Is there possibly a more thankless job in public life than the one currently occupied by Scott McClellan?
Imagine having to stand in front of the White House press corps and defend President Bush right after the boss has been exposed in sworn testimony as a leaker of classified national security information. Imagine trying to square Bush's actions with all of Bush's previous condemnations of leakers as contemptable creatures that deserve to be fired.
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. So McClellan gave quite a performance yesterday, one that conjured memories (at least for yours truly) of Ron Zeigler spinning the Watergate scandal for his '70s boss, Richard Nixon.
Just three quick highlights:
1. McClellan was asked to square Bush's aforementioned actions with his earlier statements. McClellan then replied: "There's a distinction between declassifying information that is in the public interest and the unauthorized disclosure of classified information that could compromise our nation's security."
Translation: If Bush leaks, it's OK. If anyone else leaks, it's not OK. If Bush leaks, it's in the "public interest." If anyone else leaks, it's a threat to the nation's security.
Never mind the fact that what he leaked in the "public interest" was apparently self-serving material that was factually misleading (see my Thursday post). The larger question that comes to mind is this: If Bush can leak whatever he wants by deeming his actions to be in the "public interest," are there any checks and balances at all on his power to withhold, release, and control information?
2. The White House can't get its story straight. In the wake of Scooter Libby's sworn testimony that Bush authorized him to leak material from the National Intelligence Estimate - this was some time prior to July 8, 2003 - the White House now says that it wasn't really a leak at all, because the released NIE material had already been declassified at that point.
But here's the problem with that claim: McClellan held a press conference on July 18, 2003. The NIE came up for discussion that day - whereupon McClellan declared, "It was officially declassified today."
So...doesn't that mean Bush had authorized a leak of material that was still classified prior to July 18?
Here's where McClellan began to spin like a top. At times he tried to plead ignorance, saying that he couldn't recall what he had said on July 18, 2003: "I have not looked back at exactly what was said at that time."
But even though he says he hasn't looked back, he is nevertheless convinced that there would be no need to acknowledge any errors or inconsistencies: "I’d have to go back and look at the specific comments, but I’m not changing anything that was said previously. So let me make that clear."
3. Which brings us to the last highlight. At times he simply took refuge in the fact that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's case against Libby is now being fought out in the court filings. McClellan said: "There is no way for me to...talk about this issue without discussing an ongoing legal proceeding. And I can’t do that. We have a policy that’s been established. And I’ve obligated to adhere to that policy."
Within 10 minutes of saying that, he tried to refute a reporter by citing something that Fitzgerald had filed in court -- as part of the same "ongoing legal proceeding" that McClellan had just said he could not comment about.
It's hard to imagine that McClellan can survive much longer; this new Vanity Fair article probably won't help him much. But the real question is whether any replacement can do any better - given the administration track record that a new person would have to work with.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Friday, April 07, 2006
Libby and Rummy and Condi, oh my
The revelation yesterday that President Bush is apparently the leaker-in-chief is fascinating for many reasons.
There's the complicated legal question of whether a president can summarily declassify secret intelligence on a whim, without needing to at least go through some procedural channels. Indeed, legal experts, quoted here, contend that Bush at the very least should have honored his "professional obligation" by consulting with intelligence officials before leaking.
But, leaving that issue aside, what's truly noteworthy about this specific case - Bush authorizing Scooter Libby to leak classified material to a reporter during the summer of 2003, in order to retroactively defend the March launching of war in Iraq - is the fact his selectively leaked material was apparently false...and that the administration had good reason to believe, long in advance, that this material was false.
According to the federal court filings by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby has told a grand jury that he leaked to a reporter an intelligence report which contended that Saddam Hussein had been trying to obtain fuel for nuclear weapons. This leak was intended to refute the findings of ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had publicly concluded that Hussein had been doing no such thing.
But here's the mirthless punch line: The leak authorized by Bush apparently omitted the fact that, back in October 2002, Bush had received a classified "President's Summary," which informed him that the nuclear-fuel allegation was highly questionable, that experts from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Department of Energy's intelligence branch simply didn't believe it. (For more, read this March 30 piece by Murray Waas, of the nonpartisan National Journal; he's the best investigative reporter tracking this subplot.)
So let us review. Bush says repeatedly in 2003 that he doesn't like leakers. Now there are court papers, with testimony under oath that he himself leaked - and that the material he selectively leaked was not even necessarily true.
What is the White House saying about all this? Very little, at least for attribution. But, as this Washington Post report today makes clear, Bush's anonymous allies are working on a defense. Remember back in 1998 when Bill Clinton was parsing the word "is"? It's much the same thing today, except this time it's about what the meaning of the word "leak" is.
The anonymous defenders essentially told the Post that if Bush had leaked the classified identity of Joseph Wilson's CIA-employed wife (which he didn't), that would have been a bad leak. But since Bush authorized a leak to assure the public of his rationale for war, that was a good leak. As the source put it: "There is a clear difference between the two."
That is very enlightening. Because I was not aware, from previous Bush statements, that there was any distinction to be drawn between good leaks and bad. Bush certainly didn't seem to think so. He has launched criminal investigations to track down leakers. He said in September 2003 that if he learned who a leaker in his employ was, "the person will be taken care of."
But here's my favorite, from December 2001: "Somebody in our government wanted to show off to his family or her family in between Christmas and New Year's by leaking information in the press … I don't know why people do that. I guess either to make you [the press] feel good and/or to make themselves feel good."
Meanwhile, you know that the war isn't going well when two of its leader/defenders within the Bush inner circle are sniping publicly at each other. It all started a week ago when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Great Britain that the U.S. effort in Iraq was less than perfect: "I know we've made tactical errors, thousand of them I'm sure."
Enter Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He is probably accustomed to hearing such critiques of his performance from people who he presumably dismisses as defeatists and hate-America types. But Rice? Bush's exercise partner? Isn't she on the team?
So he fired back in a radio interview on Tuesday, with the tone of a guy who didn't think that girls belonged on the playing field: "I don't know what she was talking about, to be perfectly honest...(C)alling changes in military tactics during the war 'errors' reflects a lack of understanding of warfare."
It's a bad-vibe situation right now. Perhaps someone can leak something new, to make them all feel good.
By the way, the conservative push-back on the Bush leak revelation has begun.
The gist of the Bush defense was articulated today by Cliff May, an ex-GOP spokesman who has helped direct a neoconservative think tank, Project for a New American Century. Today he wrote, on the National Review website, that "there is no hint of a scandal here. There is not even any news here..." Essentially, he argues, "it’s in the job description of the President to decide what will remain classified (secret) and what will be de-classified and released to the press and public."
But here's the real test for May and his colleagues: Suppose Bill Clinton had been waging an unpopular war, and had decided to selectively leak classified material, which in itself was specious, to reporters in an effort to defend his war. Would conservatives be saying that Clinton was merely fulfilling his "job description"?
There's the complicated legal question of whether a president can summarily declassify secret intelligence on a whim, without needing to at least go through some procedural channels. Indeed, legal experts, quoted here, contend that Bush at the very least should have honored his "professional obligation" by consulting with intelligence officials before leaking.
But, leaving that issue aside, what's truly noteworthy about this specific case - Bush authorizing Scooter Libby to leak classified material to a reporter during the summer of 2003, in order to retroactively defend the March launching of war in Iraq - is the fact his selectively leaked material was apparently false...and that the administration had good reason to believe, long in advance, that this material was false.
According to the federal court filings by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby has told a grand jury that he leaked to a reporter an intelligence report which contended that Saddam Hussein had been trying to obtain fuel for nuclear weapons. This leak was intended to refute the findings of ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had publicly concluded that Hussein had been doing no such thing.
But here's the mirthless punch line: The leak authorized by Bush apparently omitted the fact that, back in October 2002, Bush had received a classified "President's Summary," which informed him that the nuclear-fuel allegation was highly questionable, that experts from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Department of Energy's intelligence branch simply didn't believe it. (For more, read this March 30 piece by Murray Waas, of the nonpartisan National Journal; he's the best investigative reporter tracking this subplot.)
So let us review. Bush says repeatedly in 2003 that he doesn't like leakers. Now there are court papers, with testimony under oath that he himself leaked - and that the material he selectively leaked was not even necessarily true.
What is the White House saying about all this? Very little, at least for attribution. But, as this Washington Post report today makes clear, Bush's anonymous allies are working on a defense. Remember back in 1998 when Bill Clinton was parsing the word "is"? It's much the same thing today, except this time it's about what the meaning of the word "leak" is.
The anonymous defenders essentially told the Post that if Bush had leaked the classified identity of Joseph Wilson's CIA-employed wife (which he didn't), that would have been a bad leak. But since Bush authorized a leak to assure the public of his rationale for war, that was a good leak. As the source put it: "There is a clear difference between the two."
That is very enlightening. Because I was not aware, from previous Bush statements, that there was any distinction to be drawn between good leaks and bad. Bush certainly didn't seem to think so. He has launched criminal investigations to track down leakers. He said in September 2003 that if he learned who a leaker in his employ was, "the person will be taken care of."
But here's my favorite, from December 2001: "Somebody in our government wanted to show off to his family or her family in between Christmas and New Year's by leaking information in the press … I don't know why people do that. I guess either to make you [the press] feel good and/or to make themselves feel good."
Meanwhile, you know that the war isn't going well when two of its leader/defenders within the Bush inner circle are sniping publicly at each other. It all started a week ago when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Great Britain that the U.S. effort in Iraq was less than perfect: "I know we've made tactical errors, thousand of them I'm sure."
Enter Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He is probably accustomed to hearing such critiques of his performance from people who he presumably dismisses as defeatists and hate-America types. But Rice? Bush's exercise partner? Isn't she on the team?
So he fired back in a radio interview on Tuesday, with the tone of a guy who didn't think that girls belonged on the playing field: "I don't know what she was talking about, to be perfectly honest...(C)alling changes in military tactics during the war 'errors' reflects a lack of understanding of warfare."
It's a bad-vibe situation right now. Perhaps someone can leak something new, to make them all feel good.
By the way, the conservative push-back on the Bush leak revelation has begun.
The gist of the Bush defense was articulated today by Cliff May, an ex-GOP spokesman who has helped direct a neoconservative think tank, Project for a New American Century. Today he wrote, on the National Review website, that "there is no hint of a scandal here. There is not even any news here..." Essentially, he argues, "it’s in the job description of the President to decide what will remain classified (secret) and what will be de-classified and released to the press and public."
But here's the real test for May and his colleagues: Suppose Bill Clinton had been waging an unpopular war, and had decided to selectively leak classified material, which in itself was specious, to reporters in an effort to defend his war. Would conservatives be saying that Clinton was merely fulfilling his "job description"?
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Cynthia puts the kibosh on Lapelgate
Republicans are rightly disappointed this afternoon. Cynthia McKinney has finally decided to put a cork in it. Last week's crusade has become today's apology.
From a GOP perspective, the Democratic congresswoman from Georgia had been the gift that keeps on giving. Last week, as previously noted here, she struck a Capitol Hill cop after he attempted to detain her at a security check point. She had swept past the metal detector, and she wasn't wearing the requisite lapel pin that would have ID'd her as a member of Congress. The cop sought to stop her for those reasons. She hit the cop, then held a press conference declaring that she had been discriminated against because she was black.
The whole thing has been escalating ever since, with reports that she might be arrested, and with fresh quotes from McKinney about how she has been oppressed. I believe she hit the media mother lode the other day, sharing her views with all major networks. This has been too much for most of her fellow House Democrats, who have been working overtime lately to demonstrate that they are on the side of cops, troops, toughness, and security forces everywhere.
And she has been a boon for Republicans who have been anxious this week for something, anything, that would step on the Tom DeLay debacle story. House Speaker Dennis Hastert's eyes reportedly lit up yesterday when a Fox Newshound interrupted a press briefing about DeLay by asking Hasert about the McKinney saga.
But this afternoon, all of a sudden, McKinney has packed away the PC rhetoric and changed her 'tude entirely, with remarks on the House floor: "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."
It's called, Stop the Bleeding.
And there's no doubt that Republicans will be disappointed, given the current disconsolate mood in the GOP camp. As one highranking Republican official emailed to me yesterday, "We could use some more McKinneys."
From a GOP perspective, the Democratic congresswoman from Georgia had been the gift that keeps on giving. Last week, as previously noted here, she struck a Capitol Hill cop after he attempted to detain her at a security check point. She had swept past the metal detector, and she wasn't wearing the requisite lapel pin that would have ID'd her as a member of Congress. The cop sought to stop her for those reasons. She hit the cop, then held a press conference declaring that she had been discriminated against because she was black.
