Booman Tribune ~ GOP Demoralization

GOP Demoralization

by BooMan
Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 11:59:44 AM EST

Jim Geraghty at the wingnutty National Review discusses the political atmosphere post-tipping point.

We’re in an election year. Heading into these, each party wants issues that energize their side and depress the other guys. As someone on the GOP side recently lamented, right now the voters who can’t wait for November are the Bush-hating Democratic base. They can’t wait to vote for their guys. They went through PEST (Post Election Stress Disorder) in 2004, and now they feel they have a chance to really stick it to Bush, and even dream of retaking the House and Senate.
Right now, Republicans are pretty p.o.ed, but mostly at their own party leaders. The good news is Bush has delivered two really good Supreme Court justices. But they’re appalled at Congress’ spending habits and pork barrel like the “Bridge to Nowhere,” embarrassed by the Abramoff scandal, frustrated at the slow progress in Iraq, can’t understand why nothing is being done about illegal immigration, see the size of government getting bigger and bigger, and so on.
The cantankerous and insightful anti-Pajamas media blogger Dennis the Peasant has been ripping some deal critics on the right for what he sees as blatant anti-Arab and anti-Muslim baiting. But today he observed that few bloggers on the left are willing to stand up for the deal or criticize the fearmongering. No, like the disingenuous lawmakers I referred to a few days earlier, these folks see a winning political issue and are jumping on the bandwagon.

I basically agree with Dennis the Peasant that the left-wing blogs are not calling bullshit on the hysteria over the ports. There is too much schadenfreude in seeing poll numbers like this and this.

After five years of telling Americans that we need to kill Muslims over there so that they won't kill us here, allowing Dubai to manage our ports is like FDR handing the keys to San Francisco over to Hirohito. It just ain't popular.

And the Republicans have another problem. If the right-wing blogosphere is any judge, the GOP base is getting bored with fighting Muslims and they would vastly prefer to go back to fighting Mexicans. But Bush is nowhere to be found on Mexican immigration.

The Democrats can have a very good year if they just stand united and refuse to give Bush anything. With 65% of the public now opposed to Bush's handling of Iraq and the Democratic Party now polling better on national security, there is no upside to appeasing the President. The other side is demoralized: do you think they really want to be engaging in a semantic rearguard argument over the difference between 'breach' and 'overtop'?

Take a look at Geraghty's analysis (these guys really do live in an alternate universe):

And more and more, I think Glenn Reynolds had it right; the entire Tipping Point phenomenon can be summed up as action and reaction. The Bush Administration’s reaction to the cartoon riots was comparably milquetoast. The violence and threats committed over the cartoons shocked, frightened and really, really angered Americans. They want somebody to smack the Muslim world back onto its heels and set them straight: “It doesn’t matter how offensive a cartoon is, you’re not allowed to riot, burn down embassies and kill people over it.”
They’re ashamed that Denmark is leading the fight over this.
When the Bush administration’s reaction was mostly equivocating statements and a failure to confront the Muslim world over its insistence of the worldwide applicability of its blasphemy laws, I suspect a lot of folks whose top issue is the war on terror concluded that Bush was going wobbly.
We’ve already seen endless negotiations with Iran, when most Americans who follow the issue are ready to declare Ahmedinijad as a millennial fruitcake aiming to bring about the apocalypse. Most who follow the Iraq war closely suspect Tehran is stirring things up there.
The interesting thing is the post-Tipping Point view on the Muslim world is alien to Bush; I suspect he would find it abhorrent. Unfortunately, that puts him out of step with a large chunk of the public — a vocal, angry chunk that is likely to have plenty of politicians courting it.
Courting these voters will mean supporting proposals that are supported by wide swaths of the American people, but are largely considered nonstarters in Washington circles: much tougher immigration restrictions, including patrolling the Mexican border; racial profiling of airline passengers instead of confiscating grandma’s tweezers; drastically reducing or eliminating entry visas to residents of Muslim or Arab countries; and taking a much tougher line with Saudi Arabia and coping with the consequences of that stance. Since 9/11, the Bush administration, and most leaders on Capitol Hill in both parties have dismissed those ideas as unrealistic, counterproductive, or not in accordance to American values.
Could the Democrats court this chunk? Peter Beinart offers his thoughts. They’ve got to be sorely tempted, even though it would mean abandoning their kumbayah multicultural we’re-all-the-same-at-heart worldview.
Could the Republicans court this chunk? Bush never will, but other Republicans will certainly be interested.
Or the third option… suppose both the Democrats and the Republicans reject these options as just too unthinkable, racist, Islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, etc. Think some sort of tough-talking Perot-type could use them for a third party bid in 2008?
It would be ugly. Picture Ann Coulter’s “ragheads” commentary, Michael Savage’s trademark hyperbole, Lou Dobbs’ “the corporate fatcats are selling us all out in the name of profits!” table-pounding rhetoric rolled into one campaign aimed at playing to those worst instincts – “we’re tired of sorting out the good Muslims from the bad Muslims and the good Arabs from the bad. From now on, we’re treating ‘em all as potential threats.”

