeLay/Frist system doesn't have any means for correcting its mistakes -- look at the blank, lost looks on the faces of Senators Lugar and Chafee yesterday when they just had no idea what to do with a nomination that had fallen apart and couldn't fulfill their promises.
The Republicans accomplished unimaginable feats through the centralization of power. Three tax cuts, a prescription drug plan that will make Americans hate government, an insane war. But if the goal was long-term power, it is a strategy they will come to regret, if not today, someday."
Whatever Winston Churchill thought, democracy is not the worst possible system except for all the others. It's a wonderful self-correcting system. Dictators can slice through opposition like butter, but for precisely that reason, there is nothing to prevent them from lapsing into absolute madness and taking their country down with them. When a dictatorship falls apart, it does, as Mark Schmitt said, tend to fall apart completely: not only do those who have lived under it lack the habits of responsible self-government, but dictators tend to try to break any of their subjects who show any talent for leadership, or at least to render them powerless. When a dictator falls from power, there is no fallback mechanism for making decisions, and generally no one who is ready and able to lead.
We could have a party like that, if we were prepared to do what it takes to maintain absolute party discipline. The Republicans went that route, and I'm glad we aren't following them. What we just saw was precisely the sort of self-correction Mark Schmitt was talking about: Nancy Pelosi made a stupid call, and the rank and file blocked it before it could do serious damage. That's exactly what ought to be happening. So while I wish Pelosi hadn't backed Murtha in the first place, I'm not the least dismayed either by the fact that she didn't get her way, or by the rather messy way in which she didn't get it. Given a choice between our somewhat fractious arrangement, which gives CNN's anchors a lot more occasion to pull long faces and say ominous things, but actually gets into a lot less trouble, and a well-oiled machine that sails smoothly off a cliff, I'll take the former any day.
"Nancy Pelosi made a stupid call"
See comments here for what seem to me reasonable Realpolitik as it were explanations of Pelosi's action - e.g. a cheap sop to her anti-war base.
Posted by: rilkefan | November 17, 2006 at 04:15 AM
With reference to Rilkefan's comment above (I went and read the thread he recommended) it is kind of ironic that one of the few people in Congress with the spine to speak out realistically on the issue of the Iraq war - someone who got the accolade of "loser-defeatist" from our ranting Bird - was so thoroughly rejected by the Democratic caucus.
I hope that isn't a foreshadowing of what the Democratic Congress will do with regard to the Iraq war: it's a mess, it's Bush's mess, and the choice for the US is now "Do we lose the army and the war, or do we just lose the war and rescue what's left of the army?"
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 17, 2006 at 05:23 AM
As much as I would like the Dems to demonstrate the same kind of party discipline and unity that permitted the Republicans to run roughshod over them, I have to admit that part of me is relieved to see that they are still the same fractious, squabbling Democrats that I know and love.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | November 17, 2006 at 05:29 AM
Rilkefan: From the comments in the thread you linked (Thomas):
If Pelosi is able to do that consistently--if she consistently maintain the support of the base while screwing them--she'll be successful, in a way.
Having been the screw-ee of late, let me say you can only get away with that for so long :)
Jes: it is kind of ironic that one of the few people in Congress with the spine to speak out realistically on the issue of the Iraq war - someone who got the accolade of "loser-defeatist" from our ranting Bird - was so thoroughly rejected by the Democratic caucus.
That actually gives me some hope for the next two years.
Posted by: OCSteve | November 17, 2006 at 07:02 AM
of course even Mighty Mr Newt wasn't always able to get the picks he wanted. why isn't that seen as total disarray and chaos and weakness and the End Of Days ?
Posted by: cleek | November 17, 2006 at 07:39 AM
OCSteve: That actually gives me some hope for the next two years.
Via Slacktivist, I point you to an essay pointing out that, over the next two years, the US has the choice of losing the war in Iraq and the army, or just losing the war in Iraq. Murtha gets called a "loser-defeatist" for wanting the latter option: I don't see exactly what "gives you hope" about the Democratic party rejecting Murtha.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 17, 2006 at 08:04 AM
Recognising the latter option, rather than wanting it.