The whole thing has been escalating ever since, with reports that she might be arrested, and with fresh quotes from McKinney about how she has been oppressed. I believe she hit the media mother lode the other day, sharing her views with all major networks. This has been too much for most of her fellow House Democrats, who have been working overtime lately to demonstrate that they are on the side of cops, troops, toughness, and security forces everywhere.
And she has been a boon for Republicans who have been anxious this week for something, anything, that would step on the Tom DeLay debacle story. House Speaker Dennis Hastert's eyes reportedly lit up yesterday when a Fox Newshound interrupted a press briefing about DeLay by asking Hasert about the McKinney saga.
But this afternoon, all of a sudden, McKinney has packed away the PC rhetoric and changed her 'tude entirely, with remarks on the House floor: "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."
It's called, Stop the Bleeding.
And there's no doubt that Republicans will be disappointed, given the current disconsolate mood in the GOP camp. As one highranking Republican official emailed to me yesterday, "We could use some more McKinneys."
Another shootout at Credibility Gap
Now, granted, I recognize that the news below isn't nearly as important as today's mega-reported revelation that Merideth Vieira will become Matt Lauer's smiling couchmate, but what the heck, there's a war on:
Here's President Bush, on Sept. 30, 2003: "“There’s just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.”
Here he is again, on Oct. 28, 2003: "I’d like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information.”
Perhaps he should be looking in the mirror?
Today there are two reliable reports, here and here, that indicted vice-presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby - obeying a specific order from Bush - leaked the contents of a highly classified intelligence document to the media during the summer of 2003 in order to defend the administration's rationale for war in Iraq.
That choice nugget is contained in papers filed yesterday in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Libby told the grand jury that he leaked the classified information based on "approval from the President through the Vice President." Sound crazy? You can read the whole court filing for yourself, here. The wires have picked up this story, too.
A question for Bush at his next press conference: "Sir, concerning the apparent leaks of classified national security information, and the sworn testimony by your vice president's top aide, do you intend to get to the bottom of all this?"
Here's President Bush, on Sept. 30, 2003: "“There’s just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.”
Here he is again, on Oct. 28, 2003: "I’d like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information.”
Perhaps he should be looking in the mirror?
Today there are two reliable reports, here and here, that indicted vice-presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby - obeying a specific order from Bush - leaked the contents of a highly classified intelligence document to the media during the summer of 2003 in order to defend the administration's rationale for war in Iraq.
That choice nugget is contained in papers filed yesterday in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Libby told the grand jury that he leaked the classified information based on "approval from the President through the Vice President." Sound crazy? You can read the whole court filing for yourself, here. The wires have picked up this story, too.
A question for Bush at his next press conference: "Sir, concerning the apparent leaks of classified national security information, and the sworn testimony by your vice president's top aide, do you intend to get to the bottom of all this?"
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Your homeland protectors in action
More shenanigans at everybody's favorite agency, the Department of Homeland Security.
I suppose that if deputy press secretary Brian Doyle could not be reached for comment, this is what he was apparently busy doing.
The creepiest part of the report is that he was arrested last night while "awaiting what he thought was a nude image of a girl who had lymphoma." But what's most disturbing is that he was allegedly willing to disclose the name of his employer, as well as his government-issued cellphone number, to an Internet contact whom he thought was a naked underage girl. Sounds like that behavior (tracked by an undercover detective, posing as a girl) could be considered a homeland security breach.
By the way, this arrest of a Homeland Security official is not to be confused with this week's scheduled trial of another Homeland Security official, Frank Figueroa, who has pleaded innocent to charges that he exposed himself to a teenage girl in 2005 at a Florida mall. He's on suspension at the moment. He's the former chief of the department's program to combat child predators. No further comment is required.
I suppose that if deputy press secretary Brian Doyle could not be reached for comment, this is what he was apparently busy doing.
The creepiest part of the report is that he was arrested last night while "awaiting what he thought was a nude image of a girl who had lymphoma." But what's most disturbing is that he was allegedly willing to disclose the name of his employer, as well as his government-issued cellphone number, to an Internet contact whom he thought was a naked underage girl. Sounds like that behavior (tracked by an undercover detective, posing as a girl) could be considered a homeland security breach.
By the way, this arrest of a Homeland Security official is not to be confused with this week's scheduled trial of another Homeland Security official, Frank Figueroa, who has pleaded innocent to charges that he exposed himself to a teenage girl in 2005 at a Florida mall. He's on suspension at the moment. He's the former chief of the department's program to combat child predators. No further comment is required.
John, Tom, and Katie
In his latest attempt to capture the hearts and minds of Democratic liberals (the same voters who will dominate the 2008 presidential primaries), and to stake out a position on Hillary Clinton's left flank, John Kerry has published his most outspoken antiwar manifesto.
Writing today on the NY Times op-ed page, the senator continues his quest to shed all vestiges of his old flipflop image by declaring that he wants to set two firm Iraq deadlines, both of which are designed to get all the troops home, pronto.
Step one: Tell those Iraqi politicians to shape up and form a unity government by May 15, "or we will immediately withdraw our military."
Step two: Assuming that the Iraqis get that message and do the deal, America should then establish "a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end."
Kerry is thus going a little bit further than he did last autumn, when he gave a speech saying that troops should be withdrawn only in accordance with "a specific timetable," as opposed to "an arbitrary timetable." One can make the case that May 15 is "arbitrary," since there's no intrinsic importance to that date. Whatever. It's just wordplay, because any Iraq proposals floated by Democrats are dead on arrival, anyway.
Kerry can't hope to influence the Bush administration's war strategy (who can?). What he does hope to influence is the Democratic antiwar constituency. Since Hillary Clinton seems to be staking out firm centrist ground for '08 (she voted for the war, she's unapologetic about it, she says little about deadlines or timetables), her likely rivals are working to her left. That's where Kerry is jockeying with folks like Russ Feingold. Feingold has the censure issue, which the left loves, so Kerry is trying to own the antiwar issue.
(Good luck to him. Feingold, reacting to Kerry's proposal, released a statement today that began, “Since August 18, 2005 I have been calling on the Administration to aim to redeploy U.S. military personnel from Iraq by the end of this year..." That's Feingold's polite way of saying, "Hey, loser, I was there first!")
Assuming that Kerry is even viable again in '08, assuming that he can refute F. Scott Fitzgerald's contention that there are no second acts in American lives, the question is whether Kerry can win over the liberal skeptics who think he waffled too much in '04. We shall see. This comment, posted today on the dailykos.com website, suggests that his quest could be arduous:
"Maybe if he came out with this (Iraq) statement when he was running, it just might have swung the race enough...I'm sure he will make a decisive statement on the Swift Boat Guys any day now."
Just a few last thoughts about Tom DeLay, whom I wrote about in a newspaper column today. While saying goodbye yesterday, he received the predictably easy ride yesterday from his friends at Fox News, so, in an effort to be fair and balanced, a couple of his statements do need to be contested.
1. He said that his decision to quit his congressional seat had absolutely nothing to do with the ever-spreading Jack Abramoff scandal, which has now swallowed up two of his former top aides (Tony Rudy, Michael Scanlon, both of whom have pleaded guilty). In DeLay's words yesterday, "The Abramoff affair has nothing to do with me."
Here are the follow-up questions that Fox News could have asked:
"If quitting the Congress has nothing to do with the Abramoff scandal, why did you make that decision just 72 hours after Rudy pleaded guilty to corruption and bribery charges? Did something else happen that prompted your announcement at this specific juncture, or did it have something to do with the fact that, 72 hours earlier, your name surfaced repeatedly in the Abramoff-Rudy court filings that were part of Rudy's plea deal? And are you saying we should discount a similar pattern last January, when you resigned your House leadership post just 96 hours after Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion?"
2. DeLay, apparently as part of his self-rehabilitation effort, tried in the interview to distance himself from his widely-known nickname, "The Hammer." He said: "I don't see myself as The Hammer."
Fox bought that. But Fox could have asked:
"If you don't see yourself that way, then why have your aides long been quoted as saying 'He likes the reputation of being the Hammer'? And why, in a 2003 ceremony, did you give a velvet-covered hammer to one of your colleagues? And why, at a dinner in your honor last May, did your friends and allies present you with a frosted marble cake decorated with chocolate hammers, while the band played 'If I Had A Hammer?'"
Speaking of goodbyes, Katie Couric gave hers this morning on The Today Show. As every American who has never heard of Russ Feingold surely knows by now, Katie is bound for the chair once occupied by Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite.
And now that she's going to the hard-news side, I just want to say, "Congrats, Katie, the watchdogs are biting already!" She has yet to utter a word on CBS, but the right is already accusing her of the dreaded "liberal tilt." Read this and enjoy.
Writing today on the NY Times op-ed page, the senator continues his quest to shed all vestiges of his old flipflop image by declaring that he wants to set two firm Iraq deadlines, both of which are designed to get all the troops home, pronto.
Step one: Tell those Iraqi politicians to shape up and form a unity government by May 15, "or we will immediately withdraw our military."
Step two: Assuming that the Iraqis get that message and do the deal, America should then establish "a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end."
Kerry is thus going a little bit further than he did last autumn, when he gave a speech saying that troops should be withdrawn only in accordance with "a specific timetable," as opposed to "an arbitrary timetable." One can make the case that May 15 is "arbitrary," since there's no intrinsic importance to that date. Whatever. It's just wordplay, because any Iraq proposals floated by Democrats are dead on arrival, anyway.
Kerry can't hope to influence the Bush administration's war strategy (who can?). What he does hope to influence is the Democratic antiwar constituency. Since Hillary Clinton seems to be staking out firm centrist ground for '08 (she voted for the war, she's unapologetic about it, she says little about deadlines or timetables), her likely rivals are working to her left. That's where Kerry is jockeying with folks like Russ Feingold. Feingold has the censure issue, which the left loves, so Kerry is trying to own the antiwar issue.
(Good luck to him. Feingold, reacting to Kerry's proposal, released a statement today that began, “Since August 18, 2005 I have been calling on the Administration to aim to redeploy U.S. military personnel from Iraq by the end of this year..." That's Feingold's polite way of saying, "Hey, loser, I was there first!")
Assuming that Kerry is even viable again in '08, assuming that he can refute F. Scott Fitzgerald's contention that there are no second acts in American lives, the question is whether Kerry can win over the liberal skeptics who think he waffled too much in '04. We shall see. This comment, posted today on the dailykos.com website, suggests that his quest could be arduous:
"Maybe if he came out with this (Iraq) statement when he was running, it just might have swung the race enough...I'm sure he will make a decisive statement on the Swift Boat Guys any day now."
Just a few last thoughts about Tom DeLay, whom I wrote about in a newspaper column today. While saying goodbye yesterday, he received the predictably easy ride yesterday from his friends at Fox News, so, in an effort to be fair and balanced, a couple of his statements do need to be contested.
1. He said that his decision to quit his congressional seat had absolutely nothing to do with the ever-spreading Jack Abramoff scandal, which has now swallowed up two of his former top aides (Tony Rudy, Michael Scanlon, both of whom have pleaded guilty). In DeLay's words yesterday, "The Abramoff affair has nothing to do with me."
Here are the follow-up questions that Fox News could have asked:
"If quitting the Congress has nothing to do with the Abramoff scandal, why did you make that decision just 72 hours after Rudy pleaded guilty to corruption and bribery charges? Did something else happen that prompted your announcement at this specific juncture, or did it have something to do with the fact that, 72 hours earlier, your name surfaced repeatedly in the Abramoff-Rudy court filings that were part of Rudy's plea deal? And are you saying we should discount a similar pattern last January, when you resigned your House leadership post just 96 hours after Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion?"
2. DeLay, apparently as part of his self-rehabilitation effort, tried in the interview to distance himself from his widely-known nickname, "The Hammer." He said: "I don't see myself as The Hammer."
Fox bought that. But Fox could have asked:
"If you don't see yourself that way, then why have your aides long been quoted as saying 'He likes the reputation of being the Hammer'? And why, in a 2003 ceremony, did you give a velvet-covered hammer to one of your colleagues? And why, at a dinner in your honor last May, did your friends and allies present you with a frosted marble cake decorated with chocolate hammers, while the band played 'If I Had A Hammer?'"
Speaking of goodbyes, Katie Couric gave hers this morning on The Today Show. As every American who has never heard of Russ Feingold surely knows by now, Katie is bound for the chair once occupied by Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite.
And now that she's going to the hard-news side, I just want to say, "Congrats, Katie, the watchdogs are biting already!" She has yet to utter a word on CBS, but the right is already accusing her of the dreaded "liberal tilt." Read this and enjoy.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
The Hammer whacks himself
I begin today with a quote from an eminent 19th-century British historian, and I will end this post with a quote from a feisty old Texas gal.