If Geraghty is correct about the mood of the right, I would welcome a third party challenge. Let someone take on all the nativist, racist, blindly isolationist bile that Bush has built up within the Republican Party and take it independent. Maybe Pat Buchanan is ready for another run. The GOP is sick and it needs an excision of this type of rhetoric. For too long the Rove machine has seen an advantage in nurturing these feelings without committing to the savagery that might satisfy them. Let someone come along and kick this leg out from under them. It will only expose the bankruptcy of hate to solve our problems.

Meanwhile, the left is finding the temptation to pander to this nativism almost irresistable. You won't hear it from me. Nationalize the ports or shut the fuck up.

GOP Demoralization | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: GOP Demoralization (3.50 / 2)

Did you see Jane yesterday? She had an extended excerpt from the conservative Stratfor report about the effect of the port transaction?

. . . place the business deal in the context of the U.S. grand strategy. That strategy is, again, to split the Islamic world into its component parts, induce divisions by manipulating differences, and to create coalitions based on particular needs. This is, currently, about the only strategy the United States has going for it -- and if it can't use commercial relations as an inducement in the Muslim world, that is quite a weapon to lose.

But he can't sell it to his Republican coalition because, although social conservatives love everything he does and business interests are in his camp, he's losing the national security conservatives.

The port deal has apparently hit the national security conservatives in Bush's coalition hard. They were already shaky over the administration's personnel policies in the military and the question of whether he had a clear strategy in Iraq, even as they supported the invasion.

with the final result being:

The reality of the administration's strategy and the reality of its politics are colliding. Bush will backtrack on the ports issue, and the UAE will probably drop the matter. But what is not clear is whether the damage done to the strategy and the politics can be undone. The numbers are just getting very low.

Third party alternative to the Republicans? They'd have a good shot.

by maryb2004 on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:34:26 PM EST

Re: GOP Demoralization (none / 0)

I think this port deal will go through despite the outcry.

To me, I see this thing as a key battle between the Carlyle Group crowd, (the so-called 'foreign policy realists' who used to control US international policy), and the neocon lunatics who seized that power from them when they took over the White House and Pentagon through their control of the empty head of Bush.

The neocons have never been weaker than they are now, and despite the fact that Scowcroft, Carlucci, Baker, Odom & Co. are loathsome creatures too, they're still better than the neocons and, if successful in regaining control from the neocons, will work very hard to reduce and eventually end the vast military conflict in the MidEast.

The neocons, if they retain power through the end of this Bush reign and into the next presidency, will only continue to completely destroy everything they touch.

So I'm rooting for the port deal to go through if in doing so it represents a decisive victory by the Carlyle gang over the Cheney gang.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

by sbj on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 07:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nationalize (none / 0)

Among a raft of other issues, yes: STFU. You might be right about a third party, but Attila the Hun can't run, 'cause he's still dead.

by rba on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:23:57 PM EST

Re: Nationalize (none / 0)

are you saying there are more important issues to discuss, or that there are more issues to STFU over?

by BooMan on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:26:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nationalize (none / 0)

The latter. Too much bandwagon, too little "band". The disconnect between "facts" and "accuracy" is as wide on the left as the right.

by rba on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 03:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP Demoralization (none / 1)

When people start to use broad sweeping generalizations, such as all Muslims are..., everyone knows.... and etc" it is a very dangerous mixture of rage, anger and a truly deep seated fear.

A couple of months ago NPR did an interview with 3 top Historians from Ivy League schools (can't find link) and they all concurred that this country is more divided now than at any time since the civil war. Two days ago a well dressed woman in her late 70's, whom I had never seen before, walked up to me in a small grocery story and started bitterly complaining about "Those Bushie" people. She had spittle coming out of her mouth she was so angry.

I too fear - as the elections get closer it is going to get ugly - very, very ugly.

Any ideas on what we can do to maintain some calm in the atmosphere?

