One of my pet peeves is the utter contempt the political class treats the citzenry with. A-holes will tell you with a straight face that amnesty isn't really amnesty, that cut-and-run isn't really cut-and-run. In league with the narcissists in the media, they engage in absolutely scurrilous propaganda and figure repetition will make it acceptable. So when I saw Joe Klein in Tim Russert talking about his book "Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivailized By People Who Think You're Stupid," I made a note to order the book from Amazon.

Joe Klein has been covering political campaigns since the early sixties, so one would expect a singular depth of insight, and make no mistake, there are insights into the development of modern Democrat politics, but perhaps surprisingly, one learns more about Joe Klein than anything else.

Klein bemoans the loss of the occasionally powerful impact of authenticity in the American political culture, nostaglically reaching back to Harry Truman to set up a metaphor for the spontaneous connection politicians had occasionally wrought with the public. Truman, while accepting the nomination of his party, was castigating the "do-nothing" Republicans and promising that he would call them back to Washington on July 26, which he noted totally off-the-cuff, was "turnip day in Missouri" (the day turnips were harvested). That awkward aside served to remind his listeners that he wasn't some high-falutin' Washington type, but one of them--a guy who knew when turnip day was.

The "turnip moment", according to Klein, has been washed out by handlers--the pollsters and consultants who have been subcontracted the work of winning elections for would-be politicians. Klein gives chapter and verse on how this process got its start and how it has evolved through the decades since the late 1960s. That's largely the middle part of the book.

What remains is ironic to say the least--the man who mourns the loss of spontaneity in politics spends a good part of the book reguritating scripted Democrat talking points, notably absent evidence, footnotes or anything else to substantiate them, because Klein, in the end, isn't really interested in substance either, he's just fine with creating "impressions".

To his credit, Klein admits early on that the book is a "bit of a screed", and its rather sad because Klein does have interesting things to say, if he could only confront his own biases to reward his readers with light rather than heat. Once Klein gets past the Clinton presidency, you basically can't take anything he says at face value, and that serves to undermine the credibility of the rest of the book as well.

There are many examples of this, but let's take his views of the John Kerry campaign. Klein dutifully reports the inside baseball of the Kerry campaign, the machinations of Bob Shrum and the personalities involved. Incredibly though, his deep bias towards the Democrat party simply doesn't allow him to conclude what seems to be obvious.

There was a regal negligence to the man; he was all dignity and no details. He had "plenty of policies, but no ideas," as one campaign-staff member put it. Indeed, he had a history of political uncertainty. He would test bold positions--favoring reform of affirmative action (he suggested that preferences should be granted according to class, not race) or curbing the power of the teachers unions--and then he would backtrack. No one doubted his intelligence, and his close friends were vehement about the quality of his character, especially when times were tough. But there was a pervasive weakness, a cautiousness to Kerry as well. It was a conundrum: the man was a hero under fire and a coward when he wasn't. ("Lost Politics", pg 192)

Remarkably, Klein doesn't allow his discovery of the inherent character flaws in John Forbes Kerry to cast doubt on Kerry's alleged Vietnam hero status. The Swiftboat Vets are dismissed out of hand so that Klein can maintain the fantasy that the coward before him was actually a hero in his better moments. In doing so, he commits the very sin he hates--he insults his reader's intelligence.

Such unsupported assertions are sprinkled through the book where George W. Bush is concerned. The infamous, and completely unsupported assertion that the Bush campaign was behind a whisper campaign that McCain had fathered a black child, that his wife was a drug addict (true actually), and that he suffered from mental instability--is represented not as allegation, but fact. I recall researching the matt. er at some length during the 2004 election cycle after McCain's campaign manager wrote a New York Times editorial reiterating these accusations (The NYT is the preferred venue for character assassination...). While various perpetrators of the libels were identified, their connection to the Bush campaign simply wasn't there, unless you believe, like many on the liberal-left do, that Karl Rove controls everything and everyone. The push-poll accusation was the most ephemeral--there was one woman at a McCain gathering who recounted second-hand a phone call that her young son had received, but apparently that was the only public complaint about the alleged push-poll.