It was Lord Acton who wrote, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Who better to confirm Lord Acton's observation than Tom DeLay?
It has certainly been a precipitous plunge from power. A mere eight months ago, DeLay was still "The Hammer," the unbeaten and unbowed wielder of Republican clout in the U.S. House, a cinch to retain his cushy congressional seat in suburban Houston. Yet today, already stripped of his leadership post, he has decided to give up his seat before the voters opt to kick him out.
He says today that he'll quit Congress this spring, in order to focus on an issues agenda that will include nurturing a closer relationship between religion and politics. He neglected to mention that, as an indicted criminal defendant, he will also be compelled to focus on the issue of staying out of jail.
(At this juncture, let me interject the most amusing line of the day. Republican national chairman Ken Mehlman has just issued a statement praising DeLay on the occasion of his "retirement." No, Ken. When you leave a job at a ripe old age, without a single cloud over your head, and you move to Florida and eat the early-bird specials and play tennis until your old knees give out...that's the proper use of the word "retirement.")
Anyway, DeLay tells Time magazine that he's quitting because "I can evaluate political situations," meaning that he's not sure he has enough votes to win re-election as a backbench congressman. But this argument is a tad incomplete; it's akin to what Richard Nixon said in 1974 when he resigned the presidency.
Nixon said he was quitting because "I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress," when, in reality, it was because he faced impeachment and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors. DeLay's statement about "political situations" omits the most important fact of all: A legal noose might be tightening around his neck.
Federal investigators have already determined that his own House office has been the scene of a criminal enterprise. A former top DeLay aide, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty last week, admitting that he had conspired with Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff (now a convicted felon) to corrupt public officials, engaging in these actions while working for DeLay. He is the second ex-DeLay aide to plead guilty to criminal charges in recent months.
DeLay himself has not been accused of any wrongdoing in this federal probe; his current indictment stems from the alleged violation of Texas election laws. But it's clear that, at the very least, he will spend much of this year fending off questions about the feds.
He might also spend the rest of this year fighting off the feds, as well - and now he has a big pot of money for legal expenses. He told Fox News this morning that he decided to quit his seat and dump his re-election bid because he wanted to spare his constituents a "nasty" campaign. But it just so happens that, under federal election rules, a candidate with legal woes who quits his race is permitted to transfer all his campaign money into his legal defense fund. (The rules are explained here.)
The best way to assess DeLay's rise and fall is to focus on the big picture. His ties to his former good friend Abramoff are merely symptomatic of DeLay's longstanding efforts to fuse the '94 conservative revolution to the K Street lobby-finance machine; he married conservative ideology to big money; power became not merely the means, but the end in itself. And then Lord Acton's observation kicked in.
Which brings me to the feisty old Texas gal, Beverly Carter. I met Beverly 11 months ago, while I was on a fact-finding mission to DeLay's Texas district. She's a Republican precinct chairwoman who has known DeLay since the late '70s, when he was novice state legislator with a mustache and a pin-striped suit with bell bottoms and a reputation for having a good time (his nickname was Hot Tub Tom).
Beverly told me last May that she had DeLay all figured out:
"We Texans don't mind...pigs feeding at the trough. Here's the thing, though. Pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered. And Tom has been a hog."
It was Lord Acton who wrote, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Who better to confirm Lord Acton's observation than Tom DeLay?
It has certainly been a precipitous plunge from power. A mere eight months ago, DeLay was still "The Hammer," the unbeaten and unbowed wielder of Republican clout in the U.S. House, a cinch to retain his cushy congressional seat in suburban Houston. Yet today, already stripped of his leadership post, he has decided to give up his seat before the voters opt to kick him out.
He says today that he'll quit Congress this spring, in order to focus on an issues agenda that will include nurturing a closer relationship between religion and politics. He neglected to mention that, as an indicted criminal defendant, he will also be compelled to focus on the issue of staying out of jail.
(At this juncture, let me interject the most amusing line of the day. Republican national chairman Ken Mehlman has just issued a statement praising DeLay on the occasion of his "retirement." No, Ken. When you leave a job at a ripe old age, without a single cloud over your head, and you move to Florida and eat the early-bird specials and play tennis until your old knees give out...that's the proper use of the word "retirement.")
Anyway, DeLay tells Time magazine that he's quitting because "I can evaluate political situations," meaning that he's not sure he has enough votes to win re-election as a backbench congressman. But this argument is a tad incomplete; it's akin to what Richard Nixon said in 1974 when he resigned the presidency.
Nixon said he was quitting because "I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress," when, in reality, it was because he faced impeachment and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors. DeLay's statement about "political situations" omits the most important fact of all: A legal noose might be tightening around his neck.
Federal investigators have already determined that his own House office has been the scene of a criminal enterprise. A former top DeLay aide, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty last week, admitting that he had conspired with Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff (now a convicted felon) to corrupt public officials, engaging in these actions while working for DeLay. He is the second ex-DeLay aide to plead guilty to criminal charges in recent months.
DeLay himself has not been accused of any wrongdoing in this federal probe; his current indictment stems from the alleged violation of Texas election laws. But it's clear that, at the very least, he will spend much of this year fending off questions about the feds.
He might also spend the rest of this year fighting off the feds, as well - and now he has a big pot of money for legal expenses. He told Fox News this morning that he decided to quit his seat and dump his re-election bid because he wanted to spare his constituents a "nasty" campaign. But it just so happens that, under federal election rules, a candidate with legal woes who quits his race is permitted to transfer all his campaign money into his legal defense fund. (The rules are explained here.)
The best way to assess DeLay's rise and fall is to focus on the big picture. His ties to his former good friend Abramoff are merely symptomatic of DeLay's longstanding efforts to fuse the '94 conservative revolution to the K Street lobby-finance machine; he married conservative ideology to big money; power became not merely the means, but the end in itself. And then Lord Acton's observation kicked in.
Which brings me to the feisty old Texas gal, Beverly Carter. I met Beverly 11 months ago, while I was on a fact-finding mission to DeLay's Texas district. She's a Republican precinct chairwoman who has known DeLay since the late '70s, when he was novice state legislator with a mustache and a pin-striped suit with bell bottoms and a reputation for having a good time (his nickname was Hot Tub Tom).
Beverly told me last May that she had DeLay all figured out:
"We Texans don't mind...pigs feeding at the trough. Here's the thing, though. Pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered. And Tom has been a hog."
Monday, April 03, 2006
Queen of de-nial
Our very own Baghdad Bob appears to be in deep denial.
I'm referring, of course, to Katherine Harris, the one-time Florida Republican secretary of state who made her bones in the 2000 election overtime by ruling for candidate George W. Bush at every key juncture. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harris has been running for the U.S. Senate in Florida this year, seeking to oust Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson - a race the GOP would dearly love to win, because Nelson's removal would virtually ensure that Bush's party retains its Senate majority in November.
But the problem right now is that the Harris campaign is imploding in a spectacular fashion that is virtually unprecedented in a major Senate race. For that reason alone, it is worth noting.
And the only person who doesn't seem to realize this is Harris herself, who seems determined to behave like Baghdad Bob. He was the flak for Saddam Hussein, known to his comrades as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, who used to make jaw-dropping statements that had no relationship with reality. (April 7, 2003, at a time when U.S. troops were flooding the streets of Baghdad: "The Americans are not there. They're not in Baghdad. There are no troops there. Never. They're not at all.")
Harris, who was lionized at a 2001 Inaugural Ball as another Joan of Arc, keeps issuing statements about how her Senate campaign is alive and well ("we are stronger as a campaign today than we were yesterday," she declared on Sunday) -- an interesting perspective given the fact that, in a short period of time, she has been on the receiving end of resignations from:
Her chief political strategist.
Her director of field operations.
Her campaign manager.
Her campaign press secretary.
Her campaign treasurer.
Her pollster.
Her media consultant.
Her national financial director.
And the traveling aide who dispensed bumper stickers.
She was never the GOP's first choice for the race - because of her polarizing reputation (she will galvanize Democrats to show up en masses in November) and because, frankly, a lot of Republican insiders simply don't like her very much - and that was even before she got hit with questions about why she took $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions from disgraced defense contractor Mitchell Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to bribing a California congressman.
At this point, Harris apparently has only one option left, the option often taken by politicians who are locked in a downward spiral. And, of course, she is taking it already:
She's blaming the media, which she says has "relentlessly and personally" attacked her.
She's promising to name a new team of aides tomorrow. No word yet on whether Baghdad Bob submitted a resume.
I'm referring, of course, to Katherine Harris, the one-time Florida Republican secretary of state who made her bones in the 2000 election overtime by ruling for candidate George W. Bush at every key juncture. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harris has been running for the U.S. Senate in Florida this year, seeking to oust Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson - a race the GOP would dearly love to win, because Nelson's removal would virtually ensure that Bush's party retains its Senate majority in November.
But the problem right now is that the Harris campaign is imploding in a spectacular fashion that is virtually unprecedented in a major Senate race. For that reason alone, it is worth noting.
And the only person who doesn't seem to realize this is Harris herself, who seems determined to behave like Baghdad Bob. He was the flak for Saddam Hussein, known to his comrades as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, who used to make jaw-dropping statements that had no relationship with reality. (April 7, 2003, at a time when U.S. troops were flooding the streets of Baghdad: "The Americans are not there. They're not in Baghdad. There are no troops there. Never. They're not at all.")
Harris, who was lionized at a 2001 Inaugural Ball as another Joan of Arc, keeps issuing statements about how her Senate campaign is alive and well ("we are stronger as a campaign today than we were yesterday," she declared on Sunday) -- an interesting perspective given the fact that, in a short period of time, she has been on the receiving end of resignations from:
Her chief political strategist.
Her director of field operations.
Her campaign manager.
Her campaign press secretary.
Her campaign treasurer.
Her pollster.
Her media consultant.
Her national financial director.
And the traveling aide who dispensed bumper stickers.
She was never the GOP's first choice for the race - because of her polarizing reputation (she will galvanize Democrats to show up en masses in November) and because, frankly, a lot of Republican insiders simply don't like her very much - and that was even before she got hit with questions about why she took $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions from disgraced defense contractor Mitchell Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to bribing a California congressman.
At this point, Harris apparently has only one option left, the option often taken by politicians who are locked in a downward spiral. And, of course, she is taking it already:
She's blaming the media, which she says has "relentlessly and personally" attacked her.
She's promising to name a new team of aides tomorrow. No word yet on whether Baghdad Bob submitted a resume.
Frist's doleful dilemma
Bill Frist has Bob Dole disease.
I was struck by that realization this morning while reading a new profile on Frist. The current Senate Republican leader is lamenting how hard it is to run for president while holding down a leadership job on Capitol Hill. That's exactly what Dole used to say, back in 1996, when he was Senate Republican leader and trying to run for president at the same time. The record will show that Dole wound up not as leader of the free world, but as a pitchman for Viagara.
Frist may not do any better.
It's a (true) cliche that half the U.S. senators wake up every morning and see a future president in the mirror, but it's a mystery why that is so. Take a guess how many Republican senators have made it to the White House during the past century: One. That would be Warren G. Harding, and the only reason he made it was because the GOP power brokers in a 1920 smoke-filled room had to come up with a compromise nominee.
And take a guess how many Democratic senators have made it during the past century: One. That would be John F. Kennedy, and that ascent was more attributable to his dad's backstage clout than to anything he accomplished in the Senate (where he accomplished little).
Voters just don't like to elect establishment insiders who make a living by talking a lot and casting thousands of ambiguous legislative votes that can be explained every which way. If that was deemed to be an attactive quality, maybe we would have elected Howard Baker or Alan Cranston or John Glenn or John Kerry or Bob Kerrey or Paul Simon or scores of others I could cite at random.
Frist thinks he can fix the problem by quitting the Senate - the article today says that he will find it liberating to leave - and that reminded me of Dole's decision to do the same on May 15, 1996, to "leave behind all the trappings of power, all comfort, all security," as Dole put it that day. But it did Dole no good. He stayed trapped by his long record of amendments, compromises, and all the attendant parliamentary arcana. And he still talked in legislatese.
Frist may be similary trapped, by the problem of being a Washington insider (12 years, in his case) while yearning to be seen as an upstart outsider. He'll try to boost the latter image this week, with a tough-on-immigrants bill that is designed to please the grassroots conservative base. But his prospects for White House succeess are not strong.
I can't share the withering assessments of the good doctor that I am hearing these days from many Republicans, because even the comments themselves are off the record. But this one, from a highranking GOP leader in a key primary state, has been authorized for use:
"He started his campaign thinking he could come on like Marcus Welby, and he's ending up like Bob Dole."
I was struck by that realization this morning while reading a new profile on Frist. The current Senate Republican leader is lamenting how hard it is to run for president while holding down a leadership job on Capitol Hill. That's exactly what Dole used to say, back in 1996, when he was Senate Republican leader and trying to run for president at the same time. The record will show that Dole wound up not as leader of the free world, but as a pitchman for Viagara.
Frist may not do any better.
It's a (true) cliche that half the U.S. senators wake up every morning and see a future president in the mirror, but it's a mystery why that is so. Take a guess how many Republican senators have made it to the White House during the past century: One. That would be Warren G. Harding, and the only reason he made it was because the GOP power brokers in a 1920 smoke-filled room had to come up with a compromise nominee.
And take a guess how many Democratic senators have made it during the past century: One. That would be John F. Kennedy, and that ascent was more attributable to his dad's backstage clout than to anything he accomplished in the Senate (where he accomplished little).
Voters just don't like to elect establishment insiders who make a living by talking a lot and casting thousands of ambiguous legislative votes that can be explained every which way. If that was deemed to be an attactive quality, maybe we would have elected Howard Baker or Alan Cranston or John Glenn or John Kerry or Bob Kerrey or Paul Simon or scores of others I could cite at random.
Frist thinks he can fix the problem by quitting the Senate - the article today says that he will find it liberating to leave - and that reminded me of Dole's decision to do the same on May 15, 1996, to "leave behind all the trappings of power, all comfort, all security," as Dole put it that day. But it did Dole no good. He stayed trapped by his long record of amendments, compromises, and all the attendant parliamentary arcana. And he still talked in legislatese.
Frist may be similary trapped, by the problem of being a Washington insider (12 years, in his case) while yearning to be seen as an upstart outsider. He'll try to boost the latter image this week, with a tough-on-immigrants bill that is designed to please the grassroots conservative base. But his prospects for White House succeess are not strong.
I can't share the withering assessments of the good doctor that I am hearing these days from many Republicans, because even the comments themselves are off the record. But this one, from a highranking GOP leader in a key primary state, has been authorized for use:
"He started his campaign thinking he could come on like Marcus Welby, and he's ending up like Bob Dole."
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Contrarian thoughts on censure
The conventional wisdom about Russ Feingold goes something like this:
The Wisconsin Democratic senator is hurting his own party by seeking to censure President Bush, with an official Senate rebuke that's one step short of impeachment; that Feingold is making the Democrats look soft on terrorism by arguing that Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program is an outright violation of federal law; that Feingold's bid to punish the president is a display of Bush-hating zeal that will turn people off to the Democrats in general (despite the fact that most Senate Democrats are refusing to endorse Feingold's move).
Yes, sometimes the conventional wisdom is absolutely correct.
But sometimes it pays to be a contrarian, and this might be one of those times.
First of all, as nonpartisan analyst Stuart Rothenberg pointed out the other day, there is broad public antipathy toward Bush these days, especially because of the war, and he is no longer viewed by most Americans as an effective steward of the war on terror. In such a climate, it is easier for a Democrat to argue that Bush deserves to be held accountable for his actions.
As Rothenberg told the New York Times, "If (censure) is discussed in at all a reasonable way, that may add to its credibility. When you have presidential approval ratings this bad, you have a public that is not predisposed to rally to the president and not predisposed to reject the criticism."
Secondly, even though it's widely assumed that only liberal Democrats believe Bush broke the law by setting up a warrantless surveillance program, that conventional wisdom is factually incorrect. Two days ago, in a Senate hearing on the censure idea, one of Feingold's most reputable witnesses contended that Bush is using 9/11 as a "preposterous" excuse to slowly and steadily amass "unprecedented" presidential powers. In short, he said, "You can lose a republic on the installment plan every bit as efficiently as at one fell swoop with a coup d'etat."
The speaker was Bruce Fein, who served as assistant director of the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy...under Ronald Reagan. Fein, who supports censuring Bush for "official misconduct," also supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton. This is also the same conservative scholar who, last winter, argued that "President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law." (The Republicans who assail the censure idea never mention Fein. You can read his prepared statement here.)
My point is that Fein's involvement is evidence that concerns about Bush and the law are not limited to the left side of the political spectrum. And this is exactly what conservative analyst William Kristol brought up this morning on Fox News Sunday. Kristol is not a fan of Russ Feingold's censure move, but he too believes it may be a more politically potent idea than conventional wisdom would suggest.
Kristol cited a national poll showing that 38 percent of Americans back the censure idea, with 45 percent opposed. Then he said:
"That's an amazingly high number, that Feingold already has 38 percent...If he keeps making the case that this (warrantless program) is illegal, and the Republican response is 'Oh, we're a little uncertain (about the legality), but this (censure) is a little harsh,' who's going to win that argument? If the Republicans believe that the president has done the right thing - which I believe - they should introduce a resolution commending the president for eavesdropping on terrorists, and force the Democrats to vote on that. But the Republicans are in a fetal position, and the Bush administration is in a fetal position, and Feingold makes his case articulately...And of course Feingold is going to win that debate."
I couldn't find the poll to which Kristol was referring. But I did find a Newsweek poll, conducted in mid-March, that puts support for censure at 42 percent, which arguably strengthens Kristol's point.
So, I'm just asking: Are all those Senate Democrats who are fleeing from Feingold - are they possibly misreading the public mood?
The Wisconsin Democratic senator is hurting his own party by seeking to censure President Bush, with an official Senate rebuke that's one step short of impeachment; that Feingold is making the Democrats look soft on terrorism by arguing that Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program is an outright violation of federal law; that Feingold's bid to punish the president is a display of Bush-hating zeal that will turn people off to the Democrats in general (despite the fact that most Senate Democrats are refusing to endorse Feingold's move).
Yes, sometimes the conventional wisdom is absolutely correct.
But sometimes it pays to be a contrarian, and this might be one of those times.
First of all, as nonpartisan analyst Stuart Rothenberg pointed out the other day, there is broad public antipathy toward Bush these days, especially because of the war, and he is no longer viewed by most Americans as an effective steward of the war on terror. In such a climate, it is easier for a Democrat to argue that Bush deserves to be held accountable for his actions.
As Rothenberg told the New York Times, "If (censure) is discussed in at all a reasonable way, that may add to its credibility. When you have presidential approval ratings this bad, you have a public that is not predisposed to rally to the president and not predisposed to reject the criticism."
Secondly, even though it's widely assumed that only liberal Democrats believe Bush broke the law by setting up a warrantless surveillance program, that conventional wisdom is factually incorrect. Two days ago, in a Senate hearing on the censure idea, one of Feingold's most reputable witnesses contended that Bush is using 9/11 as a "preposterous" excuse to slowly and steadily amass "unprecedented" presidential powers. In short, he said, "You can lose a republic on the installment plan every bit as efficiently as at one fell swoop with a coup d'etat."
The speaker was Bruce Fein, who served as assistant director of the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy...under Ronald Reagan. Fein, who supports censuring Bush for "official misconduct," also supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton. This is also the same conservative scholar who, last winter, argued that "President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law." (The Republicans who assail the censure idea never mention Fein. You can read his prepared statement here.)
My point is that Fein's involvement is evidence that concerns about Bush and the law are not limited to the left side of the political spectrum. And this is exactly what conservative analyst William Kristol brought up this morning on Fox News Sunday. Kristol is not a fan of Russ Feingold's censure move, but he too believes it may be a more politically potent idea than conventional wisdom would suggest.
Kristol cited a national poll showing that 38 percent of Americans back the censure idea, with 45 percent opposed. Then he said:
"That's an amazingly high number, that Feingold already has 38 percent...If he keeps making the case that this (warrantless program) is illegal, and the Republican response is 'Oh, we're a little uncertain (about the legality), but this (censure) is a little harsh,' who's going to win that argument? If the Republicans believe that the president has done the right thing - which I believe - they should introduce a resolution commending the president for eavesdropping on terrorists, and force the Democrats to vote on that. But the Republicans are in a fetal position, and the Bush administration is in a fetal position, and Feingold makes his case articulately...And of course Feingold is going to win that debate."
I couldn't find the poll to which Kristol was referring. But I did find a Newsweek poll, conducted in mid-March, that puts support for censure at 42 percent, which arguably strengthens Kristol's point.
So, I'm just asking: Are all those Senate Democrats who are fleeing from Feingold - are they possibly misreading the public mood?
Saturday, April 01, 2006
The cult of victimhood
One of the fascinations about politicians is the way they try never to take the blame for their own failings.
This habit didn't start with Hillary Clinton's insistence that philandering Bill was merely the victim of "a vast right-wing conspiracy," or with Richard "Watergate" Nixon's insistence that the Jews were out to get him (he ordered an aide to "count the Jews" in the federal bureaucracy). In fact, you can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, who responded to reports about his affair with slave Sally Hemings by insisting that Federalist gossips were out to get him (the affair is now established as true).
But, in our current era, the blame-shifting is often even more pronounced, because we have such a strong cult of victimhood. Which brings us to the winners of this week's Woe is Me Awards. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I bestow one to a Republican and another to a Democrat.
My Republican winner is Tom DeLay.
He's the guy who lost his post as House GOP leader because he was indicted by a Texas grand jury on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, and because he remains under a cloud due to his extensive ties to his former dear friend, the felon-lobbyist Jack Abramoff (who was sentenced to six years in prison early last week). DeLay has fallen so far that he's fighting now to hang on to his congressional seat, and the fact that a second former DeLay aide has now pleaded guilty to taking illegal gifts from Abramoff probably won't help his status among swing voters.
But are these really the reasons why DeLay is down for the count? No way. Not according to DeLay and his loyalists.
They say that DeLay is being persecuted because he is a Christian.
DeLay showed up in Washington the other day at a conservative conference that was convened to discuss "The War on Christians." The host, Texas pastor Rick Scarborough, introduced DeLay with these words (none of which DeLay took issue with): "I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ...This is a man that I believe God has appointed!"
DeLay then spoke, casting himself on the side of virtue: "Sides are being chosen, and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will."
Now, I did find this enlightening. I had never realized there was a war on Christians, certainly not when I hang out at holiday time in my favorite coffee shop and routinely hear 90 minutes of thunderous Christmas music pumped through the PA system; or when I see people in my neighborhood filing peacefully into church every Sunday without anyone firing at them; or when I visit my favorite southern town and, while shopping for hiking gear in a public store, find that I'm being serenaded by a Christian conservative radio show; or when I read polls which say that 85 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian.
Seems to me that, suggestions of a "war" notwithstanding, Christians have things well in hand in America, which is fine - and that DeLay's problems seem far more attributable to the secular world, namely the Texas election laws, the Texas courts, and the U.S. Justice Department.
The Woe is Me Award-winning Democrat is Cynthia McKinney.
She's the Georgia congressman who allegedly struck a Capitol Hill police officer the other day, apparently hitting him with her cellphone during a scuffle - when the officer sought to bar her entry. She had circumvented a metal detector staffed by the cops, but was stopped because she was not wearing the requisite lapel pin that would have identified her as a congresswoman.
That's when the physical encounter apparently ensured. The officer involved in the incident might file assault charges as early as next week, according to one reliable report; he also drew support from his colleagues, who said he was merely fulfilling his "duties and responsibilities" at a checkpoint where security has been beefed up since 9/11.
Yesterday, McKinney held a press conference. She said it was the cop's fault. She said she had been harassed because she is black.
Now, at this point, it's important to bring up some of McKinney's history; she has a penchant for provocative statements and behavior. Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, she contended that President Bush had received, in advance, "numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11," and that he had decided to do nothing; in that way, she charged, he and his cronies could "make huge profits off America's new war."
These charges were judged to be a tad too inflammatory for the voters of her Georgia district, who tossed her out of office in 2002. (She won the seat back two years later.) In the wake of that 2002 defeat, the most noteworthy reaction came from her father, who shared with an Atlanta TV station his theory of why she lost:
"Jews have bought everybody. J-E-W-S."
There is no information about whether the officer in the Capitol scuffle is Jewish. He is, however, white. And that was enough for her lawyer to contend yesterday that "Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black.”
McKinney then tried a new tack, arguing that the cop simply should have known who she was. "The issue," she said, "is face recognition."
No, congresswoman. The issue is, just wear the lapel pin.
This habit didn't start with Hillary Clinton's insistence that philandering Bill was merely the victim of "a vast right-wing conspiracy," or with Richard "Watergate" Nixon's insistence that the Jews were out to get him (he ordered an aide to "count the Jews" in the federal bureaucracy). In fact, you can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, who responded to reports about his affair with slave Sally Hemings by insisting that Federalist gossips were out to get him (the affair is now established as true).