And of course the people still currently heading for the former option don't want it, exactly, I suppose; they're just like a householder burying their head under the pillow and pretending that all is well and they can't smell smoke or hear the smoke alarm, until the bedding actually goes on fire.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 17, 2006 at 08:06 AM
Nothing here to disagree with. Excellent post, hilzoy. I agree that the selection of Murtha was a mistake, but it's not one I'm unwilling to forgive. Kudos to the Democrats for not rubber-stamping Murtha in.
Right around here I feel I should acknowledge that I don't harbor any ill feelings toward Murtha. I simply think he carries too much baggage, has shown himself to at least be willing to play along with corruption, and has repeatedly babbled nonsense in the matter of the Iraq war. It's not that his time in service gets him no credit, rather that service doesn't make up for everything.
Self-correction is a wonderful feature of democracy; self-overcorrection, on the other hand, can result in sustained oscillation. If I were to fall back into my old habit of offering advice to Democrats, I'd take this occasion to suggest that the best thing they could do to consolidate power is to not grab on to it quite so tightly as the Republicans did.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 17, 2006 at 09:15 AM
Slarti: and has repeatedly babbled nonsense in the matter of the Iraq war.
Now are you deliberately getting provocative in the hope of a pile-on, or is this yet another example of your just not paying attention to the news - ever?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 17, 2006 at 09:27 AM
Murtha has been very supportive of Pelosi in the past, and Hoyer has always been a rival. Of course she supported him. This is a very normal story of disagreement, voting and reconciliation. It happens twenty times a week in Washington, and it's shocking what a story is made out of it (see http://digbysblog.blogspot.com>digby today, of course).
As digby points out, Newt Gingrich didn't want Tom Delay as Majority Leader, and got overruled (and it wasn't a big story).
Trent Lott shoved his way into the Minority Whip chair, and it got *some* coverage, but not the "Republicans in Disarray -- Are they Finished?" treatment. There's Republican elections in the House today -- there are challenges to Bohner. Is this the end of the Republicans?????? Or just another story about a leadership election.
I am especially disheartened at the Media speculating on whether the Pelosi Speakership is a total failure, or irreparably damaged, or whether the Democrats can ever recover. The election was how many days ago? And we haven't even finished with this lame duck session yet, let alone *started!!!* the new Congress.
I would like everyone to give the leadership at least until Groundhog Day before taking out the knives. And that goes for Democrats as well.
Mostly I would like to see the media taken to task for not giving the Democrats at least a very brief honeymoon, after fawning over Bush for so many years.
This Murtha/Hoyer thing was a small story, one of many. Work to do.....
Posted by: zmulls | November 17, 2006 at 09:46 AM
Mostly I would like to see the media taken to task for not giving the Democrats at least a very brief honeymoon
nah guhn hapin.
i predict Bob Somerby is going to have a very busy two years.
Posted by: cleek | November 17, 2006 at 09:57 AM
She hasn't liked him since 1963?
What? He didn't show the proper amount of enthusiasm for the British invasion? That must be one juicy grudge.
I think all of this is a whole bunch of nothing.
CNN? Drop dead. Who are they --- the Tom Delay network? The Coddling Newt Network?
What is it about a woman reaching a leadership position --- anywhere --- that brings out the catty yowling in society, particularly among men?
Posted by: John Thullen | November 17, 2006 at 10:03 AM
What is it about a woman reaching a leadership position --- anywhere --- that brings out the catty yowling in society, particularly among men?
Boobs.
Posted by: Ugh | November 17, 2006 at 10:07 AM
What is it about a woman reaching a leadership position --- anywhere --- that brings out the catty yowling in society, particularly among men?
Dude. That catty yowling is so not limited to male reporters and pundits.
Let's all wait to see Maureen Dowd's upcoming columns, Cokie Roberts' upcoming broadcasts, and see how Jodi Wilgorn or Elizabeth Bumiller covers Pelosi in the NYTimes.....
Posted by: zmulls | November 17, 2006 at 10:13 AM
What is it about a woman reaching a leadership position --- anywhere --- that brings out the catty yowling in society, particularly among men?
