In an election season when many Americans already feel like voting a few presidential candidates off the island, MySpace and reality show guru Mark Burnett want to cater to that impulse: The News Corp.-owned social network and the man behind Survivor are creating Independent, a political reality show they hope will run on both the Web and broadcast TV.
The show will pit aspiring political candidates against each other in a contest for a $1 million prize, which must be donated to a political cause or used for the winners own attempt to run for office.
Isn't this kind of redundant? Politics is already more or less a reality show, with a whole bunch of hyperconfident contenders publicly vying for a top prize and the public slowly voting most of them out.
Of course, if someone wanted to pluck out whatever civility and substance is left in American politics, this is probably the best way to go about it. No doubt we can expect that eventually, when the appeal of the show in its initial form runs dry, we'll see a Fear Factor edition in which the candidates have to eat bugs or otherwise cavort with lobbyists creeping, slimy creatures as contestants on such shows constantly seem to be doing. Lovely.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/25/2007 16:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Um, isn't the donation of a million dollars to a political cause or person against the law? I do believe there's a law on the books that prevents this sort of thing from happening.
This is just me writing here. The link takes you to a website supporting a guy named Tom Allen, who is running for U.S. Senate in Maine on the Dem ticket.
Mr. Allen called me a few minutes ago, direct dialed to my office desk, to ask for money. He introduced himself as a friend of Sherrod Brown's.
That's not a good way to make friends with me.
I gave him a very firm, forceful, non-profane response, which I wish I'd recorded for posterity, 'cause it was (in my humble and objective opinion) a righteous rant. To summarize a very long earful, I told him that I was very angry at his buddy Harry Reid for trying to lose the war and squawking al Qaida's propaganda for them, and that I don't think surrendering to a bunch of car-bombing goons just because you think it'll get your party more seats in Congress is a good way to keep bad guys from killing my fellow citizens.
Mr. Allen, I will credit him this much, was polite. He said he disagreed and left it at that. I don't think he was prepared for an argument from someone he presumed (when he dialed the phone) was a friendly.
May I humbly suggest, fellow Rantburgers, that if your phone rings and it's Tom Allen or someone like him, be firm, use acceptable language, and give 'em both barrels.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/25/2007 15:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It will also take your number off his call list!
We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.
Gen. David Petraeus is in Washington this week, where on Monday he briefed President Bush on the progress of the new military strategy in Iraq. Today he will give similar briefings on Capitol Hill, but maybe he should save his breath. As fellow four-star Harry Reid recently informed America, the war Gen. Petraeus is fighting and trying to win is already "lost."
Mr. Reid has since tried to "clarify" that remark, and in a speech Monday he laid out his own strategy for Iraq. But perhaps we ought to be grateful for his earlier candor in laying out the strategic judgment--and nakedly political rationale--that underlies the latest Congressional bid to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq starting this fall. By doing so, he and the Democrats are taking ownership of whatever ugly outcome follows a U.S. defeat in Iraq.
This isn't to say that the Administration hasn't made its share of major blunders in this war. But at least Mr. Bush and his commanders are now trying to make up for these mistakes with a strategy to put Prime Minister Maliki's government on a stronger footing, secure Baghdad and the Sunni provinces against al Qaeda and allow for an eventual, honorable, U.S. withdrawal. That's more than can be said for Mr. Reid and the Democratic left, who are making the job for our troops more difficult by undermining U.S. morale and Iraqi confidence in American support.
In his speech Monday, Mr. Reid claimed that "nothing has changed" since the surge began taking effect in February. It's true that the car bombings and U.S. casualties continue, and may increase. But such an enemy counterattack was to be expected, aimed as it is directly at the Democrats in Washington. The real test of the surge is whether it can secure enough of the population to win their cooperation and gradually create fewer safe havens for the terrorists.