But, in our current era, the blame-shifting is often even more pronounced, because we have such a strong cult of victimhood. Which brings us to the winners of this week's Woe is Me Awards. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I bestow one to a Republican and another to a Democrat.
My Republican winner is Tom DeLay.
He's the guy who lost his post as House GOP leader because he was indicted by a Texas grand jury on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, and because he remains under a cloud due to his extensive ties to his former dear friend, the felon-lobbyist Jack Abramoff (who was sentenced to six years in prison early last week). DeLay has fallen so far that he's fighting now to hang on to his congressional seat, and the fact that a second former DeLay aide has now pleaded guilty to taking illegal gifts from Abramoff probably won't help his status among swing voters.
But are these really the reasons why DeLay is down for the count? No way. Not according to DeLay and his loyalists.
They say that DeLay is being persecuted because he is a Christian.
DeLay showed up in Washington the other day at a conservative conference that was convened to discuss "The War on Christians." The host, Texas pastor Rick Scarborough, introduced DeLay with these words (none of which DeLay took issue with): "I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ...This is a man that I believe God has appointed!"
DeLay then spoke, casting himself on the side of virtue: "Sides are being chosen, and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will."
Now, I did find this enlightening. I had never realized there was a war on Christians, certainly not when I hang out at holiday time in my favorite coffee shop and routinely hear 90 minutes of thunderous Christmas music pumped through the PA system; or when I see people in my neighborhood filing peacefully into church every Sunday without anyone firing at them; or when I visit my favorite southern town and, while shopping for hiking gear in a public store, find that I'm being serenaded by a Christian conservative radio show; or when I read polls which say that 85 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian.
Seems to me that, suggestions of a "war" notwithstanding, Christians have things well in hand in America, which is fine - and that DeLay's problems seem far more attributable to the secular world, namely the Texas election laws, the Texas courts, and the U.S. Justice Department.
The Woe is Me Award-winning Democrat is Cynthia McKinney.
She's the Georgia congressman who allegedly struck a Capitol Hill police officer the other day, apparently hitting him with her cellphone during a scuffle - when the officer sought to bar her entry. She had circumvented a metal detector staffed by the cops, but was stopped because she was not wearing the requisite lapel pin that would have identified her as a congresswoman.
That's when the physical encounter apparently ensured. The officer involved in the incident might file assault charges as early as next week, according to one reliable report; he also drew support from his colleagues, who said he was merely fulfilling his "duties and responsibilities" at a checkpoint where security has been beefed up since 9/11.
Yesterday, McKinney held a press conference. She said it was the cop's fault. She said she had been harassed because she is black.
Now, at this point, it's important to bring up some of McKinney's history; she has a penchant for provocative statements and behavior. Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, she contended that President Bush had received, in advance, "numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11," and that he had decided to do nothing; in that way, she charged, he and his cronies could "make huge profits off America's new war."
These charges were judged to be a tad too inflammatory for the voters of her Georgia district, who tossed her out of office in 2002. (She won the seat back two years later.) In the wake of that 2002 defeat, the most noteworthy reaction came from her father, who shared with an Atlanta TV station his theory of why she lost:
"Jews have bought everybody. J-E-W-S."
There is no information about whether the officer in the Capitol scuffle is Jewish. He is, however, white. And that was enough for her lawyer to contend yesterday that "Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black.”
McKinney then tried a new tack, arguing that the cop simply should have known who she was. "The issue," she said, "is face recognition."
No, congresswoman. The issue is, just wear the lapel pin.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Is it over, Grover?
Last night I popped over to the National Constitution Center to hear Grover Norquist, one of America's most influential conservative leaders, and a key comrade to everyone on the right, from Karl Rove to his old pal, the convicted felon-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
I was curious about whether Norquist, who has spent his career working for a permanent Republican majority, would be downbeat about the GOP's prospects in the 2006 congressional elections, given the fact that a restive electorate is generally likely to focus its ire on the party in power.
I was also curious, because of Norquist's combative nature, and famed reluctance to cede any ground. This is a guy, after all, who once said that "bipartisanship is another name for date rape," and said, at another point, "It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat....It is like when the king would take his opponent’s head and stick it on a pike for everyone to see.”
So, what about these '06 elections? Could the Republicans lose control of either the House or Senate?
With someone like Norquist, it pays to listen between the lines. His short answer was that, no, such a disaster will not happen, in part because the economic indicators are strong, and in part because the Democrats have not recuited enough top-notch House candidates this year.
I was also curious, because of Norquist's combative nature, and famed reluctance to cede any ground. This is a guy, after all, who once said that "bipartisanship is another name for date rape," and said, at another point, "It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat....It is like when the king would take his opponent’s head and stick it on a pike for everyone to see.”
So, what about these '06 elections? Could the Republicans lose control of either the House or Senate?
With someone like Norquist, it pays to listen between the lines. His short answer was that, no, such a disaster will not happen, in part because the economic indicators are strong, and in part because the Democrats have not recuited enough top-notch House candidates this year.
Grover is right on the recruitment; according to non-partisan analyst Charlie Cook, "Democrats have missed a number of opportunities....Of the 86 Republican-held districts that we consider to be the most potentially vulnerable...there are 37 where Democrats have a candidate who meets at least a minimum standard of credibility. Still, we consider just 17 to be top-caliber challengers." On the other hand, citing the prevailing voter mood, Cook last weekend told NBC that "the Republicans will be lucky to hold onto anything."
Indeed, Norquist did hint that a voter revolt is possible, because of what he also called "a perfect storm" of recent events: the Katrina debacle, the Harriet Miers court nomination that angered so many conservatives ("a self-inflicted wierd wound that I still don't begin to understand"), and the milestone of the 2000th American soldier killed in Iraq.
Iraq is much on his mind: "If Iraq is in the rear-view mirror in October, then Republicans will be fine (on election day). If Iraq is in the windshield, right in front of you, then there are more challenges."
Challenges...That's the kind of word that CEOs use when they talk about the prospects of falling profit margins.
In the National Review today, conservative analyst Rich Lowry is far blunter: "The GOP still has a few things on its side — time (the public mood could shift before the fall); gerrymandering (so few congressional districts are competitive that it will be difficult for Democrats to find enough to pick off); and events (maybe, just maybe, Bush does get lucky somewhere). But none of this goes to the White House’s real vulnerability: Intellectually, it is running on empty..."
Anyway, Grover also had some thoughts on 2008. He thinks, for instance, that Hillary Clinton has the Democratic nomination sewed up already. He painted a tableau of the primary season debates, in his inimitable way. Hillary aside, he envisions "six or seven munchkins all sitting around, kicking each other under the table...They'll throw things at each other, while sucking up to Hillary, because they're all running for vice president."
He thinks a Hillary nomination is good news for the GOP, but he can't predict who'd oppose her. He likes George Allen, the Virginia senator, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, because they're competing for "the center of the Reagan coalition." But he doesn't like John McCain (the feeling there is mutual; there's still bad blood from 2000, because Grover assailed McCain as a tax-hiker).
But let's finish with more on the '06 races. It can be argued that the sour public mood is also influenced by the cash-for-access sweetheart deals that have beset the governing party over the past few years. Norquist has not been charged with any wrong-doing, but he has played a pivotal role in augmenting Jack Abramoff's insider influence.
He and Grover have been political comrades since the '80s, and over the past decade the lobbyist got his Indian casino clients to steer at least $1.5 million to Grover's tax-exempt Washington organization, in exchange for Grover-facilitated access to powerful GOP politicians (as detailed here). Two weeks ago, in fact, the New York Times reported that the chief of an Indian tribe represented by Abramoff got access to President Bush in 2001, just days after the tribe paid Grover's group $25,000 at Abramoff's direction.
What about that, Grover?
"We have hundreds of significant donors. We have brought hundreds to the White House. It's possible there was overlap of one or two."
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Vote for a government of our choosing
The historical record has now established that President Bush and his war planners viewed the toppling of Saddam Hussein as a strategic opportunity to introduce democracy in the heart of the Middle East, with the expectation that western-style values would take root and spread peace throughout the region. The flaw in that bold thinking, however, was to assume that voters would comply by electing the people with whom the Bush administration would feel most comfortable.
And now we're seeing the consequences. Bush right now is stuck with a prime minister he doesn't like, a prime minister who is allied with the forces that could trigger full-blown civil war, a prime minister who got the job in accordance with the rules established in the same Constitution that Bush has touted as a symbol of democratic progress.
No wonder we're in a pickle over there.
The Iraqi voters last December basically divided starkly along sectarian and ethnic lines, and wound up awarding the largest number of Parliament seats to the religious Shiites, and, under the rules of the new game, they had the right to nominate a prime minister. Result: The job went to Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who is tight with the leader of a violent and populous Shiite militia.
What can Bush do when the "wrong" guy gets chosen in a free process? He sends word that the wrong guy should consider himself gone, no matter what the voters essentially decided.
As Bush said earlier this week, through his ambassador to Iraq, the president "doesn't want, doesn't support, and doesn't accept" Jaafari as the long-term choice for that post. And sure enough, as we see today, Jaafari is digging in, by throwing Bush's democratic rhetoric back in his face: "(S)ome American figures have made statements that interfere with the results of the democratic process."
Such are the pitfalls of exporting democracy. Bush now has the choice of bowing to the free process and accepting Jaafari (who is also tight with Iran) - or interfering further in Iraqi politics and risk undercutting America's credibility in Iraq even more. Because, on the issue of credibility, we have this Bush remark, uttered on March 10, addressing the importance of Iraqi voters choosing the government that they want:
"We want the Iraqis to make that selection, of course. They are the ones who got elected by the people. They’re the ones who must form the government."
And now we're seeing the consequences. Bush right now is stuck with a prime minister he doesn't like, a prime minister who is allied with the forces that could trigger full-blown civil war, a prime minister who got the job in accordance with the rules established in the same Constitution that Bush has touted as a symbol of democratic progress.
No wonder we're in a pickle over there.
The Iraqi voters last December basically divided starkly along sectarian and ethnic lines, and wound up awarding the largest number of Parliament seats to the religious Shiites, and, under the rules of the new game, they had the right to nominate a prime minister. Result: The job went to Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who is tight with the leader of a violent and populous Shiite militia.
What can Bush do when the "wrong" guy gets chosen in a free process? He sends word that the wrong guy should consider himself gone, no matter what the voters essentially decided.
As Bush said earlier this week, through his ambassador to Iraq, the president "doesn't want, doesn't support, and doesn't accept" Jaafari as the long-term choice for that post. And sure enough, as we see today, Jaafari is digging in, by throwing Bush's democratic rhetoric back in his face: "(S)ome American figures have made statements that interfere with the results of the democratic process."
Such are the pitfalls of exporting democracy. Bush now has the choice of bowing to the free process and accepting Jaafari (who is also tight with Iran) - or interfering further in Iraqi politics and risk undercutting America's credibility in Iraq even more. Because, on the issue of credibility, we have this Bush remark, uttered on March 10, addressing the importance of Iraqi voters choosing the government that they want:
"We want the Iraqis to make that selection, of course. They are the ones who got elected by the people. They’re the ones who must form the government."
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
The Democrats' security blanket
Tough and smart. Tough and smart.
Did I mention that Democratic leaders want you to think they are tough and smart?
Today, that buzz phrase permeated their rhetoric as they unveiled their long-awaited national security agenda -- Senator Evan Bayh, an '08 presidential hopeful, has also invoked tough-and-smart umpteen times in recent speeches -- and it's a signal that the minority party, in preparation for the '06 congressional elections, is intent on overhauling the soft-on-defense image that has dogged it for decades.
The goal is: No more jokes about John Kerry's 2004 flipflop gaffe, "I voted for it before I voted against it." No more laughing about how puny Michael Dukakis looked riding around in a tank (1988). No more references to Jimmy Carter's botched attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages, complete with photos of the charred choppers in the desert (1980). No more footage of George McGovern and his peace movement pals (1972). The goal is to get skeptical Americans to skip the past 30 years, and think of today's Democrats as heirs to the tough-guy Democratic traditions of FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK.
By releasing today's somewhat sketchy agenda, "Real Security: Protecting America and Restoring Our Leadership in the World," Senate and House Democratic leaders are clearly trying to avoid the party's fatal errors of 2002 - when, in the midst of congressional elections being staged in the shadow of 9/11, and with President Bush prepping the case for war in Iraq, Democrats basically tried to change the subject and run instead on domestic issues. They paid dearly on election day.
Democrats know that such a strategy won't wash this year; besides, with Bush and the GOP Congress down in the polls, the mood seems right for Democrats to challenge the governing party on the latter's issue turf.