"The most successful politician is he who says what the people are thinking the most often and in the loudest voice." Theodore Roosevelt.

by Grandma M on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:25:58 PM EST

Re: GOP Demoralization (4.00 / 2)

I don't know. I hope at some point that people like Geraghty and me can come together over certain issues. For example, that whipping up anti-Arab hate is a mistake and it is wrong whether you are doing it to sustain a cold war level military budget or you are doing it to score political points over a routine corporate takeover. If he can ever come over to my side on this, we can start to repair the rift and establish a new middle. As Bush fails we have an opportunity to embrace the people that are fleeing from the GOP. Some of them, anyway.

by BooMan on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP Demoralization (none / 0)

Tactically that sounds like a plan. But need to tell you I cringe at the idea of Human Beings being analyzed as in moves of chess pieces.

Tears come too readily at the pain my country has and is causing. Even in my "nice safe" little village within a small city people are sniping at one another, not saying hello. Its just all so sad and so damn hard to keep spirits up.

"The most successful politician is he who says what the people are thinking the most often and in the loudest voice." Theodore Roosevelt.

by Grandma M on Sat Mar 4th, 2006 at 02:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP Demoralization (none / 0)

The Democrats can have a very good year if they just stand united and refuse to give Bush anything.

couldn't agree more

and while I think the Democrats are suffering from PEST (I love that), the Democratic grass roots has been suffering from PAST (Post Alito-confirmation Stress Syndrome), which they are just starting to snap out of.

by maryb2004 on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:27:18 PM EST

Re: GOP Demoralization (4.00 / 3)

PAST was ugly. There was a tremendous amount of anger. But it was a particularly dangerous anger. The anger of the impotent.

by BooMan on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Problem with the Alito Campaign (none / 0)

was that there was not enough thought put into actual odds of success, and this campaign did not flow from any greater coordinated strategy.

It's not possible to build the strength of our opposition movement with never ending disappointments.

In contrast, Gandhi's ultimate success stemmed from his strategy to constantly increase his people's faith in their own power. The "Salt March" being a fine example of this.

Nonviolent Action information available here

by NorthDakotaDemocrat (NorthDakotaDemocrat at g mail dot com) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 01:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Problem with the Alito Campaign (none / 1)

That is such a good point. I've been thinking about the same thing since the Alito confirmation. The Dem leadership needs to find an issue that is winnable with the help of grassroots support.

Six years of straight losses, after so much effort, is insupportable. No wonder people are demoralized.

It's hard to find those issues when you are the minority -- but there has to be SOME issue that the grassroots can support and win -- before the fall campaigning season.

by maryb2004 on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 01:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Invading France would be a sure winner (none / 0)

Face it, it's not enough for the Democrats to support the crusade in Iraq any more, not enough to rewrite White House statements about what a danger Iran is and sanctions and invasion as last resort, or even suggesting nuking Teheran. The invasion of Iran will be well underway by the time of the elections, and the Democrats will be in the same old "we can run it better than the Republicans" rut that they are with Iraq.

It won't even be enough to promise more and bigger torture camps, severing more penises, kidnapping more people. That's just common sense.

What the Democrats have to do is be bolder, have the courage to step up to the plate and stamp out anti-American sentiment no matter where it lurks. And this is, as we know, an Enemy that Lurks.

The Republicans can't seem to break out of that Middle East mode, meanwhile Europe is just allowed to slide, while anti-American sentiment festers and goes unpunished.

Oh they may complain about Old Europe a bit from time to time, but especially now that Germany has seen the light, their heart's just not in it.

This is a real chance for the Dems to step up to the plate and tackle the tough issues the Republicans are too chicken to address. Promise Americans that France will no longer be tolerated. Zero tolerance for gay Paree. That also sews up the homophobic vote.

Add some words of warning for Norway, pledge a constitutional amendment that provides for immediate no-trial beheading for flag-burners, and tell the Repubs to eat Dem dust!

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 01:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Invading France would be a sure winner (none / 1)

me = practical
you = theoretical

by maryb2004 on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 01:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Winnable, schminnable (none / 1)

What bothers me most about the Alito confirmation is not that we lost; it's that we didn't even fight.

I cannot for the life of me understand why congressional Dems are only willing to take up fights that they are guaranteed to win, as if losing a battle would somehow harm them. On the contrary, if the Dems had pulled out every last stop to defeat Alito, they could have guaranteed themselves enthusiastic support from a lot of voters come November, myself included. Instead, I see November looming and I wonder who the fuck I'm going to vote for. If I can't count on the Dems to stand up when they really have nothing to lose, what the hell are they going to do when they have a narrow edge in Congress to hold on to? Cower with their tails between their legs, that's what.

