Man, people will ignore anything if they wanna.

But did Cheney really say:

We worked that area very hard, and the Paks have been great allies in that effort.

???

Is this a political party of slow learners, or what? Though then again, considering the disgusting display of Macaca-sahib publicly orally servicing Allen, I suppose it doesn't matter what they say anymore.

I wish I could kiss ass like that!

Abhi - Am I right to assume that you disagree with Cheney's on Mushy being a "good ally"?
Btw, So do I.
However, when I put myself in Mushy's shining shoes, I don't have a clue on what to do instead?
Think of it. Given his circumstances - Unrest in Baluchistan ; Ever increasing fear of being circled by India, with help from Afghanistan, which caused the defacto and not to mention, humiliating surrender to the Taleban in Waziristan;
Increasing disenchantment amongst the Kashmir wing of the all powerful Army over his seeming softness on the issue; etc, etc

What is a dictator to do? What indeed?

What you say about Pervez 'the perv' (Thanks, Jon Stewart) Musharraff is true. The issue, however, is not what Mushy should do but what Washington should.

What should Washington do, Thomas?

Abhi-- oh my gosh I nearly cried laughing at that introduction and you writing "The Macaca who is speaking on stage" made me shout-laugh at work. Thanksk for making my afternoon that much more hilarious!

That snide macaca remark in your introduction was hilarious dude!

wow. macaca-tastic! that was classic.

Kritic,

he really only has one option. He must continue waffling / playing both sides. He's done this fairly well so far, and thus maintained his position, although occasionally at great personal peril.

Taking a stronger stance as either anti-Taliban or anti-American would be very very detrimental to his well-being. The first would alienate (even further) a huge chunk of the Pakistani population. The second would have his international and military aid dry up in minutes. Neither option could possibly be very palatable, but he's got to be leaning towards a more anti-Taliban stance, given the events you mentioned in Baluchistan and Waziristan. I really don't see how the Waziristan accord accomplishes much, really--it's basically the Pakistani government turning a blind eye towards something they know they can't handle.

That has to piss Musharraf off majorly.

Salil - You are right on him leaning a more anti-Teliban stance

But for the reason, I mentioned above,i.e, to stem the Indian "encircling" of Pakistan - Mushy hopes/prays the Taliban disappears from Pakistan, but not from Afghanistan. Indeed, he would be only to happy, If the ISI proteges regained control next door. Albeit, this time, under a shorter leash.

He reminds of the "dhobi ka kute, na ghar ka, na ghat ka"

--it's basically the Pakistani government turning a blind eye towards something they know they can't handle.

He is in a stalemate. Stuck in the trenches and static.

Either he breaks the stalemate with political suicide (declaring elections on every level including Presidential) or the stalemate is broken for him domestically either by someone removing him (death, internal military coup), or externally by entanglement with another country (India, US).

Either he breaks the stalemate with political suicide (declaring elections on every level including Presidential) or the stalemate is broken for him domestically either by someone removing him (death, internal military coup), or externally by entanglement with another country (India, US).

There's one other card he hasn't yet played, but which could win him major points politically, but would probably in the long run cost him his life: direct military action in Waziristan.

that introduction is pathetic. a demi-God, a GOD?!?!?! and allen's response was, "I am blown away at that introduction, but I am NOT in india. I am here in the United States as your senator." how can one of my skin colour even stand up for allen? i just don't understand or accept it. pathetic.

How does such a tool get elected to political office in the first place?

How does such a tool get elected to political office in the first place?

Sriram, there's a logical explanation for everything:

In Allen's first race for Virginia delegate, he placed 3rd out of 4th place. Allen states that he lost because he wasn't himself and was listening to the advice of his campaign manager who suggested he wear wingtips instead of his usual cowboy boots. He ran again in 1982 with the cowboy boots and won the election.

I like watching Russert grill people on Sunday mornings too -- it is a great way to work through the morning hangover, so thanks for the heads up.

That said, I think this post demands a full disclosure. For instance you omitted to mention that you replay that TiVo'd episode some fifty times the coming week. Or digitally manipulate your face onto Russert's (link missing). Abhi, my brother, you'll do anything to write about your idol. Innit?

The perv is also known as mushy? I'm sure you guys know what "muschi" means in German. Oh you don't?

Dick Cheney, George Bush, and now Muschi the Perv. You can't make this stuff up...