As recently as 2003, a bipartisan poll showed that, by a margin of 30 percentage points, Americans favored the GOP as the party best capable of fighting the war on terror; currently, according to a new Time poll, the GOP is favored by only 10 points. Democrats know they need to close that gap even further, in order to lure back wary independents, particularly (in the words of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg) "a large chunk of white non-college voters."
So, will the new Democratic security agenda do the trick? Depends on what you're looking for.
If you're hungering for great specificity, particularly with regard to the future status of U.S. troops in Iraq, the agenda will disappoint. The party is basically AWOL on that issue. It calls only for "the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces," without spelling out the terms (or timetable) under which that would be deemed advisable. Meanwhile, the agenda says that Democrats would "insist" that Iraqis make the necessary compromises for unity - which is basically what Bush is trying to do, with scant success today.
The liberal wing of the party might not be satisified with the Iraq provisions, because it would prefer a blunt vow to withdraw large numbers of troops, as a way to get the Iraqis to shape up.
The document also says that Democrats will "eliminate Osama bin Laden," hopefully by doubling the size of the Special Forces, but that's the extent of the information on how that task would be accomplished. That line seems to be intended more as a political slogan for the campaign, as a simple reminder that Bush hasn't done the job.
Democrats are arguably on more substantive ground with their homeland-security ideas. Their agenda says that Democrats would "immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission, including securing national borders, ports, airports, and mass transit systems...Screen 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin..." There is also a reference to the Dubai deal debacle: "Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure...to foreign interests that put America at risk."
There were signs today that Republicans are taking this Democratic effort quite seriously -- if only because they began to attack the agenda long before it came out. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi unveiled it at one p.m. today, yet Texas Senator John Cornyn was online with a pre-rebuttal at 7:18 a.m.
Cornyn cited the provisions, including securing the nation's ports, then scoffed: "These are all efforts that the administration and Republican Congress have implemented..."
But that statement is factually incorrect.
Thomas Kean, the 9/11 Commission co-chairman, said last autumn that homeland security was "not a priority for the government...A lot of things we need to do really to prevent another 9/11 just simply arent being done by the President or by the Congress." And according to a congressional study, only $560 million has been spent to help secure ports (as opposed to $18 billion for aviation safety). And only seven percent of cargo is reportedly screened for security purposes.
So Democrats might gain some traction from inaccurate GOP attacks, if only because a growing number of Americans seem so weary of the Republican message.
On the other hand, skeptics could read this agenda and conclude that the Democrats view Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root, and other U.S. contractors abroad as a pernicious threat equal in magnitude to Iran and North Korea. The latter two nations receive exactly one boilerplate sentence: "Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development.." (How? In what way would the Dems' approach differ from the Bush approach? No answer here.)
No wonder some of the Democrats' natural allies seem cool to this agenda. Here's the instant analysis from Rolling Stone magazine: "(I)f this is supposed to be the document that assures national-security minded voters that the Democrats are the more trustworthy party, it falls flat. This plan is the product of the Democrats' least-common-denominator thinking. Instead of bold vision it stinks of timidity -- and that's just not going to cut it."
If ultimately that's the verdict, who needs flak from John Cornyn?
Did I mention that Democratic leaders want you to think they are tough and smart?
Today, that buzz phrase permeated their rhetoric as they unveiled their long-awaited national security agenda -- Senator Evan Bayh, an '08 presidential hopeful, has also invoked tough-and-smart umpteen times in recent speeches -- and it's a signal that the minority party, in preparation for the '06 congressional elections, is intent on overhauling the soft-on-defense image that has dogged it for decades.
The goal is: No more jokes about John Kerry's 2004 flipflop gaffe, "I voted for it before I voted against it." No more laughing about how puny Michael Dukakis looked riding around in a tank (1988). No more references to Jimmy Carter's botched attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages, complete with photos of the charred choppers in the desert (1980). No more footage of George McGovern and his peace movement pals (1972). The goal is to get skeptical Americans to skip the past 30 years, and think of today's Democrats as heirs to the tough-guy Democratic traditions of FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK.
By releasing today's somewhat sketchy agenda, "Real Security: Protecting America and Restoring Our Leadership in the World," Senate and House Democratic leaders are clearly trying to avoid the party's fatal errors of 2002 - when, in the midst of congressional elections being staged in the shadow of 9/11, and with President Bush prepping the case for war in Iraq, Democrats basically tried to change the subject and run instead on domestic issues. They paid dearly on election day.
Democrats know that such a strategy won't wash this year; besides, with Bush and the GOP Congress down in the polls, the mood seems right for Democrats to challenge the governing party on the latter's issue turf.
As recently as 2003, a bipartisan poll showed that, by a margin of 30 percentage points, Americans favored the GOP as the party best capable of fighting the war on terror; currently, according to a new Time poll, the GOP is favored by only 10 points. Democrats know they need to close that gap even further, in order to lure back wary independents, particularly (in the words of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg) "a large chunk of white non-college voters."
So, will the new Democratic security agenda do the trick? Depends on what you're looking for.
If you're hungering for great specificity, particularly with regard to the future status of U.S. troops in Iraq, the agenda will disappoint. The party is basically AWOL on that issue. It calls only for "the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces," without spelling out the terms (or timetable) under which that would be deemed advisable. Meanwhile, the agenda says that Democrats would "insist" that Iraqis make the necessary compromises for unity - which is basically what Bush is trying to do, with scant success today.
The liberal wing of the party might not be satisified with the Iraq provisions, because it would prefer a blunt vow to withdraw large numbers of troops, as a way to get the Iraqis to shape up.
The document also says that Democrats will "eliminate Osama bin Laden," hopefully by doubling the size of the Special Forces, but that's the extent of the information on how that task would be accomplished. That line seems to be intended more as a political slogan for the campaign, as a simple reminder that Bush hasn't done the job.
Democrats are arguably on more substantive ground with their homeland-security ideas. Their agenda says that Democrats would "immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission, including securing national borders, ports, airports, and mass transit systems...Screen 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin..." There is also a reference to the Dubai deal debacle: "Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure...to foreign interests that put America at risk."
There were signs today that Republicans are taking this Democratic effort quite seriously -- if only because they began to attack the agenda long before it came out. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi unveiled it at one p.m. today, yet Texas Senator John Cornyn was online with a pre-rebuttal at 7:18 a.m.
Cornyn cited the provisions, including securing the nation's ports, then scoffed: "These are all efforts that the administration and Republican Congress have implemented..."
But that statement is factually incorrect.
Thomas Kean, the 9/11 Commission co-chairman, said last autumn that homeland security was "not a priority for the government...A lot of things we need to do really to prevent another 9/11 just simply arent being done by the President or by the Congress." And according to a congressional study, only $560 million has been spent to help secure ports (as opposed to $18 billion for aviation safety). And only seven percent of cargo is reportedly screened for security purposes.
So Democrats might gain some traction from inaccurate GOP attacks, if only because a growing number of Americans seem so weary of the Republican message.
On the other hand, skeptics could read this agenda and conclude that the Democrats view Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root, and other U.S. contractors abroad as a pernicious threat equal in magnitude to Iran and North Korea. The latter two nations receive exactly one boilerplate sentence: "Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development.." (How? In what way would the Dems' approach differ from the Bush approach? No answer here.)
No wonder some of the Democrats' natural allies seem cool to this agenda. Here's the instant analysis from Rolling Stone magazine: "(I)f this is supposed to be the document that assures national-security minded voters that the Democrats are the more trustworthy party, it falls flat. This plan is the product of the Democrats' least-common-denominator thinking. Instead of bold vision it stinks of timidity -- and that's just not going to cut it."
If ultimately that's the verdict, who needs flak from John Cornyn?
Bolten is quite a Card
In my print column today, I noted that the White House personnel shuffle - chief of staff Andrew Card, a veteran Bush loyalist/insider, is being replaced by budget chief Josh Bolten, a veteran Bush loyalist/insider - does not exactly signal an influx of new blood and fresh thinking within the beleaguered administration. After all, Karl Rove has long conferred his blessing on Bolten, saying, "I love him in an entirely appropriate way."
It's arguably charming that Bolten rides a motorcycle and likes rock music - the inevitable humanizing factoids that show up in first-day profile pieces. (Maybe he should play that '71 song by The Who: "Meet the new boss/same as the old boss...") Far more important is the evidence that top Republicans - some of them are even on the record - agree that the Bolten ascent doesn't begin to address the woes inside the White House bubble.
For instance, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott tells CNN, "I think they need people with greater stature and gravitas to come in and work all over the place in the White House." (Lott doesn't mind saying these things out loud, because he has been steamed at the White House ever since 2002, when he uttered some insensitive remarks about segregation and Bush refused to stand by him, thereby triggering Lott's downfall as Majority Leader.)
Most Republicans prefer anonymity, however. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper that is kept behind a subscription wall, had this passage today:
". . .One senior GOP Senate staffer said more shakeups are a must to ensure the political health of the administration and the party, saying, 'I think they've hit rock bottom.' This aide said Card's departure is a mixed blessing: 'The good thing is new ideas and a burst of energy is really needed. The bad is that it's more of the same. It's not someone new coming in. . . Let's just hope there will be more [changes], for all our sake.'"
I also mentioned in my newspaper column today that Bush will never get widespread credit for a serious housecleaning unless or until he moves Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld out of his job. The conservative Weekly Standard magazine has been pounding at Rumsfeld for years, blaming him for bad execution in Iraq. But perhaps the most stinging assault on Rumsfeld comes this month from conservative columnist David Brooks, who had just read the devastating and bestselling book on the early days of the war, Cobra II. Since Brooks' stuff is behind the New York Times subscription wall, you might have missed this nugget:
"Rumsfeld and (General Tommy) Franks stifled the free exchange of ideas, and shut out the National Security Council. They dismissed concerns about the insurgents and threatened to fire the one general, William Wallace, who dared to state the obvious in public...''Cobra II'' makes Rumsfeld and Franks each seem like Barry Bonds: a formerly intimidating figure who now just seems pathetic."
But there's a big reason why most rank-and-file Republicans have not been openly assailing the Bush bubble, nor the minimal changes announced yesterday. It's because they have been told by Republican operatives that criticism of their leader will ultimately reflect badly on them. I have heard that this advice was offered in a memo, and now, finally, I see that the memo has surfaced. The key passage:
"The President is seen universally as the face of the Republican Party. We are now brand W. Republicans....President Bush drives our image and will do so until we have real national front-runners for the '08 nomination. Attacking the President is counter productive for all Republicans, not just the candidates launching the attacks. If he drops, we all drop."
If he drops? Have these guys checked out the polls, from Gallup to Fox News?
It's arguably charming that Bolten rides a motorcycle and likes rock music - the inevitable humanizing factoids that show up in first-day profile pieces. (Maybe he should play that '71 song by The Who: "Meet the new boss/same as the old boss...") Far more important is the evidence that top Republicans - some of them are even on the record - agree that the Bolten ascent doesn't begin to address the woes inside the White House bubble.
For instance, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott tells CNN, "I think they need people with greater stature and gravitas to come in and work all over the place in the White House." (Lott doesn't mind saying these things out loud, because he has been steamed at the White House ever since 2002, when he uttered some insensitive remarks about segregation and Bush refused to stand by him, thereby triggering Lott's downfall as Majority Leader.)
Most Republicans prefer anonymity, however. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper that is kept behind a subscription wall, had this passage today:
". . .One senior GOP Senate staffer said more shakeups are a must to ensure the political health of the administration and the party, saying, 'I think they've hit rock bottom.' This aide said Card's departure is a mixed blessing: 'The good thing is new ideas and a burst of energy is really needed. The bad is that it's more of the same. It's not someone new coming in. . . Let's just hope there will be more [changes], for all our sake.'"
I also mentioned in my newspaper column today that Bush will never get widespread credit for a serious housecleaning unless or until he moves Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld out of his job. The conservative Weekly Standard magazine has been pounding at Rumsfeld for years, blaming him for bad execution in Iraq. But perhaps the most stinging assault on Rumsfeld comes this month from conservative columnist David Brooks, who had just read the devastating and bestselling book on the early days of the war, Cobra II. Since Brooks' stuff is behind the New York Times subscription wall, you might have missed this nugget:
"Rumsfeld and (General Tommy) Franks stifled the free exchange of ideas, and shut out the National Security Council. They dismissed concerns about the insurgents and threatened to fire the one general, William Wallace, who dared to state the obvious in public...''Cobra II'' makes Rumsfeld and Franks each seem like Barry Bonds: a formerly intimidating figure who now just seems pathetic."