The patriarchy.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 17, 2006 at 10:18 AM
I'll accept "boobs" as an answer.
zmulls:
Yup, Dowd and Roberts et al. should be pretty grating. I'm waiting for Peggy Noonan, Michelle Malkin, and Lynn Cheney to show us all how to take it like a man.
Posted by: John Thullen | November 17, 2006 at 10:24 AM
I'll accept "patriarchy", too.
O.K., that's "boobs" AND "patriarchy".
The bidding is closed.
Posted by: John Thullen | November 17, 2006 at 10:26 AM
I've been redeployed to Okinawa, and the news here just isn't as fresh.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 17, 2006 at 10:32 AM
I've been redeployed to Okinawa, and the news here just isn't as fresh.
How are the peas?
Posted by: Ugh | November 17, 2006 at 10:34 AM
I don't see exactly what "gives you hope" about the Democratic party rejecting Murtha.
It’s not just about the war. He was tainted, he has fought ethics reform in the past, and just this week he was calling the Dem’s ethics reform plans crap. I hope to see the Dems actually follow through on their promise to drain the swamp. So seeing Hoyer elected over him gives me hope.
On the war – neither of us is going to change the other’s mind so it’s pointless.
Posted by: OCSteve | November 17, 2006 at 11:11 AM
OCSteve: It’s not just about the war. He was tainted, he has fought ethics reform in the past, and just this week he was calling the Dem’s ethics reform plans crap. I hope to see the Dems actually follow through on their promise to drain the swamp. So seeing Hoyer elected over him gives me hope.
Oh. Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree that Hoyer's any better on that front than Murtha, but I do agree that draining the swamp is almost as important as running free and fair elections in 2008.
On the war – neither of us is going to change the other’s mind so it’s pointless.
Well, it's pointless because neither one of us has any way to influence the US's behavior in Iraq: I don't doubt that if you'd been running the war, or anyone with more common sense and willingness to listen to the facts, many things would have been done fundamentally differently from the way Bush did them: but if I'd been in Tony Blair's shoes, I'd never have let troops from the UK join in the US invasion of Iraq in the first place: I'd have told Bush I wouldn't have any part of a pointless and aggressive war.
But, the fact is that the US can "win" in Iraq will now only be accomplished by declaring that whatever condition Iraq is in represents "victory" and getting the troops out. And it would appear that Bush - since he's now saying that he never said "stay the course" now knows that he won't be able to ignore the situation until a few months in 2008 when it can be some other President's problem: the US army won't last that long.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 17, 2006 at 11:30 AM
I don't think this matters all that much. The only reason we're all staring so hard and analyzing so much is because it's the first decision-first contested decision--of the new Democratic-led Congress. In a year, after they have made lots of decisions, this one won't look so important.
Slarti, Murtha didn't speak crap about the war. He just spoke the truth before a critical mass was ready to hear it. Bt truth, I mean that he said we needed to get out because we weren't winning. At the time he said that there was a lot more denial than there is now. After all the Baker group came back a week or so ago with the suggestion that we do some kind of slow pull out overr time, an unacknowledged acknowledgement that we aren't headed in the direction of winning.
It's a heartbreaking situation. It seems to me that the only way to be wrong about Iraq is to be inn denial of the problems and to belittle the barers of bad news. Ideas and sugestions about what to do are just that: ideas and suggestions. And god knows we need ideas and suggestions because the mess is getting worse every day.
If you really want to get depressed read Totten's article about Lebanon. He's predicting take overr by Syria and Iran.
Posted by: lily | November 17, 2006 at 11:59 AM
I thought Churchill said democracy is the worst possible system, not "is not".
But going back to the topic, I think Podhoretz is right. Pelosi used poor judgment with her clumsy backing of Murtha, but it's way too premature to call her "damaged goods" like some idiots are saying. In comparison, the Republicans are acting like idiots, electing Lott to minority whip and Boehner, Blunt, Putnam and Granger to the House leadership.