So far, the surge is meeting that test, even before the additional troops Mr. Bush ordered have been fully deployed. Between February and March sectarian violence declined by 26%, according to Gen. William Caldwell. Security in Baghdad has improved sufficiently to allow the government to shorten its nightly curfew. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been politically marginalized, which explains his apparent departure from Iraq and the resignation of his minions from Mr. Maliki's parliamentary coalition--a sign that moderate Shiites are gaining strength at his expense.
More significantly, most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces. What has turned these sheikhs isn't some grand "political solution," which Mr. Reid claims is essential for Iraq's salvation. They've turned because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda's strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad, or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad. The political solution becomes easier the stronger Mr. Maliki and Iraqi government forces are, and strengthening both is a major goal of the surge.
By contrast, Mr. Reid's strategy of withdrawal will only serve to enlarge the security vacuum in which Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents have thrived. That's also true of what an American withdrawal will mean for the broader Middle East. Mr. Reid says that by withdrawing from Iraq we will be better able to take on al Qaeda and a nuclear Iran. But the reality (to use Mr. Reid's new favorite word) is that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and if we lose there we will only make it harder to prevail in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Countries do not usually win wars by losing their biggest battles.
As for Iran, Mr. Reid's strategy of defeat would guarantee that the radical mullahs of Tehran have more influence in Baghdad than the moderate Shiites of Najaf. It would also make the mullahs even more confident that they can build a bomb with impunity and no fear of any Western response.
The stakes in Iraq are about the future of the entire Middle East--and of our inevitable involvement in it. In calling for withdrawal, Mr. Reid and his allies, just as with Vietnam, may think they are merely following polls that show the public is unhappy with the war. Yet Americans will come to dislike a humiliation and its aftermath even more, especially as they realize that a withdrawal from Iraq now will only make it harder to stabilize the region and defeat Islamist radicals. And they will like it even less should we be required to re-enter the country someday under far worse circumstances.
This is the outcome toward which the "lost" Democrats and Harry Reid are heading, and for which they will be responsible if it occurs. The alternative is to fight for a stable Iraqi government that can control the country and keep it together in a federal, democratic system. As long as such an outcome is within reach, it is our responsibility to achieve it.
#1
"...most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces...because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda's strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad, or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad."
The sheiks may realize it, but does the overall Sunni populace? As long as the populace sees anti-coalition "resisters" as heroic, what the sheikhs realize is meaningless. Can they persuade the populace?
#3
Unfortunately, it's unlikely we will see an all-out slugfest between AQ and the Sunni populace, resulting in the elimination of the former and the devastation of the latter. That would lay the basis for progress in Iraq. The Sunnis in their current form cannot be a part of a normal Iraq.
#4
You know I really REALLY wish a reporter would ask the following question:
Senator, it seems that the entire Democratic Party is throwing in the towel with respect to Iraq, so how could they possibly support the troops when you have declared the mission they are performing a lost cause. It would seem that any progress in Iraq would be detrimental to your Partys cause, so how would your party handle any good news from Iraq?
#5
The Democratic Party doesn't really want to take ownership of defeat in Iraq. They want to slash away at Bush's leadership, administration, and policies constantly but they don't want to offer anything except doom and gloom. If they were in the White House, the present conduct of the war would be fine.
#6
If they succed in in getting the US to retreat, the results will all be Bush's fault for going there in the first place. If only Bush had followed Kerry's secret plan from the start!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/25/2007 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
Wouldn't want anyone to think they are going to fight AGAINST Malaise and Despair would you? The Dems managed to convince many people that the Republicans were responsible for the loss in Vietnam (after all Nixon and Ford were in charge near the end). They are now hoping if they can create failure BEFORE a Dem is president it will be blamed on Bush.
After all nobody blames Congress for voting for the war, or voting for the Patriot Act or any number of things they did and now rail against.
#9
Excalibur-Not sure I understand what you are asking. What does "this" refer to?
There seem to be two contradictory operating principles for many Iraqis:
1) American and coalition soldiers are legitimate targets of resistance; to attack them is to restore the dignity of Iraqis. While I (Joe Iraqi) won't personally attack, I have sympathy and discretion for those that do.