Democrats are learning the wrong lessons from Republicans. It's not that the overwhelming majority of people want conservative politicians. They want strong leaders who fight hard, and when they see that, they are willing to overlook almost any flaw, including being a drooling moron like George Bush. It's pure alpha male primate pack instinct. The biggest cojones win. The road from Newt Gingrich howling in the wilderness to total domination of the federal government was not travelled by avoiding fights. It was travelled by taking every fight and fighting it like a wounded, cornered animal, giving no quarter and expecting none.

The weird thing is, we all know this. We've all spent the last twenty-five years constantly aghast at each new outrage, each new trampling of accepted boundaries, each new gigantic, steaming heap of chutzpah. It's not the ideology that won. It was the sheer outrageous, arrogant, no-holds-barred political brawl.

Unless we yank the current bunch of eunuchs off the stage and replace them with our own fighters, it doesn't matter how good our ideology is. Most people aren't voting on the basis of their political science degrees. They are voting for bold, brash people they can identify with and feel strengthened thereby.

And we have almost no one like that. The last two we've had -- Dean and Hackett -- were quickly ratpacked by the chickenshit wing of the party. And Teddy Roosevelt is dead and likely to remain so.

I'm not going to vote Republican. But if my choice is between flushing my vote down the third party toilet or flushing my vote down the current Democratic party toilet, it's going to be hard not to stay home.

---Cthulhu for President: Why vote for the lesser evil?

by eodell (eodell at naqada dot org) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 02:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Problem with the Alito Campaign (none / 1)

The Dem leadership needs to find a core principle or two that they're willing to actually stand up for and vigorously defend; a principle they put before their own political ambition.

They can hammer away at issues all they want, but unless they can find a way to connect the issues to a broader philosophy, a broader set of principles, they will continue to lose elections, or only win by default as a result of Repub dysfunction.

When all is said and done, more people vote based on emotion than they do based on reason. If the issues don't resonate emotionally, if they don't connect with each other philosophically in a pragmatic way, the Dems will go nowhere.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

by sbj on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 04:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP Demoralization (4.00 / 4)

refusing to give B*shCo anything isn't enough: they need to give him balls against the wall (cf. Brownie) HELL. Over and over and over.

Liar.
Liar.
Liar.

Culture of Criminality.

Anyone who, as Jon Stewart recently pointed out, can receive 49% of the vote and accept 2-3% of the power, is never ever going to be in a position to oppose these thugs.

Fighting Dems?

My ass.

I'll change my stance if I start seeing them--ALL of them--showing up on the Senate and House floors in Gitmo suits, not just running around the hallways like a bunch of sixth-graders who don't have the guts to TP the principal's office on Holloween or something.

Where are the grownups?

juslilolme at Historical Footnotes

by starkravinglunaticradical (non) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP Demoralization (none / 1)

riffing off Steven's earlier diary, i'd like to see Dem challengers run on (not necessarily impeachment) but the investigations and oversight that would almost inevitably lead to impeachment.

The incumbents and the party leader should probably be somewhat more circumspect and focus on ethical reforms and budgetary sanity.

Getting the house in order should be the message of the party, while the insurgents should breath the fire.

by BooMan on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:45:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What Chance do THe Democrats Have? (3.50 / 2)

But they can only run on issues that the are approved of and by the people who provide them with money. That's not the public, that's the organizations and corporations that are affiliated with the political parties.

It's not about ideology or even pollitical strategy. it's about "what do I have to say to get the money to run for office."

If there is any interest by the Democrats in the public, it's getting Republicans to vote Democratic and appealing to them, rather than organizing minority voters to vote.

Few organizations and corporations are giving money to people who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, condemn torture, want to help fix New Orleans.

by Stu Piddy on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 01:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP Demoralization (none / 1)

Investigations: what has been the consequence of, for example, the GAO report on election fraud, which Conyers has pretty much been ALONE in seeking to bring to the public?

Why have the Dems not been harping, harping, harping this? Why have they not used every single opportunity they have to repeat, repeat, repeat the conclusions drawn by that report? Why have they not been chastising the media for ignoring it? Why are they not rallying behind Conyers, not only on this, but on EVERYTHING he is doing?

Same applies to: 9/11 Commission Report, Katrina Report, what else we got?

Investigations? How about repeating, as an alternative "I" word: INDICTMENT.

Libby: indicted.
DeLay: indicted.
Abramoff (and others): indicted.
More? (please fillintheblank, it's so hard to keep track!)

Someone who is "indicted" is generally considered a suspected CRIMINAL. No indictment can be handed down without sufficient EVIDENCE to indicate criminal wrongdoing (not just 'corruption', CRIMINAL wrongdoing, FELONY CRIMES). There is enough evidence in all these cases for the Dems to simply be out there reminding the public what an INDICTMENT actually entails. Bullshit with "presumed innocence"....Indictment means criminal CHARGES have been brought against them.