But there's a big reason why most rank-and-file Republicans have not been openly assailing the Bush bubble, nor the minimal changes announced yesterday. It's because they have been told by Republican operatives that criticism of their leader will ultimately reflect badly on them. I have heard that this advice was offered in a memo, and now, finally, I see that the memo has surfaced. The key passage:
"The President is seen universally as the face of the Republican Party. We are now brand W. Republicans....President Bush drives our image and will do so until we have real national front-runners for the '08 nomination. Attacking the President is counter productive for all Republicans, not just the candidates launching the attacks. If he drops, we all drop."
If he drops? Have these guys checked out the polls, from Gallup to Fox News?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Card shuffling
The resignation this morning of White House chief of staff Andrew Card does not strike me as being one of those events that galvanizes the nation. It fails to pass what I call the Hey Honey Test, as administered by the average John Q. Citizen, watching the TV news in his kitchen.
To wit: "Hey, honey, drop that sponge and get over here -- didja know that Andrew Card is leaving his job?!"
See what I mean?
On the other hand, there are things that can be said about this ostensibly inside-the-Beltway development. But I will say them in print tomorrow morning.
To wit: "Hey, honey, drop that sponge and get over here -- didja know that Andrew Card is leaving his job?!"
See what I mean?
On the other hand, there are things that can be said about this ostensibly inside-the-Beltway development. But I will say them in print tomorrow morning.
Newt Gingrich, Democratic strategist
That venerable mid-'90s political superstar, Newt Gingrich, is on a relentless quest to keep himself in the news. He's auditioning for the role of GOP savior, just in case the Republicans get so panicked about their future prospects that they decide to pick up the phone and summon him back to the limelight.
He's been doing this for quite awhile - I interviewed him in Philadelphia over a year ago - and now, apparently, he is branching out, offering advice even to the other side. In a new chat with Time magazine, he catalogued what he sees as a succession of Republican screwups and warned his allies that if they can't get themselves straightened out, "the country will decide to take a flyer on the Democrats, because (voters) just get tired of it. That's how American politics work."
So what, sage Newt, should the Democrats do? Should they (as many observers insist) come up with a detailed platform for the 2006 congressional elections?
Newt says no. Instead Newt advises that "what they should do is say nothing, except 'Had Enough?'"
Had Enough?...Well, as slogans go, that's better than anything the Democrats seem to have come up with so far, such as "Together, We Can do Better" and "Together, American Can Do Better," and "American Can Do Better," without the "together."
(One might wonder why Newt seems so willing to be helpful. Veteran Newt-watcher Marshall Wittmann contended on his blog today that Newt "has a vested interest in seeing to it that the donkey prevails in November. On the ashes of the GOP defeat, Newt will begin his resurrection from the political graveyard...")
Interestingly enough, what Newt didn't say - and I can't believe he doesn't know this, since he's a student of history - is that "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan for Republicans in the 1946 congressional elections.
The GOP that year had only a national slogan, not a platform. They basically tapped into the public's postwar weariness about inflation (20 percent), housing shortages, meat rationing, and labor strife - all of which became identified with the Democrats, who had ruled Congress and the White House for the past 13 years. The Republicans didn't ever say how they would cure any of those ills (except for a vague promise to root out communism) - but they picked up 13 Senate seats and 56 House seats that November, giving them majorities in both chambers, simply by making the race a referendum on the "in" party.
Newt's suggestion that a mere slogan can win it for the Democrats might seem surprising - since, after all, he's widely credited as the mastermind of 1994, when (history claims) the Republicans swept to power in Congress thanks to a specific Newt platform known as the Contract with America. But, in reality, this is a myth that has gained retrospective credence. One week before that 1994 election, fully 71 percent of Americans had never heard of the Contract. That election turned on two factors: Republican voters' strong disaste for Bill Clinton and his Democratic allies; and an underwhelming Democractic turnout.
I'd bet that the Democrats in 2006 will try not to go overboard on specifity. It's quite possible they'll decide that a slogan akin to "Had enough?" might be enough.
He's been doing this for quite awhile - I interviewed him in Philadelphia over a year ago - and now, apparently, he is branching out, offering advice even to the other side. In a new chat with Time magazine, he catalogued what he sees as a succession of Republican screwups and warned his allies that if they can't get themselves straightened out, "the country will decide to take a flyer on the Democrats, because (voters) just get tired of it. That's how American politics work."
So what, sage Newt, should the Democrats do? Should they (as many observers insist) come up with a detailed platform for the 2006 congressional elections?
Newt says no. Instead Newt advises that "what they should do is say nothing, except 'Had Enough?'"
Had Enough?...Well, as slogans go, that's better than anything the Democrats seem to have come up with so far, such as "Together, We Can do Better" and "Together, American Can Do Better," and "American Can Do Better," without the "together."
(One might wonder why Newt seems so willing to be helpful. Veteran Newt-watcher Marshall Wittmann contended on his blog today that Newt "has a vested interest in seeing to it that the donkey prevails in November. On the ashes of the GOP defeat, Newt will begin his resurrection from the political graveyard...")
Interestingly enough, what Newt didn't say - and I can't believe he doesn't know this, since he's a student of history - is that "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan for Republicans in the 1946 congressional elections.
The GOP that year had only a national slogan, not a platform. They basically tapped into the public's postwar weariness about inflation (20 percent), housing shortages, meat rationing, and labor strife - all of which became identified with the Democrats, who had ruled Congress and the White House for the past 13 years. The Republicans didn't ever say how they would cure any of those ills (except for a vague promise to root out communism) - but they picked up 13 Senate seats and 56 House seats that November, giving them majorities in both chambers, simply by making the race a referendum on the "in" party.
Newt's suggestion that a mere slogan can win it for the Democrats might seem surprising - since, after all, he's widely credited as the mastermind of 1994, when (history claims) the Republicans swept to power in Congress thanks to a specific Newt platform known as the Contract with America. But, in reality, this is a myth that has gained retrospective credence. One week before that 1994 election, fully 71 percent of Americans had never heard of the Contract. That election turned on two factors: Republican voters' strong disaste for Bill Clinton and his Democratic allies; and an underwhelming Democractic turnout.
I'd bet that the Democrats in 2006 will try not to go overboard on specifity. It's quite possible they'll decide that a slogan akin to "Had enough?" might be enough.
Monday, March 27, 2006
That pesky historical record
It's fact-checking time again.
At a press conference last week, President Bush stated: "I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong.... No president wants war....I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the (U.N.) Security Council."
But he was not stating the facts. He did want war.
And the evidence comes from his own allies, the British, in yet another revealing document from the files in London. This document has been paraphrased in recent months, notably in a January book authored by a British legal expert, but a new report today quotes it directly.
The five-page memo, written several months before the start of the Iraq war, makes it clear that Bush was determined to commence hostilities regardless of whether he was successful in obtaining U.N. approval - and regardless of whether the international arms inspectors found any dangerous weaponry inside Iraq during the final months of peace.
The memo, written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy advisor in the aftermath of a Blair-Bush meeting in Washington on Jan. 31, 2003, and intended as a summary of Bush's thinking, states that "our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning" for war, because "(t)he start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."
Bush was pushing for U.N. approval, in the form of a second resolution condemning Iraq, the memo stated, but if he failed to get that approval, "military action would follow anyway." (In the end, Bush didn't get that approval.)
Blair's advisor also wrote that, given the possibility that the arms inspectors came up empty (which, ultimately, is what happened), Bush was looking for other ways to provoke a war. In the memo's own words, again intended as a summary of Bush's thinking: "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
Contrast this memo with Bush's claim, on March 6, 2003, that "I've not made up our mind about military action." And his claim two days later that "we are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan reacted to this memo today by contending that Bush's public and private comments "are fully consistent with one another." But given the current public mood about the war, I wonder whether a majority of Americans would agree.
Oh, wait...Here's one other line from the memo, a reference to the post-invasion conditions in Iraq. According to the memo, Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."
How's that forecast working out these days?
Here's an answer, from the Associated Press today: "The latest violence came a day after 69 people were reported killed in one of the bloodiest 24-hour periods in weeks. Most of the dead appeared to be victims of the shadowy Sunni-Shiite score-settling that has torn at the fabric of Iraq since Feb. 22 when a Shiite shrine was blown apart in Samarra, north of Baghdad. Thirty victims of the continuing sectarian slaughter most of them beheaded were found dumped on a village road north of Baghdad."
(No doubt the White House would also argue that the press is just reporting the downbeat news, rather than looking for upbeat news. But that search for the upbeat can backfire. Here's a little item today from media writer Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post: "While in Baghdad, ABC's Jake Tapper was working on a light feature about an Iraqi station's sitcom. While his cameras were rolling, word came that the manager of the entertainment division had been assassinated.)
Which reminds me: Remember Vice President Cheney's asssurance last spring that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes"?
Here's some fact-checking on that remark -- from none other than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Yesterday on NBC, she appeared to be contradicting Cheney: "Well, the insurgency is still able to pull off violence and kill innocent children or kill an innocent school teacher, yes, they’re able to do that, and they might be able to do that for some time."
Then again, perhaps the administration would say that the remarks are fully consistent, in the sense that "last throes" could be flexible in calendar terms; hence, "for some time."
Certainly that's what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be arguing on Fox News last June 26: "Last throes could be a violent last throe, just as well as a placid or calm last throe. Look it up in the dictionary."
Maybe the best place to look is in the history books. Because, unless this war turns around, "last throes" might become linked in history with another memorable phrase from an earlier war: "the light at the end of the tunnel."
At a press conference last week, President Bush stated: "I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong.... No president wants war....I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the (U.N.) Security Council."
But he was not stating the facts. He did want war.
And the evidence comes from his own allies, the British, in yet another revealing document from the files in London. This document has been paraphrased in recent months, notably in a January book authored by a British legal expert, but a new report today quotes it directly.
The five-page memo, written several months before the start of the Iraq war, makes it clear that Bush was determined to commence hostilities regardless of whether he was successful in obtaining U.N. approval - and regardless of whether the international arms inspectors found any dangerous weaponry inside Iraq during the final months of peace.
The memo, written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy advisor in the aftermath of a Blair-Bush meeting in Washington on Jan. 31, 2003, and intended as a summary of Bush's thinking, states that "our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning" for war, because "(t)he start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."
Bush was pushing for U.N. approval, in the form of a second resolution condemning Iraq, the memo stated, but if he failed to get that approval, "military action would follow anyway." (In the end, Bush didn't get that approval.)
Blair's advisor also wrote that, given the possibility that the arms inspectors came up empty (which, ultimately, is what happened), Bush was looking for other ways to provoke a war. In the memo's own words, again intended as a summary of Bush's thinking: "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
Contrast this memo with Bush's claim, on March 6, 2003, that "I've not made up our mind about military action." And his claim two days later that "we are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan reacted to this memo today by contending that Bush's public and private comments "are fully consistent with one another." But given the current public mood about the war, I wonder whether a majority of Americans would agree.
Oh, wait...Here's one other line from the memo, a reference to the post-invasion conditions in Iraq. According to the memo, Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."
How's that forecast working out these days?
Here's an answer, from the Associated Press today: "The latest violence came a day after 69 people were reported killed in one of the bloodiest 24-hour periods in weeks. Most of the dead appeared to be victims of the shadowy Sunni-Shiite score-settling that has torn at the fabric of Iraq since Feb. 22 when a Shiite shrine was blown apart in Samarra, north of Baghdad. Thirty victims of the continuing sectarian slaughter most of them beheaded were found dumped on a village road north of Baghdad."
(No doubt the White House would also argue that the press is just reporting the downbeat news, rather than looking for upbeat news. But that search for the upbeat can backfire. Here's a little item today from media writer Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post: "While in Baghdad, ABC's Jake Tapper was working on a light feature about an Iraqi station's sitcom. While his cameras were rolling, word came that the manager of the entertainment division had been assassinated.)
Which reminds me: Remember Vice President Cheney's asssurance last spring that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes"?
Here's some fact-checking on that remark -- from none other than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Yesterday on NBC, she appeared to be contradicting Cheney: "Well, the insurgency is still able to pull off violence and kill innocent children or kill an innocent school teacher, yes, they’re able to do that, and they might be able to do that for some time."
Then again, perhaps the administration would say that the remarks are fully consistent, in the sense that "last throes" could be flexible in calendar terms; hence, "for some time."
Certainly that's what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be arguing on Fox News last June 26: "Last throes could be a violent last throe, just as well as a placid or calm last throe. Look it up in the dictionary."
Maybe the best place to look is in the history books. Because, unless this war turns around, "last throes" might become linked in history with another memorable phrase from an earlier war: "the light at the end of the tunnel."
Sunday, March 26, 2006
The GOP and the huddled masses
The Republican schism on the immigration issue was on stark display this morning.
On ABC, Senator Arlen Specter took the basic President Bush position and extolled the 11 million illegal immigrants as folks "who are doing jobs no else wants to do." But he was challenged by a spokesman for the party's right wing, Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, who said it should be a crime for anyone to provide even humanitarian assistance to the illegals.
With conservatives like Tancredo assailing these immigrants - he calls them "a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation" - it's no wonder that the GOP risks alienating the Hispanic electorate.
That wouldn't be politically wise, since Hispanics are the fastest-growing voter cohort in America. The business wing of the GOP wants to keep the illegals here because it values their labor - and the business wing's top ally in Washington, President Bush, would love to set up a path to citizenship in part because he and strategist Karl Rove believe that the steady growth of the GOP requires a steady influx of Hispanic voters.
But Bush is having trouble with his right flank. In the recent words of conservative columnist David Brooks, the Republican right seem poised "to walk off a cliff on the subject of immigration." Indeed, half a million people took to the streets in California yesterday, to protest GOP crackdown proposals, and new mass protests are in the works for April 10.
Watching Tancredo yesterday, I was reminded of a conversation that I had in California, back in 1997, with an Hispanic guy who worked for a plumbing contractor in Santa Ana. His name was John Raya. He had watched as California Republicans sought to demonize immigrants in that state, during the '94 and '96 election seasons, and he was fed up.
He said (I am quoting here from my old notes): "Talk to me about lower taxes and safe streets. Don't talk to me about immigrant bashing. I tell Republicans I know, 'You guys have been giving Democrats the best recruiting tool since the Kennedys were alive.'...I used to try to talk up the Republicans to other Latinos, but I can't handle it now. I'm a proud guy. I don't want to be cannon fodder anymore."
Thanks to their mid-'90s bashing of immigrants, the California Republicans suffered huge electoral losses from which they have never recovered. That's the same risk that the GOP is taking nationwide, if its conservative wing succeeds in making itself the face of the party. But Republicans risk alienating not just Hispanics, but members of the broader Catholic community as well. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops don't believe it should be a federal crime to help illegal immigrants. But that's the essence of a bill currently on tap in the House.
You know that the GOP is in trouble on an issue when it affords Hillary Clinton the opportunity to jump in and take the high road on God; witness what she said the other day. The proposed ban on humanitarian assistance, she contended, "is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture..."
On ABC today, Tancredo was delighted to take a swipe at Hillary: "I'm not really surprised that Hillary Clinton doesn't know the first thing about the Bible." But, in fact, the Bible is full of passages that urge mercy for the unrooted; as Isiah 49:10 says, "He who has compassion on them will guide them and lead them besides springs of water."
So what will Bush do? Does he have enough political capital at this point to face down the anti-immigrant wing of his own party and insist (as Specter did today) that illegals need some kind of path to citizenship? Or, given the current disenchantment among conservative voters on a whole range of issues, does he not want to risk provoking them to stay home on election day 2006?
But let us not assume that the GOP is the only party with internal strains these days on hot-button issues.
In today's Inquirer, I wrote a print column about the GOP's current discomforts on abortion, in the wake of the new South Dakota law that bans all abortions unless the woman is dying. But Democratic leaders have their own problems; for more than a year, they have been trying to distance themselves from the "choice" banner, in order to woo culturally conservative voters. For instance, they have recruited anti-abortion stalwart Bob Casey Jr. to run for the Senate in Pennsylvania. But the strains are obvious, because abortion-rights women are threatening to sit the race out, and others contend that the distancing from the choice stance will make it tougher for Democrats to fight the repercussions of South Dakota.
So, in the interests of fairness, here's what I wrote last year about the Democrats and abortion.
On ABC, Senator Arlen Specter took the basic President Bush position and extolled the 11 million illegal immigrants as folks "who are doing jobs no else wants to do." But he was challenged by a spokesman for the party's right wing, Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, who said it should be a crime for anyone to provide even humanitarian assistance to the illegals.
With conservatives like Tancredo assailing these immigrants - he calls them "a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation" - it's no wonder that the GOP risks alienating the Hispanic electorate.
That wouldn't be politically wise, since Hispanics are the fastest-growing voter cohort in America. The business wing of the GOP wants to keep the illegals here because it values their labor - and the business wing's top ally in Washington, President Bush, would love to set up a path to citizenship in part because he and strategist Karl Rove believe that the steady growth of the GOP requires a steady influx of Hispanic voters.
But Bush is having trouble with his right flank. In the recent words of conservative columnist David Brooks, the Republican right seem poised "to walk off a cliff on the subject of immigration." Indeed, half a million people took to the streets in California yesterday, to protest GOP crackdown proposals, and new mass protests are in the works for April 10.
Watching Tancredo yesterday, I was reminded of a conversation that I had in California, back in 1997, with an Hispanic guy who worked for a plumbing contractor in Santa Ana. His name was John Raya. He had watched as California Republicans sought to demonize immigrants in that state, during the '94 and '96 election seasons, and he was fed up.
He said (I am quoting here from my old notes): "Talk to me about lower taxes and safe streets. Don't talk to me about immigrant bashing. I tell Republicans I know, 'You guys have been giving Democrats the best recruiting tool since the Kennedys were alive.'...I used to try to talk up the Republicans to other Latinos, but I can't handle it now. I'm a proud guy. I don't want to be cannon fodder anymore."
Thanks to their mid-'90s bashing of immigrants, the California Republicans suffered huge electoral losses from which they have never recovered. That's the same risk that the GOP is taking nationwide, if its conservative wing succeeds in making itself the face of the party. But Republicans risk alienating not just Hispanics, but members of the broader Catholic community as well. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops don't believe it should be a federal crime to help illegal immigrants. But that's the essence of a bill currently on tap in the House.
You know that the GOP is in trouble on an issue when it affords Hillary Clinton the opportunity to jump in and take the high road on God; witness what she said the other day. The proposed ban on humanitarian assistance, she contended, "is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture..."
On ABC today, Tancredo was delighted to take a swipe at Hillary: "I'm not really surprised that Hillary Clinton doesn't know the first thing about the Bible." But, in fact, the Bible is full of passages that urge mercy for the unrooted; as Isiah 49:10 says, "He who has compassion on them will guide them and lead them besides springs of water."
So what will Bush do? Does he have enough political capital at this point to face down the anti-immigrant wing of his own party and insist (as Specter did today) that illegals need some kind of path to citizenship? Or, given the current disenchantment among conservative voters on a whole range of issues, does he not want to risk provoking them to stay home on election day 2006?
But let us not assume that the GOP is the only party with internal strains these days on hot-button issues.
In today's Inquirer, I wrote a print column about the GOP's current discomforts on abortion, in the wake of the new South Dakota law that bans all abortions unless the woman is dying. But Democratic leaders have their own problems; for more than a year, they have been trying to distance themselves from the "choice" banner, in order to woo culturally conservative voters. For instance, they have recruited anti-abortion stalwart Bob Casey Jr. to run for the Senate in Pennsylvania. But the strains are obvious, because abortion-rights women are threatening to sit the race out, and others contend that the distancing from the choice stance will make it tougher for Democrats to fight the repercussions of South Dakota.
So, in the interests of fairness, here's what I wrote last year about the Democrats and abortion.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Saturday mailbag: More on Robert A. Taft
I'm going to inaugurate something new: the Saturday mailbag.
Every weekend, I'll try to respond to comments and queries that I receive in emails or in posts on this blog. I reserve the right to be highly selective, for two reasons: (1) My aim is only to advance the conversation, not engage in ripostes, and (2) I don't want to detract from the usual Saturday priorities, most of which involve doing as little as possible.
Having said that, let's talk some more about Robert A. Taft. A goodly number of emailers, and a University of Virginia professsor, have asked for more information about the Taft quote that I posted here a few days ago, on March 22, about the importance (and patriotism) of questioning a commander-in-chief in wartime.
His words matter, because there has always been an intrinsic tension in the American experiment: between minority rights and majority rule; between diversity and conformity; between respect for the straight-shooting loner and the desire for a shared identity. And these tensions are generally more acute in wartime.
So here's the full context:
At the time of Pearl Habor, Senator Taft of Ohio was the undisputed leader 0f the Republican right, the most anti-FDR faction in politics. He and his followers detested the New Deal and were concerned that the new war would stifle their right to dissent. So Taft decided to confront the issue.
His remarks, as previously quoted here, were delivered in a speech to the Executive Club of Chicago on Dec. 19, 1941 (full disclosure: I previously said that he spoke a week after Pearl Harbor; actually, it was 12 days).
As far as I can determine, a complete transcript is not available anywhere on the Internet. I first stumbled across an excerpt in the spring of 2003, when historian Arthur Schlesinger used it during a commencement address in Indiana. (Schlesinger repeated the excerpt here, last November.)
After my initial find in 2003, I spied other chunks of the Taft speech in other places. For instance: "The duties imposed by the Constitution on senators and congressmen certainly require that they exercise their own judgement on questions relating to war." And here's another, questioning FDR's Pearl Harbor preparedness - all this, at a time when bodies were still in the water: "Perhaps the fault in Hawaii was not entirely on the admirals and generals."
From what I can tell, from checking my own history books and FDR biographies, it doesn't appear that Taft was ever told by the governing party to "shut up" (as John McCain said to Jimmy Carter in March 2003, when the latter tried to question the new Iraq war) or that Taft was ever treated like the Dixie Chicks.
Indeed, Taft was behaving just like the backwoods freshman congressman who opposed the U.S.-Mexican war of 1846-8, who assailed the U.S. troops even as they fought, charging that the troops had "marched into peaceful Mexican settlements and frightened the inhabitants away from their homes." He charged that President Polk was waging war to win votes, and some critics did think he was being treasonous. But today the face of that backwoodsman, Abraham Lincoln, is on the coins in your pocket.
So that's the Taft story, though I doubt that every American would find his arguments persuasive. Pat Boone, for example, probably wouldn't.
Every weekend, I'll try to respond to comments and queries that I receive in emails or in posts on this blog. I reserve the right to be highly selective, for two reasons: (1) My aim is only to advance the conversation, not engage in ripostes, and (2) I don't want to detract from the usual Saturday priorities, most of which involve doing as little as possible.
Having said that, let's talk some more about Robert A. Taft. A goodly number of emailers, and a University of Virginia professsor, have asked for more information about the Taft quote that I posted here a few days ago, on March 22, about the importance (and patriotism) of questioning a commander-in-chief in wartime.
His words matter, because there has always been an intrinsic tension in the American experiment: between minority rights and majority rule; between diversity and conformity; between respect for the straight-shooting loner and the desire for a shared identity. And these tensions are generally more acute in wartime.
So here's the full context:
At the time of Pearl Habor, Senator Taft of Ohio was the undisputed leader 0f the Republican right, the most anti-FDR faction in politics. He and his followers detested the New Deal and were concerned that the new war would stifle their right to dissent. So Taft decided to confront the issue.
His remarks, as previously quoted here, were delivered in a speech to the Executive Club of Chicago on Dec. 19, 1941 (full disclosure: I previously said that he spoke a week after Pearl Harbor; actually, it was 12 days).
As far as I can determine, a complete transcript is not available anywhere on the Internet. I first stumbled across an excerpt in the spring of 2003, when historian Arthur Schlesinger used it during a commencement address in Indiana. (Schlesinger repeated the excerpt here, last November.)
After my initial find in 2003, I spied other chunks of the Taft speech in other places. For instance: "The duties imposed by the Constitution on senators and congressmen certainly require that they exercise their own judgement on questions relating to war." And here's another, questioning FDR's Pearl Harbor preparedness - all this, at a time when bodies were still in the water: "Perhaps the fault in Hawaii was not entirely on the admirals and generals."
From what I can tell, from checking my own history books and FDR biographies, it doesn't appear that Taft was ever told by the governing party to "shut up" (as John McCain said to Jimmy Carter in March 2003, when the latter tried to question the new Iraq war) or that Taft was ever treated like the Dixie Chicks.
Indeed, Taft was behaving just like the backwoods freshman congressman who opposed the U.S.-Mexican war of 1846-8, who assailed the U.S. troops even as they fought, charging that the troops had "marched into peaceful Mexican settlements and frightened the inhabitants away from their homes." He charged that President Polk was waging war to win votes, and some critics did think he was being treasonous. But today the face of that backwoodsman, Abraham Lincoln, is on the coins in your pocket.
So that's the Taft story, though I doubt that every American would find his arguments persuasive. Pat Boone, for example, probably wouldn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