Yet beyond his puerile credulity on Democrat spin, its his failure to recognize rather glaring contradictions in his own observations that marks him as suffering from Bush derangement syndrome. Just as Kerry is described in unlikely terms as both hero AND coward. The Bush campaign team is described as "businesslike" and capable of "making the trains run on time" yet the administration as "about big ideas, badly executed." Klein contrasts the backstabbing in the Gore campaign with the overflowing loyalty which permeated the Bush effort. Mark McKinnon, a former Democrat operative who was persuaded to work for the 2000 Bush campaign, recalls the certainty he had about being fired in the wake of Bush's distasterous New Hampshire primary. To his astonishment, no one was fired and Bush accepted the responsibility for the loss while focusing his team on the road ahead.

Just as Kerry the hero had "suddenly" devolved into a coward, the masterfully managed Bush campaign became the slovenly, incompetent Bush administration.

Only a journalist would fail to raise an eyebrow at the inconsistency. The rest of us know that cowards remain cowards, heros remain heros, and good managers persist as good managers. One wonders if Klein, privy to the overly cautious nature of John Kerry and his "dignified negligence", still voted for him with the expectation that he would "suddenly" develop a spine and a capacity for hands-on management.

In the end, I found myself reflecting on Joe Klein far more than I did the evolution of political campaign culture.

Joe Klein strikes me as "every Democrat", at least every Democrat of a certain age. As a group, they have a remarkable idealism about human nature, which is assaulted on a daily basis as they grow older. How hard has it been for Klein to see the party of John F. Kennedy sink to such depths, both politically and morally? On the other hand, hope springs eternal, and every Democrat campaign is a lottery ticket where the prize is the restoration of Camelot.

I think Klein is probably pretty reliable when criticizing Democrats--his views of the party are very much like the sober view of a wife of her husband's strengths and weakness--the combination of love and experience combine to provide a pretty balanced perspective. On the other hand, he just can't see straight when it comes to Republican candidates and their campaigns. No doubt access is a problem, but bias is even more of an issue.

So if you want to know how the Democrats dug the hole they've dug for themselves, this is a fine account of a least part of that answer. Otherwise, spend a few minutes at DailyKos--the same screed for far less money.

[Note to international readers: The term "high school" refers to the picayune social antics of adolescents in U.S. secondary schools as in, "that is so 'high school'.."]

I just completed "The Arabists" by Robert Kaplan, originally written in 1993 and updated in 1995. The book has a tendancy to get overlooked because it deals with "ancient history"--the first Gulf War, but its a remarkably balanced account of the Foreign Service history in the middleeast.

That's no mean feat considering how polarizing a subject the middleeast is, but Kaplan manages to make judgments without taking sides in the interminable Arab-Israeli conflict.

I recommend the book primarily for its insights into the bureaucratic tug-o'-war that occurs between the "professionals", the "political appointees" and the politicians (who may be elected or not...). The current bureaucratic wars in Washington are mostly invisible to us, with only the exchange of fire visible as media leaks, department reorganizations, etc... Granted--they've gotten a lot worse. The Plame affair was in my view nothing short of a coup attempt. Yet they aren't anything new, and "The Arabists" provides a wonderfully detailed look into how a lot of very well-intentioned people get sideways with each other, sometimes to the point where national security and the lives of our soldiers are put at risk.

For mindless moonbats chanting the mantra that the Bush administration "sold" the war, this isn't the book for you. For everyone else who wants to understand how we can get such diverse, ambiguous and just plain wrong information from government intelligence services, this book gives generalized chapter and verse.

"The Arabists" starts with the British foreign service, including of course Lawrence of Arabia, and then moves through 20th century history to chart the backgrounds and careers of notable U.S. Arabists. Most importantly, Kaplan outlines how the Arabists typically arrive at such pro-Arab sentiments (and often, but not always, their anti-semitism...). The real curiosity though is how Americans manage to "go native" and actually think and act against the interests of the U.S. Kaplan deals at some length with the curious case of April Glaspie, who effectively led Saddam Hussein to believe that he could invade Kuwait without interference from the U.S. Glaspie, who was the author's account, an intelligent and talented woman, is iconic of how even smart people can be seduced into the black hole of appeasement.

George Will's recent column concerning Woodward's rather unoriginal discovery's in "State of Denial" actually duplicates one of Kaplan's quotes from the book.

William Howard Taft was listening to a young aide talk about the machinery of government when Taft turned to an associate and said, "The young man really thinks it's a machine."

What Taft knew and the young aide didn't, was that the government is people, with their foibles, ambitions, blind-spots, sins and agendas.