2) We Iraqis are tired of Al Qaeda and insurgents of any stripe killing us.
My point is-who is getting Iraqis to think clearly about the consequences of the first principle? How is that being communicated or even addressed at all?
Hamas, the terrorist group that Palestinians last year elected to govern their territories, is failing to govern at all.
March alone saw at least 46 kidnappings of civilians in the Gaza Strip, as well as over 25 killings of Palestinians by fellow Palestinians.
Internecine violence has gotten so bad that one human-rights activist says Gaza "has become worse than Somalia." Yasser Abed Rabbo, an executive-committee member of the rival Palestine Liberation Organization, calls it "anarchy." The violence is just the tip of the iceberg in "Hamasistan." Other troubling signs include:
International Exodus: Foreigners who came to help are starting to flee for their lives - even armed foreigners. One group of Egyptian military officers has reportedly been recalled to Cairo on account of the dangers, with the two generals who remain spending most of their time in Israel, for fear of violence. The United Nations may even declare Gaza a "dangerous zone." That would precipitate the evacuation of nearly all foreign nationals.
This would be disastrous for the general population: Nearly two-thirds of Gaza's 1.4 million residents claim refugee status, and rely on the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) and other aid organizations.
Unsafe Streets: The Palestinian media reports that crimes, including car theft and abductions, are skyrocketing. Iranian-trained Hamas forces are battling Egyptian-trained Fatah forces, rather than policing the streets. National Security Adviser Muhammad Dahlan admits that "many young men prefer to work for clans and not the security forces."
Last Sunday, a group calling itself the Islamic Swords of Truth, a self-appointed vice squad, claimed responsibility for bombing the Gaza Bible Society's bookstore and two Internet cafes. In response, Palestinians are taking the law into their own hands. In March, one of Gaza's large clans gathered to blockade a main road in Northern Gaza to protest against the targeting of one of their shops by a vice squad. The family demanded that the government bring law and order back to the streets.
Dwindling Media Freedom: Last week, security guards broke up a peaceful media protest of the government's inability to secure the release of Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist kidnapped more than a month ago - and injured three journalists. A group calling itself the Tawhid and Jihad Brigades just issued a statement claiming to have executed Johnston. Foreign journalists now fear for their lives.
Health Risks: The collapse of a sewage-treatment pool in Umm al-Naser, a North Gaza village, killed three women and two toddlers and injured 25 others in March. The "sewage tsunami" submerged at least 25 homes and caused untold damages to the 3,000-person village.
Fadel Kawash, head of the Palestinian Water Authority, told the Associated Press that a number of sewage projects, including the one in Umm al-Naser, were halted when Hamas pulled funding after their electoral victory in January 2006. Said one U.N. official, "this has been a tragedy that was predicted and documented." Officials believe that another cesspool collapse is possible, unless prophylactic steps are soon taken.
Provocations: Hamas continues to permit provocations against Israel from Gaza - notably, the homemade Kassam missiles shot into Israel nearly every day. Yuval Diskin, the chief of Shin Bet, Israel's counterintelligence and internal-security service, recently warned that Israel must begin to think about thwarting a more dangerous situation in Gaza, should Hamas develop more dangerous capabilities.
Hamas is tempting Israel into a confrontation, with reckless disregard for the Palestinian population. Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth; any military incursion - like Israel's response last year to similar Hamas provocations from Lebanon - would inflict utter devastation.
In short, Hamas has not made the transition from terrorist group to government. It is exposing Gazans to danger without providing key freedoms and services - and seems on track to produce wider internecine violence, deepening poverty and perhaps new rounds of violence with Israel. In other words, Gaza's suffering proves, once again, that terrorist groups, thanks to their utter indifference to human suffering, are unfit to govern.
Nah, not enough Palestinians are getting killed. It's a nice thought though.
A perfect storm.
A perfect shitstorm.
There fixed that for ya, Frank. Can't forget that sewage tsunami. If ever a bunch of more deserving shitheads got their precisely prescribed comeuppance, please let me know. Well, I suppose there's WWII Japan.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