(*half the Mutiny hurries over to google images*)

Good catch Herr K. It also explains his attitude about dealing with growing fundamentalism witihn his country.

PS: Great thinking. Very out of the ...er.. box ;)

Below is an op-ed by Najam Sethi, one of the more pragamtic Pakistani intellectual.
Also, Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan is scheduled to speak at Asia Society in New York, on the 18th of Sept, Monday. In case someone is interested.

The State of the Pakistani Nation
Najam Sethi's Editorial

"The writ of the state", thunders General Pervez Musharraf, "shall be enforced at all costs in Balochistan where tribalism stands abolished". Then he blithely surrenders the same dubious writ of the state to resurgent Talibanism and entrenched tribalism in Waziristan and celebrates the retreat of the state as a "historic breakthrough".

The truth is that General Musharraf is selling pure opportunism as principled constitutionalism. The "writ" of the state refers to the "constitution" of the state - hence the term "writ petition" in legal parlance for redress of constitutional rights. In turn, the "constitution" enshrines the "socio-political consensus" of a nation by means of which the state is to be organized and run. But if the constitution of a country like Pakistan has been so military-mangled that, far from reflecting the consensus of diverse elements that are supposed to voluntarily constitute a nation, it actually provokes violent resistance by popular national stake-holders, how on earth can the state justify force to establish an un-consensual and undemocratic writ?

General Musharraf never tires of reproaching us with the observation that Indians, for example, seem so "patriotic" in their attitudes to, and defense of, their state compared to Pakistanis who always seem to be wanting on this score. But has he ever paused to reflect this is so because a democratic national consensus is enshrined and upheld in the Indian constitution whereas in Pakistan the military-mangled constitution of today bears no resemblance to the 1973 constitution which was cobbled together on the basis of a national consensus? That is why most Indians could live with the idea of forcefully establishing the "writ of the Indian state" in insurgency-wracked east Punjab in the 1980s, Kashmir in the 1990s and a couple of north-eastern Indian states to date while most Pakistanis are voicing anguished protest over military action against disgruntled elements in Balochistan.

But that isn't all most Pakistanis think and feel about the way General Musharraf is running the state and enforcing its writ. A May 2006 public opinion survey conducted in Pakistan by the International Republican Institute, a reputable research organization of the US Republican Party of General Musharraf's best friend, President Bush, revealed that 66% percent of all Pakistanis wanted their exiled leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif back in Pakistan to contest the next general elections. Indeed, 77% thought that Pakistan needed a strong but popular leader - General Musharraf seems 'strong' by virtue of his uniform but he has admitted his popularity is waning, most respondents in the survey think he shouldn't be army chief and president at the same time, and Ms Bhutto (18%) leads the pack for prime ministership. Most interestingly, 60% want a parliamentary system instead of a presidential system, a majority believes that General Musharraf's regime will not hold free and fair elections, and only 7% will want to vote for the mullahs and religious parties.

On each count, General Musharraf seems opposed to the will of the people. He doesn't want the exiled leaders to return and participate in the next elections, he refuses to extricate himself from the clutches of the unpopular mullahs and embrace the popular political parties, he insists on strong presidential powers in a weak parliamentary system, he will not allow an independent election commission and caretaker government to conduct the elections, and he seems bent on retaining his uniform and also being president. Under the circumstances, talk of restoring the writ of the state is nonsense. Is that the beginning of the end of the story?

The same survey showed that a majority of Pakistanis generally approved of General Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz personally even though only 28% thought well of the PMLQ's ability to govern. Similarly, half of all respondents wanted some role for the army in civilian government. But the outbreak of several corruption scandals in June and July after the survey steel mills, stock market, etc - has hurt Mr Aziz's credibility. Worse, the Balochistan fiasco has damaged the political credentials of General Musharraf and the military considerably while exacerbating political tensions within the ruling alliance and emboldening the opposition to unite against the regime. So where do we go from here in restoring the elusive and diminishing "writ of the state"?

Clearly, the people have shown the way forward via the survey. The state has to sincerely enable the exiled popular political leaders to return and give them a transparent and level playing field in the next elections under a neutral caretaker government. Mr Aziz can cash in his sponsor-chips and stake a respectable claim in the PMLQ. General Musharraf can shed his uniform and become an elected president representing the military in a predominantly prime ministerial and genuinely federal system. Finally, the nation's "new" ruling establishment will have to devise a strategy of peaceful accommodation with India and Afghanistan instead of conflict in order to secure stability within Pakistan.

If General Musharraf has the wisdom to fathom the nature of the required paradigm shift and the skill to effect it in the writ of the state, we will be well served. But if he continues to "stop-go" and "flip-flop" much longer, we will be doomed to a dead-end.

From The Friday Times

Abhi - Am I right to assume that you disagree with Cheney's on Mushy being a "good ally"?

I'm on the fence. As far as I'm concerned he is good enough until there is a better democratically elected individual who you can trust with those nukes.

Abhi, my brother, you'll do anything to write about your idol. Innit?

Eventually our people will be in politics. When that time comes there will be the need for a brown Tim Russert. I wait patiently until that time.

What should Washington do, Thomas?

Washington should keep playing ball with Musharraf. Most serious analysts give Musharraf a B- over all and maybe even an A considering the constraints he has to work under. Musharraf is absolutely vital in the war against salafist jihadist as a lot of the Salafist Jihadist (especially the Brit Pakis) go to Pakistan for garnering support/building contacts etc.

I don't think we know enough about the new Waziristan deal to reach any conclusions. Look, Musharraf is not your friendly progressive neighbor and nor are Mubarak, Abdullahs from Jordan and Saudi Arabia, Gulf Chiefs and the rest. However these people are crucial allies in the war against salafist jihadist terror and without their support and the support of their intelligence agencies there are definitely going to be more attacks on Western soil by renegade Jihadis who get a lot of their support from the home base if you will. The intelligence agencies from these countries are absolutely necessary to foil terrorist attacks in the West. The intelligence they gather from people in the Middle Eastern/South Asian nations has been absolutely crucial in breaking up/disrupting terror cells operating in the West.

I know Mushie is shitty to India and all that. But India needs to take care of its problems. As long as Mushie plays ball with the US and there are no better alternatives, the US should continue to support Musharraf. Ideally Musharraf should be gone and so should Mubarak, Abdullah, Asad and all the other petty dictators. However that cannot be accomplished without total war, a massive draft, a massive Marshall Plan 2 and the rest.

The key in the war against salafist jihadist is good intelligence. As long as Musharraf is in the best position to secure that for the US, then he
is our man.

Again, on Sunday, NBC’s “Meet the Press” sponsors an hour-long debate between former Navy Secretary James Webb and Senator George Allen.

Please click here to send an email to “Meet the Press” and make sure Allen is effectively held accountable for his mistreatment of S.R. Sidarth. I am offering the following form for you to copy, modify, and use as you see fit:
----------------------------------------

This Sunday during the debate between George Allen and Jim Webb, Tim Russert should please challenge Allen to respond to the point that Allen’s mother was a French-Tunisian immigrant, that the term “macaca” he used referring to Webb volunteer S.R. Sidarth is used by French colonials to refer to dark-skinned people, and that Allen himself speaks French fluently. Russert might also recite Allen’s Confederate-flag history documented at http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060515&s=lizza051506 and http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060508&s=lizza050806. He could show the Allen photo with leaders of a white supremacist group documented at http://www.alternet.org/story/41085/. He could then ask, “Given all that, Senator, how believable should it be to viewers that you didn’t know what you were saying?”

“Meet the Press” under Tim Russert is famous for its research and its fearlessness. Please don’t give Allen the usual pass that every other other journalist has given him when asking him about the issue, blindly accepting his explanations without confronting him with the specific facts that belie the explanations.

Please let us all know when you've sent such an email so we can keep count and watch on Sunday to see if Russert was paying attention.

If you are enjoying yourself trying to influence the media into asking the right questions, here's an amazing ad you should watch that completely undercuts Allen's macho image of "supporting the troops." You might want to send a separate email to MSNBC ask Russert to play the ad from Vote Vets during the debate and ask Allen and Webb to comment.

You didn't think I could end this email without asking you to contribute to the cause of defeating Allen did you? Here's another way--donate to Vote Vets to get the amazing ad aired in Virginia. And when they ask you at the end of your contribution form where else you'd like to see a similar ad aired--please say "Ohio."

Subodh
Thanks for the call to action, and for spreading the word. I sent an email and will encourage others to do the same.
Mallika Chopra

Done, with BI-like modifications to the form letter. Let's see if Russert grills him like I hope he does. Abhi, my TiVo is set, too. I'm practically rubbing my hands with glee...he better not let me down, dammit!

I'm still kind of blown away that he called them "Paks." I mean, seriously...WTF?

I'm still kind of blown away that he called them "Paks." I mean, seriously...WTF?

I'd like to make a quip using the words "blown away," "Cheney," and "Harry Wittington," but I will refrain from doing so. (I know, I know: that's so February 06 of me.)

Salil, I'm also surprised by his word choice (Wikipedia does list "pak" as a known racial slur) though I doubt he'll face any flak about it. If you really want to make a point, you need to use a food metaphor for race, like "coconut."

I am stealing this line from another blog, but I can't remember which one so I can't credit it: Pakistan is a US ally like Saudi Arabia is a US ally. Rock, meet hard place....

I don't think Cheney meant Paks in any bad way....I doubt someone who has been around Washington that long would use that term in a deliberately racial way if he thought it was a racial slur. He calls them an ally and then a racial slur? Please. He's an old man. He used a short-hand he thought was acceptable and he probably didn't know better. This isn't Britain. How many people in the US know that Pak could be interpreted as a racial slur, when a shorthand like Brit is not? Russert could have edumacated him, I suppose, since he's so smooth.....and dull. And earnest. And dull. And, hey Russert, why you so close mouthed about the Plame fizzle?

Hey military and attorney types: if Pakistan makes a truce with Al Q, and there are less Pakistani troops around, does it make it easier to send some of our guys in there, or is it still tough? Anyone know?

I'm not interested in either George Allen or his opponenent. I dislike his terminology and I dislike Webb's ideas about women in the military and his economic populism. And I don't live in the state.

I am stealing this line from another blog, but I can't remember which one so I can't credit it: Pakistan is a US ally like Saudi Arabia is a US ally. Rock, meet hard place....

I am not sure whats up with all the hating on Pakistan. As Cheney said,

The fact is we’ve captured and killed more al-Qaeda in Pakistan than any place else in the world in the last five years. President Musharraf has been a great ally.

Do we want the above to end?

TOI says Pak all the time. In headlines, in main columns, as an adjective, etc. It's a somewhat aggressive abbreviation (PAK BOUGHT OSAMA NUKES!), but it's not the slur of first choice.

Now if Allah had been merciful and Dick had actually said "Paki," then the discussion could have gotten really interesting.

Amfd - I couldn't agree with you more on - what washington should do. You shave summed it up quite nicely
However, I do believe that India needs to get a little aggressive in the region.

I cannot believe those uncle tom desi folks. This guy is a racist. He has proven it time and time again. With his fetish for the confedercy, speaking to white power groups and of course the macaca-debaca-l. Its ricockulous. I think that this points to the strain among some affluent desi immigrants to care about NOTHING else than lower taxes, i.e. keeping more money for themselves. Yes I know they worked hard, brought themselves up from nothing and you should be proud of it, but to sell oneself out in this way is a goddamn disgrace.

why are there so many Al Qaeda in Pakistan in the first place? That was the point of the comment, Al Mujahid for debauchery. I agree, now that this mess has been created, it's hard to clean it up and Musharraf is not in an enviable position.

No one hates Pakistan here, at least, I sure don't. The actions of the government, on the other hand, are a different matter. No fun to reap what you sow.....

Discodandia - the best way to get people of a different political side to agree with you is to call them an uncle tom....sure to work. Genius.

MD-I actually wasn't trying to bring anyone to my "political side" I was merely venting. i thought that was okay here?

To go with that thought, I wonder in this highly charged partisan atmosphere if it is in fact possible to bring someone to your "side." It seems that most political pundits/critics are mererly polemics preaching to their own side. Is ther anyone out there who is remotely convincing? And if they were, would anyone lsiten? Just a thought

Again, so sorry MD. Didnt meant to bruise ya

your Tom Uncle Discodandia

Oh, I'm more likely to be an uncle (or auntie) tom than you, never fear. Venting is fine :)

*Actually, I think the back and forth and venting that goes on in the SM comment section is actually a good place to exhange ideas, and despite the rhetorical flourishes and tendencies to have fun (which I'm the most guilty of), I bet people are really listening to all sides. I take my detractors, er, comment buddies seriously. I wouldn't want to be on a site that had the same ideas as me: dulls your game. What a waste of time.

Anyway, if I lived in Virgina and had strong opinions that put me at odds with Webb, then what would I do? I could not vote, hold my nose and vote for Allen, or hold my nose and vote for Webb. If you want to be involved, sometimes you have to make distasteful decisions. It's easy to sit it out and be ideologically pure. I have a certain respect for the desi Allen macaca types even if I disagree with them. They don't sit it out. They get involved. It's not without merit.

ok...so to say that that those brown allen suporters are not without merit MAY be taking a bit far. I'm sure they have their reasons, but as far as merit? Dunno. That's a bit relative morality that I can't bite. There IS something wrong with supporting a candidate who has racist ideas. I'm sorry there just is. If there isn't, then..where do we draw the line? What is so out of bounds that one can't "see merit" in supporting them? Baby-eating perhaps? Bathing in puupy blood? Actually, that's good for your skin, keeps you "phair beta"

That's a good point: if you really think he is racist, then there is no good in voting for him and rewarding that behavior. But, what if you don't think he's racist, but that he just f*cked up? Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I really wouldn't want either to win (I think I was unfair with the women in military comment, Webb seems to have made some comments when he was younger that he since repudiated). But his economic populism and stand on the Iraq War....I'm glad I don't live in Virginia......

why are there so many Al Qaeda in Pakistan in the first place? That was the point of the comment, Al Mujahid for debauchery.

A lot has to do with the Afghan war and the Kashmiri militant movement.

Subodh, thanks for the link to Meet the Press. I just send a modified version of your letter. Hopefully, it will have some effect.

Kobayashi:

The perv is also known as mushy? I'm sure you guys know what "muschi" means in German. Oh you don't?

Dick Cheney, George Bush, and now Muschi the Perv. You can't make this stuff up...

(*half the Mutiny hurries over to google images*)

I see you're tired of slaming Bush, so now you're going after Dick. But do us all a favor and leave the Perv alone. We Repulicans know exactly what to do with Muschi.

A lot has to do with the Afghan war and the Kashmiri militant movement.

ALM,

I somewhat disagree. It all started with General Zia-ul-Haq's Ismlamization (that coincides with Afghanistan) - so that he could stay in power, and general poverty, unemployment. That is a very lethal mix. Militants for Afghan war and Kashmiri militant movement are side products of it. Around that time, being a foot soldier for any war deemed against Islam became a norm. Since, what I have read there is always open fund collection and recruitment in the bazaars.

I do not think Pakistan-Afganistan border problem is tractable, and therefore, I am willing to give General Musharraf fair amount of credit, and in some areas he done lot better than "democratically" elected leaders in Pakistan. But I also think Pakistan is capable of democracy in long run.

I do not think anything can be done Pakistan-Afghanistan border area short of full-fledged civil war. The terrain and culture is very tough.

You are also missing an important point - what percentages of Al-Queda in the area are being captured. Is it the only ones who fallen out of favor with ISI/ Pakistan Government?

Meet the Press just ended on the east coast and, I was outraged to learn that Jim Webb, the Democratic candidate, is such a sexist assho$#.

Goes to show that, we desis should not vote for one party blindly, just because it is the cool thing to do.

Meet the Press just ended on the east coast

george allen =

kaike paan virginia waala

update on MEET THE PRESS

um.. not fan of Webb being against women in military... since i am a 'chick' pea...

russert went after allen on 'macacagate' and he says he's sorry and didn't know what he was saying.. he made the world macaca up.. um.. yeah.. 'MADE UP?'.. never heard it before? if he thought if it was slurring anybody he wouldn't have said it? and he was welcoming webbs camera man to virginia.. um.. yeah.. the confederate flag? because he a rebellious antiestablishment kid... and he still is? yet he follows George W.. although he says he has evolved... yeah.. evolved into calling people unknowingly macacas..

and both of them--40 lashes with a wet noodle for chewing tobacco... don't they know it causes cancer?

which candidate is the lesser of 2 evils?
ughhhh...
who else wants to run in VA?

I just finished watching it on TiVo on my lazy, hungover Sunday afternoon.

Some things that struck me:

- Demeanor: Both Webb and Allen had to defend rash positions they'd taken as younger men (and both did a rather poor job of it, too). Both squirmed a lot. Neither came across as particularly wonderful candidates. Advantage - neither

- Their past nutty ideas: Webb's position on women in the military is not exactly breaking news. His limp apology to the women graduates of the Naval academy ("to the extent that it caused them discomfort, I apologize," or words to that effect) was strongly reminiscent in tone of Allen's apology to S.R. Sidarth ("I didn't know it was a racist term," blah blah). Weak, weak, weak. These are the words of people who have never had to apologize for much, yet have caused other people great harm. Advantage - neither.

- Allen rarely answered questions in a straightforward manner. He seemed to dodge and weave a lot, and Russert is great at pinning someone down when they start squirming (why even try, Allen? You've seen his show, you know what you're getting yourself into). Webb seemed much more direct in his responses. He'd answer yes/no questions with (whoa!) a yes or no, and some elaboration. Allen came across to me as a good Dubya footsoldier, bought and paid for (hell, his voting record shows that, and Russert pointed it out, too), utterly unable to answer questions in any forthright way. He couldn't even commit to serving a six-year term!

While I do understand that the nature of politics and the selective manner the press operates means you need to be careful, as a politician, of what you say, it also seems like politicians frequently go too far in their CYA efforts, and Allen's performance in this regard was disgusting. Advantage - Webb

- Exit strategies and Iraq: Allen toed the party line. He did not deviate from the Bush message. Webb seemed to have some good ideas involving a military presence outside Iraq on ready alert rather than bases within Iraq, a good exit strategy, and a multilateral peace talk involving Iran, Syria, and other nations in the area. He seemed to be a proponent of diplomatic efforts, and did a fairly good job at taking whacks at the Bush "stay the course" straw man, even if they weren't particularly thrilling to watch. Advantage - Webb

- Both of them chew tobacco, which is really gross. Allen blames the Cubs (WTF?), Webb says he never dips indoors or at any "official function." Both were definitely surprised. Advantage - neither.

Allen blames the Cubs (WTF?), Webb says he never dips indoors or at any "official function." Both were definitely surprised. Advantage - neither.

salil... yeah the 'cubs training' was the WTF moment for me as well.. i had to replay that mention..along with him being from a 'football family'...a+b doesn't equal c (if you catch my drift..)

dipping is just plain gross..
and cancer causing...
hmm.. maybe i'll be treating them in the future...

Well done, comments 46 and 47.

I was disappointed because I managed to get an email to Tim Russert's producer and researcher (the email was acknowledged) urging Russert to be ready for Allen claiming that he "made up" the term macaca and to then ask Allen about

(1) the term being common among French colonials,
(2) Allen's mother being a French colonial from Tunisia,
(3) Allen being fluent in French, having learned it from his mother.

I know a number of people on this blog and at intentblog also gave similar input online, but I don't know if that input was timely received. I know mine was.

Thus, I was disappointed when Allen predictably said "I made it up," and then Russert just repeated those words without further challenge (anyone who TiVo-ed it could get us a transcript of that part).

What does it take the get the media to actually challenge a politician (and thus present the public) with facts that permit them to evaluate the credibility of a claim?

It's amazing. With 51 days left before election day I am wondering whether we just might see the statistically improbable happen: George Allen getting through the campaign without anyone effectively cross-examining him on his "French connection," the photo of him with white supremacists, etc.

Subodh,

yeah, I completely agree. You should have sent him the pictures of your kids in t-shirts; maybe that would have roused Russert from his stupor. :-D

I seriously expected more baring-of-teeth from Russert. Instead, a few times I thought Webb and Allen would go for each others' throats. Clearly, they don't like each other at all.

There's something oddly fascinating to me about veterans who become Dems. They often have some horrendously conservative views that are scary to hear (like Webb's "past" views on women in the military, particularly in combat roles), but they also often have this strong streak of common sense that's hard not to at least listen to, coupled with a straightforward plain-spoken "this is how it is" kind of attitude.

I heard Wesley Clark is going to run for Prez again...I wonder how all that's going?

With 51 days left before election day I am wondering whether we just might see the statistically improbable happen: George Allen getting through the campaign without anyone effectively cross-examining him on his "French connection," the photo of him with white supremacists, etc.

Russert was definitely our best shot on this, and he didn't really do it. He did do it at the beginning over Iraq, and Allen's non-responsive parroting of White House talking points made me puzzle over this question.

I heard Wesley Clark is going to run for Prez again...I wonder how all that's going?

Funny you should ask. On October 4, we have him coming to our house as the main draw for a fundraiser for a congressional candidate (also a veteran) from the Dayton area, Richard Chema. I was a big Clark supporter back in 2004 but he fizzled. I figured at the time that a guy whose last job title was "Supreme Allied NATO Commander" couldn't be out-hawked on national security.

Right now, unless she bows out, it looks like it's going to be Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton versus everyone else trying to position themselves as the main "Un-Hillary." With a field that would include former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, former Senator John Edwards, Senator John Kerry, and maybe even former Vice President Al Gore, Clark will have his challenges.

Russert was definitely our best shot on this,

I just tried a couple of other decent channels to get a quick message to George Stephanopoulos. He's moderating a Webb/Allen debate tomorrow at 11:30 am in Northern Virginia. One of the channels just responded saying she'll "try" to get the message to Stephanopoulos. Let's keep our fingers crossed. It shouldn't be this hard to get a rather obvious, pointed-but-fair question asked. I am genuinely curious as to how Allen would answer it, but after the Meet the Press debate today, I am not optimistic that even if the right question is asked and properly framed, we will get anything resembling an answer. Given the dodging and weaving we saw, the questioner would have to follow-up for half-an-hour.

Yeah, I'm not optimistic either. I think the idea of fighting this particular uphill battle makes the mainstream media turn its collective head away. In that regard, you almost have to admire Allen for his ability to take the stink out of his own fecal matter.

Don't we have any political browns (er, Ohio pun unintended) we can turn to who can hound this jackass with some righteous indignation? Maybe we can ask Webb to send Sidarth back to follow Allen with a camera some more. That seems like the only thing that works with this teflon-coated mofo, and then too, for like 5 minutes.

Subodh, you've gone the extra mile in trying to get some accountability here. Kudos to you for at least trying.

Allen's French connection is especially ironic considering his demeaning of the French, even in this interview. Refering to his opponent, "Even the French were for the Fist Gulf War." Webb was visibly irritated, used some anecdote about his son (made sure to mention he's a Marine) who supposedly said, "The French were in Vietnam, Allen wasn't there"

I don't think we can expect the MSM to break down the macaca issue further, cuz its not as important of a concern to the general public as it would be to a reader of this blog.

Ugh. It begins.

The Washington Post has a few excerpts up, if anyone's interested.

To quote:

On Allen's use of the slur "macaca," in referring to a Webb campaign volunteer of Indian descent

Russert: Where did the word come from? It must have been in your consciousness.

Allen: Oh, it's just made up.

Russert: Made-up word?

Allen: Just made up. Made-up word.

Russert: You'd never heard it before?

Allen: Never heard it before.

Macacagate, complete with photo, is on the frontpage of the New York Times online this morning.

Democrat Gains Ground on Virginia Senator
Democrat James Webb’s battle against Senator George Allen, left, a Republican, has become truly competitive, right down to footwear.

(image of both candidates wearing cowboy boots).

It's on, bonobos!

www.nytimes.com

Actually, Allen's wearing the cowboy boots, while Webb's wearing his son's combat boots.

Of course, knowing the Times, they'll have changed the frontpage image by the time you go there. They've got attention deficit something bad.

Monkey or no monkey, Allen's still leading the race, mostly thanks to the gentle treatment he's gotten from the media (they seem to take his denials at face value).

Subodh --

Given the dodging and weaving we saw, the questioner would have to follow-up for half-an-hour.

But even that would be an awfully useful spectacle to behold.

i just want to vomit.
sigh.
i think we should have a mutineer run for VA senate..

anyone out there?

i think we should have a mutineer run for VA senate..

The only
SUITABLE mutineer I know who lives in the
Area
Near or
Next to the
American capital is probably not interested........yet?

WG: clever and cute :)

WesternGhaat- the operative word being..."yet". :)

According to this article, a reporter finally asked during today's debate moderated by Stephanopoulos and, without apparent room for follow up, Allen turned the question into a "How dare you question mah mama" moment. Here's a different account. Would be nice to see a video clip of this.

Here is the Tim Russert/Meet the Press clip.

Check it out, Allen's mom is weighing in on her Jewish heritage, and how she had to look the word "macaca" up, too.

But apparently she makes the best pork chops. Which probably isn't saying a whole hell of a lot, if her competition is Jewish, too.