Posted by: Charles Bird | November 17, 2006 at 12:51 PM
I didn't say "crap". I said "nonsense". If you don't know what I'm talking about, you've been ignoring both Murtha and me.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 17, 2006 at 01:11 PM
I don't think this matters all that much.
Agreed. It's hardly big news that there are rivalries within the Democratic Party (or the Republican Party) and that they sometimes show up in intra-party contests.
The attention being given to this by the media just reflects their unending desire to act like insiders and cover races and infighting at the expense of more substantive matters.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | November 17, 2006 at 02:14 PM
Thanks for this post, hilzoy; a good attitude with which to head into the next several months.
Hostile observers are ready to have it both ways: if Murtha had been chosen, it would have indicated that Democrats are just as corrupt as the rejected Republicans; the choice of Hoyer, on the other hand, is being treated (completely incorrectly, in my view) as Democratic rank-and-file rejection of the antiwar base.
It's nothing of the kind. Hoyer had sewed up the Majority Leader vote early on (before the election), by getting commitments from many influential Dems, including many who advocate withdrawal from Iraq. Pelosi's support for Murtha was, I'm sure, at least partly a gesture to the antiwar base -- but it was only effective among the portion of that base that knew almost nothing of Murtha before November 2005.
Posted by: Nell | November 17, 2006 at 05:20 PM
OCSteve: I hope to see the Dems actually follow through on their promise to drain the swamp. So seeing Hoyer elected over him gives me hope.
Then you need to know more about Steny Hoyer.
Posted by: Nell | November 17, 2006 at 05:23 PM
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you've been ignoring both Murtha and me.
And you've been ignoring Baker and Bush, but who could blame you when they start talking the same kind of "nonsense" about the war in Iraq as Murtha talked? Never mind them, Slarti. Reality is what you make it... especially if you pay no attention at all to current events.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 17, 2006 at 06:00 PM
Groovy. Because I don't cover all topics (which are, naturally, not this one), my coverage of this particular topic must be invalid.
I just know you think you're going to get some mileage from this, but I can't see how.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 17, 2006 at 06:10 PM
I can't help but call greater attention to the machinations of Our Liberal Media as demonstrated in hilzoy's excerpt above:
Think of all the dozens -- nay, hundreds -- of anonymous "Administration officials" you've seen quoted in major media over the last six years. Have any of them ever received an attribution like this?Posted by: Phil | November 17, 2006 at 06:57 PM
Slarti: Groovy. Because I don't cover all topics
Your comment about Murtha - that he had "repeatedly babbled nonsense in the matter of the Iraq war" - was (I assumed) with reference to Murtha's sensible but unwelcome news that the US had lost the war in Iraq and it was just a matter of deciding whether or not to lose the army, too.
In January 2005, James Baker was babbling the same nonsense, in October 2006 the Times announced that the Iraq Study Group was to babble the same nonsense, and shortly after Bush met with his generals, it appears Bush is beginning to babble the same nonsense.
But, hey. Just as you like. Murtha is babbling nonsense: you know so much more about Iraq and the capabilities of the US military than he does, I'm sure.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 17, 2006 at 07:20 PM
Slartibartfast: "Right around here I feel I should acknowledge that I don't harbor any ill feelings toward Murtha. I simply think he carries too much baggage, has shown himself to at least be willing to play along with corruption, and has repeatedly babbled nonsense in the matter of the Iraq war. "
I'd be *fascinated* to know what sort of 'nonsense' he has babbled.
Posted by: Barry | November 17, 2006 at 07:34 PM
Always, but almost always incorrectly.
Look, this isn't hard. It's not as if I haven't mentioned even one stupid thing Murtha's suggested in this thread.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 17, 2006 at 08:22 PM
Barry: I'd be *fascinated* to know what sort of 'nonsense' he has babbled.
So would I, since Slarti isn't (he says) referring to any of the things I'm aware of that Murtha has said about Iraq.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 17, 2006 at 08:25 PM
I'm sorry, Slarti, if my response to you semed snappish. I honestly didn't feel that way when I wrote it. I just felt sad. I do think Murtha's "nonsense" is well on the way to being conventional wisdom. Or as much wisdom as anyone has to say about this mess.
Posted by: lily | November 17, 2006 at 09:51 PM
I assumed
Always, but almost always incorrectly.
Look, this isn't hard. It's not as if I haven't mentioned even one stupid thing Murtha's suggested in this thread.
And then you wonder why you're characterized as "slippery."
Look, this isn't hard. You said Murtha "babbled nonsense about the Iraq war." Several people have responded that what they understand as Murtha's position is far from nonsense.
In response, you might:
1) Agree with them. Not bloody likely. (Fair enough.)
2) Disagree with them by showing how Murtha's position is nonsense.
3) Point out (politely?) that the "nonsense" to which you alluded was in fact something quite different, call it X.
Instead, you choose:
4) Suggest that it's something quite different, but you're not saying what.
Slippery, that's what it is. And bloody rude.
Posted by: dr ngo | November 17, 2006 at 11:43 PM
Slart's 10:32 AM is a hint.
Posted by: kenB | November 18, 2006 at 12:02 AM
kenB, hint at what? If Slartibartfast has some Murtha nonsense to point out, why would being in Okinawa prevent that? Unless this means that Slartibartfast went to Okinawa via an FTL method, and so posting that news to us would be posting out-of-light-cone information, causing Eschaton retaliation....
Posted by: Barry | November 18, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Barry: Unless this means that Slartibartfast went to Okinawa via an FTL method, and so posting that news to us would be posting out-of-light-cone information, causing Eschaton retaliation.
I think you've hit it! Very responsible of Slarti. I wonder what's going to happen next week that he's hinting at now?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 18, 2006 at 10:39 AM
I seem to recall someone saying, somewhere, that Murtha had suggested redeploying our troops from Iraq to Okinawa. If anyone cares about this argument, it might be worth checking out.
Posted by: hilzoy | November 18, 2006 at 11:00 AM
The 'Okinawa' reference seems to come from a news conference one year ago, when Murtha first announced his opposition to continued US military enagement in the midst of a civil war.
Posted by: matttbastard | November 18, 2006 at 11:19 AM
While we're already thrashing about with Pelosi-Hoyer-Murtha .........
...I thought I'd point out the most recent Kevin Drum post citing someone or other's summing up of the Republican class of 1994 ..
...it hits the nail on the head (the one I've been trying to hit for 12 years) so completely, finally, and devastatingly that I think I can now kick back and get a life.
Pelosi/Hoyer/Murtha will probably screw things up, for all I know, but at least they will do it from a basis of human fragility, imperfection, and haphazardness, having practiced being human beings since birth.
The other guys --- even now that their butts are well kicked they claim that the hymens of their Randian virginity remain intact.
Willfully, sadistically, damaging people.
Posted by: John Thullen | November 18, 2006 at 11:40 AM
John, it's on Brad DeLong's blog:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/11/cbss_dick_meyer.html
The title of the post is: "CBS's Dick Meyer Is a Journamalistic Skank".
This goes in a list with Thomas E 'Forget what I said before, believe me now' Ricks' book 'Fiasco', and Bob 'A President's Man, until he becomes a loser' Woodward's book 'State of Denial' (subtitle: 'My previous two books are no longer operative'). The list is called 'Liberal Media? What Liberal Media?'
Posted by: Barry | November 18, 2006 at 03:04 PM
MSM comments on Pelosi's "failures" as Speaker of the House before she's even been, y'know, actually elected to the job brings back memories.
In 1992, literally the day after Clinton was elected, I happened to be listening to Larry King, who was taking calls about the election. Some callers were in a frothing rage that the Democratic candidate had won.
One of them declared that he would give Clinton "exactly 100 days" to keep all the promises Clinton had made during the campaign before he intended to file a lawsuit for breach of contract. He even named the date he intended to file the lawsuit... 100 days after the election. Larry King was a bit startled and confused as he told the caller, "You do realize, don't you, that Clinton won't actually be inaugerated until January 21, 1993?" The caller phumpha'd and muttered- clearly, he had not realized that small yet oh so salient point.
Neither, apparently, had the news media. Clinton, as you might recall, had some difficulties naming who his Cabinet would be. The big story - again, note, before Clinton had actually taken office - became "disarray in the Clinton Administration." It got so bad that Dave Barry famously cracked a joke about how the Clinton Administration was being called a failure before it had even started.
Looking back, those were the first signs of the phenomenon Wingnuttias ignoramus which has so enlivened our public discourse ever since. And the first sign that the MSM was about to embark on its new paradigm of subjecting Democratic leaders to much closer and more hostile scrutiny than Republicans.
Posted by: CaseyL | November 18, 2006 at 07:59 PM
All: Please excuse my slipperiness in assuming the Okinawa bit was as widely known and recognized as, say, Grover Norquist, and feel free to further ridicule anyone of your choosing for that assumption.
The Norquist thing refers to Gary Farber's justifiable bashing of me for not having been familiar with Norquist's manipulation of the GOP. Or whatever you want to call it. This information has been provided to avoid the appearance of rudeness.
I'd have linked video clips that contain the Murtha/Okinawa reference, but I couldn't find any that had been edited down to just that segment (as opposed to, for example, 15 minutes on either side of it. I'd be happy to dig it up for anyone whose Google is broken.
Anyway, it wasn't my intention to be slippery or rude. I did lose my patience toward the end, which you should interpret as me declining to re-explain the punchline for the dozenth time.
I suppose now I can open my trophy case and add "slippery" and "bloody rude" to the other things that dr ngo has pasted on me. I'm starting to run out of room, though, so it'd be good to know what else might be coming.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 19, 2006 at 10:02 AM
Slarti: I did lose my patience toward the end, which you should interpret as me declining to re-explain the punchline for the dozenth time.
"Re-explain"?
As Dr Ngo pointed out, you came across as rude and slippery because you refused to explain at all what you meant. (Matttbastard did eventually figure it out and let the rest of us in on it.) For you to claim you were tired of "re-explaining" is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie: you can't get tired of "re-explaining" when your pattern of response was to refuse to explain, though you may indeed have lost patience with the repeated questions asking you to explain which you as repeatedly refused to answer.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 19, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Sorry, Slartibartfast: I shouldn't have accused you of lying.
We all know by now that you find it a horrible, hateful imposition to have to spell out what you meant: that when asked to explain yourself, your habit is to respond with further obfustication: and that when people misunderstand what you wrote, you get angry and attack them verbally for being stupid. It's a pattern that by now we're all familiar with, and I'm sure you do think that your habit of further obfustication counts as "explaining", and repeating without clarification counts as "re-explaining", so you weren't actually lying when you claimed to have "re-explained", and we know that you don't regard your habit of doing this as being "slippery" or "rude": it's all the rest of us who are at fault.
I'd have linked video clips that contain the Murtha/Okinawa reference, but I couldn't find any that had been edited down to just that segment (as opposed to, for example, 15 minutes on either side of it. I'd be happy to dig it up for anyone whose Google is broken.
Oddly enough, Slarti, many bloggers have developed the habit of kind of editing interviews down to "just that segment" themselves when they want to post it. You can find transcripts, you see - I know that's terribly oldfashioned compared to videolinks, and you want to be hip and cutting edge - and take a quote from the transcript, post that, and then link to the full transcript. Add video links, if you like. If you have trouble working out how to do that, I'd be glad to help out.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 19, 2006 at 10:24 AM
I'm sure if you think about it for a moment, the connection with Morquist will come to you.
Or, probably, not. So, here it is: I assumed everyone who pays attention to what's going on in the world had heard Murtha's comment about redeploying to Okinawa. In hindsight, a bad move on my part.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 19, 2006 at 10:27 AM
Of course - apologies for the triple comment - a major problem for right-wing bloggers who want to claim Murtha is "babbling nonsense" is that if people get to read the full transcript of the interview, it won't look like "babbling nonsense": the only way it can look like "babbling nonsense" is if you go the Fox News route and cut out one tiny little video clip from the interview and show only, only that clip, without any reference to anything else Murtha said and the context in which he said it. And as Slarti said himself, he didn't know how to do that, and evidently he didn't want to link to the full interview in which it would be clear that Murtha was talking much more sense than Bush.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 19, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Slarti: So, here it is: I assumed everyone who pays attention to what's going on in the world had heard Murtha's comment about redeploying to Okinawa. In hindsight, a bad move on my part.
And naturally, there was no way you could find a transcript of the interview in which he said it, pull the quote you wanted to describe as "babbling nonsense" off the transcript, post the quote, and link to the transcript.
After all, people might well then have read the interview and started asking you hard questions about why you're claiming Murtha "keeps babbling nonsense" about the Iraq war, when what you meant was that there was one line in one interview that you didn't like, in the middle of a lot of hard sense.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 19, 2006 at 10:33 AM
Slarti,
You might want to drop the defensiveness a bit, it's really not helping. The only reason you think everyone should know about Murtha's statement is because the righty blogosphere went nuts about it. The top five google results for "Murtha Okinawa" are townhall, Malkin, Powerline, Blackfive, and Prairie Pundit The first two pages of links are virtually all right-wing websites. The same search at the Wapo and NYT gave me a single off hand mention in a Post article about Rove. Those of us who don't read righty blogs on a regular basis can probably be forgiven for not being aware of who they awarded the Unserious Democrat of the Week award to that week, or why. Now, maybe we can discuss the babbling of nonsense?
Posted by: Larv | November 19, 2006 at 11:03 AM
Sure, we can discuss that.
Is there any amount of sense that you can see in redeploying to Okinawa? Is there any amount of sense that can be made of that?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 19, 2006 at 11:10 AM
Is there any amount of sense that you can see in redeploying to Okinawa? Is there any amount of sense that can be made of that?
Is there any amount of sense that could be made in your claim that one line in one interview constituted "keeps babbling nonsense"?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 19, 2006 at 11:26 AM
Is there any amount of sense that you can see in redeploying to Okinawa? Is there any amount of sense that can be made of that?
Well, as opposed to what? Does staying in Iraq make much sense? Look, it's not like Murtha has released a detailed plan to redeploy our forces to Okinawa. He was asked in the interview where we might redeploy forces to, and after mentioning Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar as possibilities, he mentions Okinawa. He seems to be casting about for a non-islamic country where we already have facilities and from which we could respond to trouble in the ME reasonably rapidly. I don't know enough of military logistics to say just how absurd this is, but it's pretty much a throwaway line, not a detailed plan. As a response to the question he was asked, it doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me. Is it a poorly thought out response? I don't know, that depends on exactly what function he intends those forces to have. I certainly don't think it constitutes babbling nonsense. If you think it does, please feel free to share your reasoning.
Posted by: Larv | November 19, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Jes:
Actually, upon further investigation, it appears the 'Okinawa' ridicule stems from a Meet The Press appearance Murtha made this past June:
Slarti spells out his objections to the plan here and here.
Posted by: matttbastard | November 19, 2006 at 01:01 PM
Video here.
Posted by: matttbastard | November 19, 2006 at 01:06 PM
Brief clip here.
Posted by: matttbastard | November 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM
Thanks, Mattt. One day, Slarti will learn to do what you just did for him.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM
Can't believe I linked to Protein Wisdom AND Expose the Left.
I feel dirty.
In penance, here's tristero on born again war opponent Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman.
Posted by: matttbastard | November 19, 2006 at 01:20 PM
Which, at an unfavorable reading (Murtha suggested several spots, and interviewers focused in on one of them), that Murtha has commited approximately one MiliBush of nonsense.
Or, perhaps more appropriately, there's definitely a speck in Murtha's eye.
Posted by: Barry | November 19, 2006 at 01:37 PM
I was going to say much of what Larv said so, instead:
Here's the actual interview in which Murtha talked abut Okinawa, here's the page on which the reference arose and here's the actual reference:
I'd agree that, looked at as a policy statement, this is kind of silly; but I also think that looking at this as a policy statement is itself kind of silly.
Posted by: Anarch | November 19, 2006 at 01:56 PM
I think my position could stated, in conformance to the Anarch form, "looked at as a public statement of general things that could be done as regards Iraq, made by a member of Congress who is (ostensibly) to be taken seriously, this is kind of silly".
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 19, 2006 at 02:14 PM
Slarti: "looked at as a public statement of general things that could be done as regards Iraq, made by a member of Congress who is (ostensibly) to be taken seriously, this is kind of silly".
Looked at as a revision of your initial claim that Murtha "keeps babbling nonsense", that's a rather fairer assessment.
(Since I think that the US military ought to be sent home to prevent it from being a further destabilizing force in the Middle East, I even agree with you - though probably not for the same reason - that it's rather silly to suggest only redeploying the same units elsewhere.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 19, 2006 at 02:24 PM
I believe the term for my previous post is: pwned. Sorry matttbastard et al; verily, I suck at life, or at least these intarwub tubey things.
Posted by: Anarch | November 19, 2006 at 02:31 PM
Anarch: I have some experience being teh winnar, so don't worry 'bout it.
Posted by: matttbastard | November 19, 2006 at 03:01 PM
Slarti: You started off saying, I simply think he carries too much baggage, has shown himself to at least be willing to play along with corruption, and has repeatedly babbled nonsense in the matter of the Iraq war.
So far we've found one bit of prospective babble - of five countries enumerated, he rejects one as a host for the obvious reason that it's close but really doesn't want our troops any more, cites three right in the region where we do have bases and presumably could continue to use them, and cites one at a distance. To me the context is pretty clear, that the last would be a reasonable staging ground for force that doesn't have to be on call and on site in minutes, but what the hey, I feel mellow, I see why you'd object.
Okay. That's one.
What else? Or is saying one thing you find somewhat impractical ever sufficient for "repeatedly"?
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | November 19, 2006 at 03:26 PM
Adding on to what Bruce has said:
Posted by: Slartibartfast: "Right around here I feel I should acknowledge that I don't harbor any ill feelings toward Murtha. I simply think he carries too much baggage, has shown himself to at least be willing to play along with corruption, and has repeatedly babbled nonsense in the matter of the Iraq war. It's not that his time in service gets him no credit, rather that service doesn't make up for everything."
Emphasis: 'Repeatedly babbled nonsense in the matter of the Iraq war.'
I'm now even more of a believer in the supernatural nature of duck tape Only a supernatural binding agent could have kept Slart's head from literally exploding under repeated assaults of nonsense from Bush, Cheney, et al, if that statement by Murtha was enough nonsense to cause Slart to have feel that Murtha has 'too much baggage'.
Or, at the risk of repeating myself, Matthew 7:3.
Posted by: Barry | November 19, 2006 at 05:54 PM
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing but spend time chasing sleazy right-wing obfuscation-artists. Precision trolls.
They love it when you chase them, you know. It means their thread-jack worked. All of your forward progress was brought to a halt, and you had to spend dozens of exchanges establishing what everyone already knew, namely that people who supported a regime that came to power on dishonest smears are still engaged in--what do you know?--dishonest smears.
I used to visit this site more often. But the spectacle of its descent into dysfunction is just too pathetic. And don't deceive yourselves that the dysfunction is accidental, or just ordinary give-and-take. For some people, interrupting progressive discourse is an end in itself.
Posted by: sad to see | November 19, 2006 at 07:33 PM
sad to see: I think that as a sporadic visitor you're missing an important aspect of Slartibartfast - he's not a troll. (He may occasionally behave like one, but let the blogger who never lived under a bridge throw the first billygoat.) He's a regular who joins in discussions, albeit with an annoying habit of assuming that everyone will "get" his unspoken assumptions, and refusing to explain when it's clear that people didn't. This is not to say that it isn't bloody irritating when he does that - it is, and I wish that he'd quit - but he is not a troll.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 20, 2006 at 04:18 AM
(He may occasionally behave like one, but let the blogger who never lived under a bridge throw the first billygoat.)
*Baaaaaaa!*
Posted by: Anarch | November 20, 2006 at 10:37 AM