The Arabists. Highly recommended for anyone with more than a casual interest in government and foreign affairs. Used copies can be purchased for less than five dollars in most cases...

American Mourning: The Intimate Story of Two Families Joined by War, Torn by Beliefs is due to ruffle a few feathers, or maybe not. While complete fiction and character assassination of conservative political figures merits an appearance on the Today Show and 60 Minutes, anything remotely controversial about a liberal icon is relegated to second and third tier talk radio unless, as in Ann Coulter's case, the media figure they can build a case for outrage at your pronouncements.

I should say up front that I haven't read the book yet, so this is not a review, its a "hey-look-at-this".

From a commenter on Amazon:

Sheehan is not the hero she is made out to be, but is rather a political puppet who Kerry and Moore took advantage of when she was in a time of mourning. This book does portray that. She was pro-Bush until her son died. At this time she was approached by John Kerry and Michael Moore, who approached lots of parents whose child died in the war, and asked if she would start speaking out if they started paying her to! Kerry started supporting Sheehan's daughter, gave Sheehan hundreds of thousands of dollars, she got to meet celebrities--hell, she became a celebrity herself! Sheehan has used the death of her son for her own profit, has accepted payoffs, and was lifted out of obscurity so that now she is both rich and famous. Talk about exploitation at its finest.

I'd have to see some evidence for that. Not that I don't believe John F. Kerry would stoop so low, but because I think he might--fraud always works best when you confirm someone's bias.

Polipundit contributor A.J. Sparxx appears to have gotten and advanced copy and notes this rather personal revelation about one of the reasons for Cindy Sheehan's divorce.

Cindy was in Crawford when a process server found her and handed over the lawsuit that would end her marriage. Cindy Sheehan had a boyfriend who is a major anti-war activist, Lew Rockwell. Cindy Sheehan took refuge with a computer that became her companion day and night. Cindy Sheehan’s former sister-in-law says “Cindy had become addicted to online chat rooms of a pornographic nature. She had many men communicating with her. ” When she left her home, she also left behind evidence of her pornography addictions and her dalliances. The Sheehan family’s deterioration was punctuated by painful evidence of Cindy’s liaisons in hundreds of explicit e-mails and instant messages. (pp. 170-172)

I don't think I needed to know this, and I have to wonder about a book that feels this kind of information is germane. Cindy Sheehan is a pathetic character, manipulated by cynical people--victimizing her further with hearsay of this nature is just plain mean and brings the author's intentions and methodology into question.

I expect to have a look at it in the next few days and will hopefully have a better-developed perception of the book's value.

Consider this characterization of Che Guevara by Ariel Dorfman for Time Magazines 100 most influential people of the 20th century.

By the time Ernesto Guevara, known to us as Che, was murdered in the jungles of Bolivia in October 1967, he was already a legend to my generation, not only in Latin America but also around the world.

Like so many epics, the story of the obscure Argentine doctor who abandoned his profession and his native land to pursue the emancipation of the poor of the earth began with a voyage. In 1956, along with Fidel Castro and a handful of others, he had crossed the Caribbean in the rickety yacht Granma on the mad mission of invading Cuba and overthrowing the dictator Fulgencio Batista. Landing in a hostile swamp, losing most of their contingent, the survivors fought their way to the Sierra Maestra. A bit over two years later, after a guerrilla campaign in which Guevara displayed such outrageous bravery and skill that he was named comandante, the insurgents entered Havana and launched what was to become the first and only victorious socialist revolution in the Americas. The images were thereafter invariably gigantic. Che the titan standing up to the Yanquis, the world's dominant power. Che the moral guru proclaiming that a New Man, no ego and all ferocious love for the other, had to be forcibly created out of the ruins of the old one. Che the romantic mysteriously leaving the revolution to continue, sick though he might be with asthma, the struggle against oppression and tyranny.

His execution in Vallegrande at the age of 39 only enhanced Guevara's mythical stature. That Christ-like figure laid out on a bed of death with his uncanny eyes almost about to open; those fearless last words ("Shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man") that somebody invented or reported; the anonymous burial and the hacked-off hands, as if his killers feared him more after he was dead than when he had been alive: all of it is scalded into the mind and memory of those defiant times. He would resurrect, young people shouted in the late '60s; I can remember fervently proclaiming it in the streets of Santiago, Chile, while similar vows exploded across Latin America. !No lo vamos a olvidar! We won't let him be forgotten.

Wow! What a guy!

Even as an adolescent, I looked askance at the T-shirts and posters and silently mused over the contradiction of a freedom fighter establishing a communist dictatorship. It was no use discussing it with my friends--the posters and T-shirts were there to annoy their parents and because Guevara looked like a rock star far more than he looked like Khrushchev or Brezhnev. Guevara became iconic--divorced from the reality of his actions to symbolize revolution--any revolution.

If Mom and Dad, Mrs. Krabbapple and Principal Skinner were hassling you, Che was your shining beacon of hope that you could overthrow the system, stay out late, drink beer and ditch your homework.

Ultimately, I don't think idolization of Guevara was anymore sinister than that--the left are still largely a bunch of whiny kids who have problems with authority. Unfortunately, multiplied by millions and you have the inmates threatening to overrun the asylum.

Humberto Fontava figures its time to have a sit down with the kids and disabuse them of their Che Guevara fantasies, and its high time.

... in 1958, Cuba had a higher per capita income than half of Europe. It had double Japan's per capita income. Cuban laborers, the unionized labor - the Cuban labor force was more unionized than the U.S. labor force - had the eighth highest wages in the world. This was at a time when Cubans could get a U.S. visa for the asking. Any Cubans could leave their country, with all of their property, at any time. At that time, in the 1950s, there were fewer Cubans living in the United States than there were Americans living in Cuba. No country in the world can make that claim. Cuba had the 13th lowest infant mortality rate, not in the hemisphere but in the world. Cuba had more doctors and dentists per capita than Great Britain and the United States. So people now say, "Fine, Humberto, if Cuba was such a rosy place, then why did they have a revolution? Why did so many Cubans back Fidel Castro?" The answer is simple: It was not billed as a revolution. It was billed as a political rebellion. In other words, what was going to be ousted was the quasi-dictatorial regime of [Fulgencio] Batista, which was really not dictatorial technically. It was corrupt and sporadically brutal because of its police. But, as I said, in those years, the 1950s, people used to flock into Cuba. Cuba took in more immigrants, as a percentage of population, before the Cuban revolution, than did the United States. People used to jump on rafts from say, neighboring Haiti and Jamaica to try to enter Cuba. They were as desperate to enter the place then as they are to exit it now.

Now, we know that 20 percent - out of a country that was previously inundated with immigrants - of the population has fled. And that's a small percentage of those who wanted to leave and want to leave. So the ignorance about Cuba before Castro adds a lot to the myth and mis-reporting about Cuba.

Note the contrast with Ariel Dorfman's characterization of the Castros coming to relieve the misery of the poor. It reminds me of the "Two Americas" rhetoric. I've traveled widely in third world countries and seen real poverty. John Edwards rhetoric, and to a broader extent the rhetoric of the entire Democrat party is as much a sham as this idea that Castro came to help the poor in Cuba. There were plenty of desperately poor nations in Latin American in the 1950s--Castro didn't foment revolution in them--nah, he went for the rich country with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

If poverty in America is truly the problem Edwards says it is, then why do we have a zillion illegal immigrants? Why specifically do we have Mexicans rebuilding New Orleans? The emperor has no clothes.

Finally, who was Che Guevara really? Fontava doesn't even have to try very hard.

He was the chief executioner. He performed for the Cuban revolution what Heinrich Himmler performed for the Nazis. Everything Che Guevara did was directed by Fidel Castro. Early on, when they were in the mountains, Castro realized that Che seemed to relish executing little farm boys. There were executions carried out, carried out in the mountains, of so-called informers. I interviewed many people who witnessed those executions. There was no due process.

Che Guevara wrote a letter to his father in 1957 and to his abandoned wife. In the letter to her, he wrote, "I'm here in Cuba's hills, alive and thirsting for blood." Then, to his father, "I really like killing." The man was a clinical sadist, whereas Fidel Castro you could describe as a psychopath in that the murders did not affect him one way or the other. It was a means to an end - the consolidation of his one-man rule. Che has a famous quote, where he wrote, a revolutionary has to become "a cold killing machine." The thing was, Che Guevara was anything but cold. He was a warm killing machine. He relished the slaughter.

Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him

I bought Forge of Empires: Three Revolutionary Statesmen and the World They Made, by Michael Knox Beran, almost as soon as it was published, even though I had no familiarity with the author. What appealed to me was the author's premise that empires are both formed and doomed from ideas, usually the very same ideas.