Fuck the investigations and "oversight": I don't need an "investigation" to tell me that B*shCO left tens of thousands of American citizens to starve and die of thirst on their rooftops: I saw it with my OWN EYES. Whether that was technically "illegal" it was criminally negligent. And 6 months later?

Frankly, in the long run, I don't care 'how' or 'why' any of this shit happened (and I think focussing on "investigations" just beats around the [burning] B*sh to forestall any realistic assessment of just what REALITY is): it HAPPENED. On B*shCo's WATCH. I don't care whether Katrina was Brownie's "fault," or "chertoff's" fault or the chimp in chief's fault: it his happening UNDER HIS WATCH.

Same with Gitmo.
Same with Abu Ghraib.

Same with 9/11, incidentally:

Why don't we hear the words "9/11 happened on B*shCo's WATCH" 350 times over in EVERY speech any democratic 'leader' gives?

Gitmo. Bush's Watch.
Katrina. Bush's Watch.
Abu Ghraib. Bush's Watch.
9/11. Bush's Watch.
Increase in Mining accidents. Bush's Watch.
Dubai. Bush's Watch.
Abramoff. Bush's Watch.
GAO report. Bush's watch.
Dead wrong on WMD. Bush's Watch.

There were NO WMD. BushCo was "dead wrong"--whether it was their "intent" or not, they were DEAD WRONG.

It HAPPENED. Why do we need any more "proof", any more "evidence" any more "investigations"? The one truth that cannot be denied: these things, for whatever reason, are happening on BUSH'S WATCH. Tick tick.

If the Dems would just hammer the hell out of that point: look, who the cares about the 'nitty gritty details'--we have evidence of this stuff happening, over and over and over again. Who cares about the 'who's who' of the administration? It is happening. Again and again. ON BUSH'S WATCH. Tick tick.

This is why I find the dems utterly suspect. It does not make sense that they do not follow this strategy. Something is amiss with THEM. It's just too obvious. Bush makes it too EASY, and the Dems just keep dropping the ball. Fumble, fumble, fumble.

Theoretically, after ALL THIS, that s.o.b and his whole evil cabal should be such an easy target....Have you EVER seen so many "unfortunate incidents" strung together in the course of ONE administration?

Any one of these incidents should have been enough to topple Spurious George--but ain't no one gonna be toppled if there's no one there to tackle him!

At this point, TV shows like Boston Legal and ER are doing a better job of making clear to the American people just what the hell kind of mess we are in as a country.

Again: I say--Recruit Clooney.

Spader.
Robbins.
Oprah, for christ's sake.

Sponge Bob Square pants: at least that's one character who could never be accused of getting a blow job since he has no genitals!

I would vote for ANY Hollywood figure who dares to come out and run over any Democratic candidate (w the possible exception of Feingold or Conyers, neither of whom has a chance of getting the support they need from WITHIN THE pathetic Dems party and therefore will NOT get the nomination!).

In fact, would go out and campaign, campaign, campaign for just about ANY Hollywood celeb who comes out fighting in the way we see folks like Stewart and Colbert doing.

It's all been reduced to a Hollywood show anyway: I say kick these fucking amateurs off the stage and let's get the pros on this. I'm tired of two-bit actors. Reagan and Arnie were enough for me.

I want to see what happens when a REALLY good actor, a really successful professional actor comes out and gives it his best shot!

This year, I will be watching the Oscars for the first time. Ever.

And yes, I'm rooting for Crash.

juslilolme at Historical Footnotes

by starkravinglunaticradical (non) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 02:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP Demoralization (none / 0)

their kumbayah multicultural we're-all-the-same-at-heart worldview.

At least they get that part right.

We need some new bumperstickers: Kumbayah and Proud.

And the opposite of peace and brotherhood is?
Militarism and hatred?

Do these people ever stop to listen to themselves? Jesus!

Speaking of whom, someone might want to remind the right(reich) that Kumbayah is a Christian Hymn!

Ecological collapse is already happening. Your resentment of the word doesn't change the fact that it is occurring.

by Knoxville Progressive (green_planet_2000 (at) yahoo (dot) com) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:47:06 PM EST

Re: GOP Demoralization (4.00 / 2)

i think we are do for another domestic attack. Kumbayeh is starting to make too much sense.

by BooMan on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 12:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GOP Demoralization | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the CIA's War on Terror:

The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals
by Jane Mayer

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes

(Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes

(Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes

Download South Park on iTunes

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile