Hey, remember Al Gore? Big guy maligned for his charisma-challenged demeanor who neverthless won 600,000 more votes than George W. Bush in 2000? Grew a beard and seemingly disappeared after the U.S. Supreme Court installed his opponent in the big chair? Flirted with the idea of an '04 Nixonesque comeback bid, and even yukked it up on Saturday Night Live, before opting for the life of a new-age entrepeneur?
Yeah, that Al Gore. Amazingly, however, there seems to be a bit of a boomlet about Gore these days. Who knows if it'll go anywhere, but there are serious folks in the political community who think that the newly unfettered Gore - with new lefty pedigree as moveon.org's favorite Bush antagonist - now has the best shot at becoming the left-leaning alternative to Hillary Clinton in the '08 Democratic primaries.
Far-fetched? In the end, maybe. But we're currently in the season when everybody goes around kicking the tires of every vehicle in the lot, and suddenly, in some circles, the souped-up Gore model doesn't look so bad. He's universally known, he has a staunchly consistent anti-Iraq war stance, and he can raise big money quickly (as much as $50 million, some claim) from grassroots liberals via the Internet.
Buzz abounds. Donna Brazille, the Democratic consultant, when asked by the NY Times magazine to name somebody who could best challenge Hillary, replied, "This sounds absolutely strange coming from me, because I never in life thought I would utter these words again, but Al Gore." Unnamed "Democratic insiders" and "party operatives" told columnist Bob Novak over the weekend that Gore could be a big threat to Hillary. Ex-Clinton pollster Dick Morris says that "Gore has three things going for him: A perception that he was robbed of the White House and Hillary’s possible stubbornness in continuing to back the war. The third thing? The weather. As the evidence of global climate change impresses everyone who doesn’t work at the White House, Gore looks more and more like a man whose time may have come."
The most thorough contribution to the Gore boomlet appears here, in a respected liberal magazine; the writer/blogger, Ezra Klein, suspects that the liberal wing and the online community might begin "calling for a Bigfoot of its own" to challenge Hillary, because of her hawkishness on Iraq and her moderate stances on other issues. His scenario is grist for considerable debate right now on his own blog, and I wouldn't care to drop a bet right now on Gore. Why would he want to give up the life of a free-wheeling enterpeneur (cable TV, a new documentary on global warming which will be released in May by Paramount) in order to again become the focus of conservative ire?
But Klein does bring up a compelling issue: the changing nature of media coverage in political campaigns. Gore was cuffed around in 2000 by the so-called mainstream media, and he didn't like it. In the years since, he has been talking up the possibilities of new information streams, and, as Klein points out, a new Gore candidacy might test the notion that a candidate, rather than speaking through the traditional press, could power a campaign by blasting out "speeches on email, post videos on the Internet, release statements on a blog, use online organizing tools to empower the grassroots." Maybe those tools will have matured by '08, maybe not. But Gore is the kind of guy who could test the concept by putting them in play...
...If he wants. The other day, he issued a statement that would suggest disinterest in 2008: "I'm not planning to be a candidate again." That's not exactly Shermanesque - at least by the traditional rules of parsing. But in the case of Gore, who is no longer under the sway of political consultants, perhaps the traditional rules don't apply.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Groundhog Day in America
In what way does President Bush resemble Sonny and Cher?
Read on for the answer.
The president held a press conference today on Iraq, and delivered yet another Iraq speech yesterday, this time in Cleveland, and arguably he gets points for leaving the White House bubble and taking impetinent questions from non-loyalists.
But the problem is, he keeps saying the same things over and over; worse yet, he keeps repeating things that are contradicted by factual reality. As a result, the average skeptical American is starting to feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, who awoke over and over to the same morning and the same radio rendition of "I Got You, Babe."
Consider, for instance, the lyrics in today's press conference: Troop levels will be determined by the commanders in the field...He wants to "spread liberty around the world"...Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will not be fired, because "he's done a fine job"..."This is a global war, and Iraq is part of that..."
Bush's poll numbers have slid to new lows because the majority of Americans, anxious to avoid Bill Murray's quandary, are tuning out the old song -- refusing to buy his optimism about a victory plan at a time when so many respected competing voices are openly contradicting him.
One of those voices is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command (which includes the Middle East). He has a new book out. In that book, he writes that Rumsfeld ignored the pleas of military leaders who believed that the postwar occupation of Iraq would require far more troops than Rumsfeld was willing to supply. Zinni writes that "ignoring this reality, the United States and a handful of allies forcibly evicted (Hussein) with no plans for a new order to replace it. Today, U.S. military forces in Iraq are mired in an ever-worsening insurgency. Civil war is an ever-growing danger. Disorder and chaos grow ever more entrenched."
But perhaps one moment this week stands out above all. Bush was asked yesterday to explain his administration's frequent claims that Saddam Hussein and his Iraq regime had played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush said this in response: "I don't think we ever said -- at least I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein."
Oh really?
Bush defenders complain all the time that the mainstream media "bashes" the president too much. I would argue, however, that the media's role is to hold any president accountable for what he says, and when he says things that are contradicted by the record, it's our job to point it out.
So let's compare Bush's Monday claim to the factual record:
1. In Bush's March 21, 2003 letter to Congress, justifying the launching of the war against Hussein, he said it was important "to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001."
2. On May 1, 2003, standing in front of the Mission Accomplished banner, he stated: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th...With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."
3. On June 17, 2004, Bush disputed the findings of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which had just concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between Hussein and al Qaeda. Bush begged to differ, saying, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
4. On Sept. 14, 2003, Vice President Cheney told NBC, "If we're successful in Iraq, we will have struck a blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
5. On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney told NBC that it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met in Prague with a senior Iraqi official 17 months before the attacks. (On June 17, 2004, after the 9/11 Commission concluded that no such meeting occurred, Cheney changed his story: "We have never been able to confirm that, not have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know.")
That's a sampling. Bush also said yesterday, "I don't want to be argumentative...I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on 9/11." True, as far is it goes; Bush never used the word "ordered." But there was a reason why 42 percent of Americans still believed, shortly before the '04 election, that Hussein had financed and planned the 9/11 attacks. It was because the administration implied and suggested it, by the artful phrasings it employed, and never dissuaded Americans from connecting those errant dots.
Bush also insisted today: "I didn't want war." That, too, is contradicted by the factual record.
Time magazine reported in March 2003 that one year before the war, Bush had poked his head into a White House room and told three senators, "(Expletive) Saddam, we're taking him out." And on July 23, 2002, long before Bush went to the United Nations, his British allies met with him and subsequently wrote, in the now-famous Downing Street memos, that Bush "had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." Neither the Time anecdote, nor the British memos, have been disputed by the White House.
The hunger for competing voices is now endemic in Washington (a development that Bush dismisses out of hand; he said today that "Washington is a great town for advice"). How else to explain the news that Congress has now established a bipartisan group of prominent people to study the war with "fresh eyes" and propose new future policies?
Interestingly, it will be co-helmed by former Secretary of State James Baker, who worked for Bush's father; a number of senior Bush alumni (such as Brent Scowcroft) have long been critical of the Iraq war. Baker's partner will be Lee Hamilton, the intelligence expert and ex-Democratic congressman who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission.
Not everybody agrees that these voices are needed; as conservative blogger/radio host Hugh Hewitt contends here that "this is a terrible move," and that such panels "inevitably become show trials, and the new concentration of media will guarantee such a debacle unfolding quickly, with Bush's enemies in the (mainstream media) using every opportunity to bend every witness and every report into a political weapon." (In the interest of being fair and balanced, Hugh also lauded Bush's press conference performance today: "He was on fire.")
What all this means is that Bush no longer monopolizes the megaphone, as he did when the war began, and that complicates his efforts to rebuild credibility. When he was asked yesterday about whether he still has political capital, he replied: "I'm spending that capital on the war."
No argument there.
Read on for the answer.
The president held a press conference today on Iraq, and delivered yet another Iraq speech yesterday, this time in Cleveland, and arguably he gets points for leaving the White House bubble and taking impetinent questions from non-loyalists.
But the problem is, he keeps saying the same things over and over; worse yet, he keeps repeating things that are contradicted by factual reality. As a result, the average skeptical American is starting to feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, who awoke over and over to the same morning and the same radio rendition of "I Got You, Babe."
Consider, for instance, the lyrics in today's press conference: Troop levels will be determined by the commanders in the field...He wants to "spread liberty around the world"...Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will not be fired, because "he's done a fine job"..."This is a global war, and Iraq is part of that..."
Bush's poll numbers have slid to new lows because the majority of Americans, anxious to avoid Bill Murray's quandary, are tuning out the old song -- refusing to buy his optimism about a victory plan at a time when so many respected competing voices are openly contradicting him.
One of those voices is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command (which includes the Middle East). He has a new book out. In that book, he writes that Rumsfeld ignored the pleas of military leaders who believed that the postwar occupation of Iraq would require far more troops than Rumsfeld was willing to supply. Zinni writes that "ignoring this reality, the United States and a handful of allies forcibly evicted (Hussein) with no plans for a new order to replace it. Today, U.S. military forces in Iraq are mired in an ever-worsening insurgency. Civil war is an ever-growing danger. Disorder and chaos grow ever more entrenched."
But perhaps one moment this week stands out above all. Bush was asked yesterday to explain his administration's frequent claims that Saddam Hussein and his Iraq regime had played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush said this in response: "I don't think we ever said -- at least I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein."
Oh really?
Bush defenders complain all the time that the mainstream media "bashes" the president too much. I would argue, however, that the media's role is to hold any president accountable for what he says, and when he says things that are contradicted by the record, it's our job to point it out.
So let's compare Bush's Monday claim to the factual record:
1. In Bush's March 21, 2003 letter to Congress, justifying the launching of the war against Hussein, he said it was important "to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001."
2. On May 1, 2003, standing in front of the Mission Accomplished banner, he stated: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th...With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."
3. On June 17, 2004, Bush disputed the findings of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which had just concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between Hussein and al Qaeda. Bush begged to differ, saying, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
4. On Sept. 14, 2003, Vice President Cheney told NBC, "If we're successful in Iraq, we will have struck a blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
5. On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney told NBC that it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met in Prague with a senior Iraqi official 17 months before the attacks. (On June 17, 2004, after the 9/11 Commission concluded that no such meeting occurred, Cheney changed his story: "We have never been able to confirm that, not have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know.")
That's a sampling. Bush also said yesterday, "I don't want to be argumentative...I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on 9/11." True, as far is it goes; Bush never used the word "ordered." But there was a reason why 42 percent of Americans still believed, shortly before the '04 election, that Hussein had financed and planned the 9/11 attacks. It was because the administration implied and suggested it, by the artful phrasings it employed, and never dissuaded Americans from connecting those errant dots.
Bush also insisted today: "I didn't want war." That, too, is contradicted by the factual record.
Time magazine reported in March 2003 that one year before the war, Bush had poked his head into a White House room and told three senators, "(Expletive) Saddam, we're taking him out." And on July 23, 2002, long before Bush went to the United Nations, his British allies met with him and subsequently wrote, in the now-famous Downing Street memos, that Bush "had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." Neither the Time anecdote, nor the British memos, have been disputed by the White House.
The hunger for competing voices is now endemic in Washington (a development that Bush dismisses out of hand; he said today that "Washington is a great town for advice"). How else to explain the news that Congress has now established a bipartisan group of prominent people to study the war with "fresh eyes" and propose new future policies?
Interestingly, it will be co-helmed by former Secretary of State James Baker, who worked for Bush's father; a number of senior Bush alumni (such as Brent Scowcroft) have long been critical of the Iraq war. Baker's partner will be Lee Hamilton, the intelligence expert and ex-Democratic congressman who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission.
Not everybody agrees that these voices are needed; as conservative blogger/radio host Hugh Hewitt contends here that "this is a terrible move," and that such panels "inevitably become show trials, and the new concentration of media will guarantee such a debacle unfolding quickly, with Bush's enemies in the (mainstream media) using every opportunity to bend every witness and every report into a political weapon." (In the interest of being fair and balanced, Hugh also lauded Bush's press conference performance today: "He was on fire.")
What all this means is that Bush no longer monopolizes the megaphone, as he did when the war began, and that complicates his efforts to rebuild credibility. When he was asked yesterday about whether he still has political capital, he replied: "I'm spending that capital on the war."
No argument there.
Monday, March 20, 2006
My thoughts on political blogs
Howard Mortman - an ex-producer at the Hardball show and former editor/columnist at National Journal's The Hotline - invited me the other day to bloviate at length about the future of political blogs (my guesses are as good as anybody's!), and to choose some of my favorites.
Now I have done so. If you're interested, the discussion has been posted here today, at Howard's entertaining website, which is also a good tip sheet for political junkies, with lots of good links. You can also click on "Blogs the Famous Media Reads," to see the favorites cited by political journalists who are far more famous than I.
Now I have done so. If you're interested, the discussion has been posted here today, at Howard's entertaining website, which is also a good tip sheet for political junkies, with lots of good links. You can also click on "Blogs the Famous Media Reads," to see the favorites cited by political journalists who are far more famous than I.
An '06 mantra: Change that subject
As Republicans continue to fret about the possibility that they will be subsumed in a political tidal wave next November - swept from power in the House of Representatives, in a mirror image of the 1994 Democratic debacle - it's becoming increasingly clear how they plan to fight back in the months ahead.
Since they arguably can't run on their own agenda - not at a time when they are deeply divided on immigration, federal spending, the Dubai ports deal, and the Medicare drug plan; and deeply worried about President Bush's stay-the-course stance in Iraq - the game plan apparently boils down to this:
Change the subject. Persuade voters not to make the '06 elections a referendum on Bush. Instead, convince them that it's the Democrats who are the real threat to the nation.
As evidenced here in the conservative media, that plan is already in place; some congressional Republicans have reportedly adopted a line that Bush used in a recent meeting - that if the Democrats controlled Congress, they would "raise your taxes and raise the white flag" in Iraq. The GOP message-meisters also plan to warn that if the Democrats take over, the new committee chairmen will be seek to roll back the Bush tax cuts and gum up the government machinery by launching multiple probes of the administration, starting with Iraq.
It's not clear whether that fear message would persuade the independent swing voters, the majority of whom already harbor serious doubts about Bush's overall performance, and particularly his stewardship of the Iraq war (75 percent now believe the U.S. is losing ground in trying to prevent a civil war). And sentiment is strong for substantive troop withdrawals by the end of 2007.
But this message isn't really aimed at the independents - because they're not the dominant voters in midterm elections. The voters that tend to show up are disproportionately the more politically active partisans on the left and right. And the GOP, worried that its base voters will stay home, is mapping a message that will get these folks out of their homes on election day. (Which is also why in the months ahead we'll see a slew of bills on abortion, the gay marriage amendment proposal, the perennial flag-burning ban proposal, among other base-friendly themes.)
Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, also hit the fear-those-Dems theme when he spoke last week at a convention of GOP activists in Memphis. I was there, and his comments wound up in my notes, so this is a perfect time to spring them:
He said that any Democrat who urges "strategic redeployment" of troops from Iraq is really "cutting and running." (Strategic redeployment, which refers to partial phased withdrawals, but only as far a Kuwait and other regional outposts, is a term that was coined last autumn in a policy proposal that was co-authored by Larry Korb, who served as an assistant Defense Secretary under Ronald Reagan.)
Mehlman also hit the flip-flop theme, implying that Democrats shouldn't have a hand in running the war because they lack the resolve: "Would you buy a used car from this party? They say one thing come election time, but their records show that they mean--and will do--another. They were for the Iraq war before they were against it." (That not strictly true, since a majority of the House Democrats voted against war authorization at the ouset. More importantly, Mehlman is actually questioning the American people, the majority of whom were for the war before they were against it.)
Mehlman did tout President Bush at one point, saying that "our nation is safer today" in part because Bush oversaw creation of the Department of Homeland Security. (Actually, the factual record shows that he was against it before he was for it. Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman proposed it first, and the administration resisted the idea for the better part of a year.)
Mehlman's other theme, bound to be heard this year, is that a Democratic majority would imperil the positive economic numbers that are now being posted (the Dow at near all-time highs, the jobless rate lower than five percent). What's striking right now, however, is that Bush is not getting credit in the polls for a good economy. And Pat Buchanan, a populist conservative, suggests the reason why:
"(W)hile the managerial class sees its portfolio growing smartly, the 80 percent of workers who manage no one and nothing is slipping behind. That average Americans are spending every dollar they earn, saving nothing and borrowing to buy consumer goods, more and more of which are imported, suggests we have arrived at the split-level economy. Thus, making the case that the Bush economy is a triumph may be a waste of time, if two-thirds of Americans start off in disbelief. "
So here's the big question: Can Republicans unite behind Bush and win with a fear-the-Dems message? Will that be enough to stoke a big base turnout in November? Or will some GOP incumbents feel compelled to distance themselves from Bush - in acts of stategic redeployment?
Since they arguably can't run on their own agenda - not at a time when they are deeply divided on immigration, federal spending, the Dubai ports deal, and the Medicare drug plan; and deeply worried about President Bush's stay-the-course stance in Iraq - the game plan apparently boils down to this:
Change the subject. Persuade voters not to make the '06 elections a referendum on Bush. Instead, convince them that it's the Democrats who are the real threat to the nation.
As evidenced here in the conservative media, that plan is already in place; some congressional Republicans have reportedly adopted a line that Bush used in a recent meeting - that if the Democrats controlled Congress, they would "raise your taxes and raise the white flag" in Iraq. The GOP message-meisters also plan to warn that if the Democrats take over, the new committee chairmen will be seek to roll back the Bush tax cuts and gum up the government machinery by launching multiple probes of the administration, starting with Iraq.
It's not clear whether that fear message would persuade the independent swing voters, the majority of whom already harbor serious doubts about Bush's overall performance, and particularly his stewardship of the Iraq war (75 percent now believe the U.S. is losing ground in trying to prevent a civil war). And sentiment is strong for substantive troop withdrawals by the end of 2007.
But this message isn't really aimed at the independents - because they're not the dominant voters in midterm elections. The voters that tend to show up are disproportionately the more politically active partisans on the left and right. And the GOP, worried that its base voters will stay home, is mapping a message that will get these folks out of their homes on election day. (Which is also why in the months ahead we'll see a slew of bills on abortion, the gay marriage amendment proposal, the perennial flag-burning ban proposal, among other base-friendly themes.)
Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, also hit the fear-those-Dems theme when he spoke last week at a convention of GOP activists in Memphis. I was there, and his comments wound up in my notes, so this is a perfect time to spring them:
He said that any Democrat who urges "strategic redeployment" of troops from Iraq is really "cutting and running." (Strategic redeployment, which refers to partial phased withdrawals, but only as far a Kuwait and other regional outposts, is a term that was coined last autumn in a policy proposal that was co-authored by Larry Korb, who served as an assistant Defense Secretary under Ronald Reagan.)
Mehlman also hit the flip-flop theme, implying that Democrats shouldn't have a hand in running the war because they lack the resolve: "Would you buy a used car from this party? They say one thing come election time, but their records show that they mean--and will do--another. They were for the Iraq war before they were against it." (That not strictly true, since a majority of the House Democrats voted against war authorization at the ouset. More importantly, Mehlman is actually questioning the American people, the majority of whom were for the war before they were against it.)
Mehlman did tout President Bush at one point, saying that "our nation is safer today" in part because Bush oversaw creation of the Department of Homeland Security. (Actually, the factual record shows that he was against it before he was for it. Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman proposed it first, and the administration resisted the idea for the better part of a year.)
Mehlman's other theme, bound to be heard this year, is that a Democratic majority would imperil the positive economic numbers that are now being posted (the Dow at near all-time highs, the jobless rate lower than five percent). What's striking right now, however, is that Bush is not getting credit in the polls for a good economy. And Pat Buchanan, a populist conservative, suggests the reason why:
"(W)hile the managerial class sees its portfolio growing smartly, the 80 percent of workers who manage no one and nothing is slipping behind. That average Americans are spending every dollar they earn, saving nothing and borrowing to buy consumer goods, more and more of which are imported, suggests we have arrived at the split-level economy. Thus, making the case that the Bush economy is a triumph may be a waste of time, if two-thirds of Americans start off in disbelief. "
So here's the big question: Can Republicans unite behind Bush and win with a fear-the-Dems message? Will that be enough to stoke a big base turnout in November? Or will some GOP incumbents feel compelled to distance themselves from Bush - in acts of stategic redeployment?
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Happy (!?!) anniversary
I wrote a print column today about the Democrats signing up Iraq war vets to run for Congress this year. The jury is still out on whether the "fighting Dems" can succeed, particularly since most of them are challenging incumbents. But let us paint for a moment on the larger canvas:
As the war in Iraq enters its fourth year, the public mood is so sour that even Republicans are starting to believe that their congressional majorities, particularly in the House, might be in serious jeopardy in the November '06 elections. One new poll released today reports that only 29 percent of Americans support President Bush's handling of Iraq; another, released a few days ago, reports that 66 percent believe the U.S. is losing ground in preventing a civil war in Iraq. And before Bush defenders start complaining that all these polls are "biased" or creatures of the "MSM," I'll also point out that, in the latest Fox News poll, only 34 percent of Americans are optimistic that Iraq will ever have a "free, stable government."
And while checking out the Sunday shows, it's not hard to see why the domestic mood is so downbeat. Anyone hoping for straight-shooting candor was quickly disappointed.
Exhibit A: Dick Cheney. No surprise there. On CBS, he was asked to revisit his 2005 contention that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes" and his prewar contention that U.S. troops would be "greeted as liberators." He replied that statements such as his "were basically accurate and reflect reality."
Exhibit B: Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Casey is a military man, not a political leader, so he probably deserves a little slack. But there was something downright Clintonian about his repeated parsing of words.
At one point, on NBC, he was asked about Bush's May 1, 2003 declaration that "all major combat operations have ended." How does that statement square with what happened the other day, when Operation Swarmer, a joint U.S.-Iraqi assault against insurgents, supposedly the biggest U.S. air assault since 2003?
Casey's answer: "I wouldn't categorize Swarmer as a major combat operation."
Maybe it all depends on what the definition of "major" is. Swarmer was staged with American helicopters, planning, logistics, artillery, and medical evacuation teams, and today is Day Four of the operation. But since only 80 people have been reportedly arrested, and 20 of them released, Casey now says "it got a little more hype than it deserved." He omitted the fact that the hype was stoked by the military briefers in the first place.
And later in the NBC interview, Casey was asked about a remark he made last November, when he said Iraq would not be stabilized without "several more years of a major American presence." His answer: "It depends on how you define 'major American presence.'"
Casey didn't parse on one key point, however. He was asked whether he agreed with a weekend statement by ex-Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi, who declared that "we are in civil war...we are in a terrible civil conflict now."
Casey replied, "I don't think he's correct."
How ironic. On October 1, 2004, Allawi was being lauded as "a brave, brave man," whose "credibility" was not open to being "questioned." In fact, it was wrong to criticize "the brave leader of Iraq." The speaker was President Bush.
As the war in Iraq enters its fourth year, the public mood is so sour that even Republicans are starting to believe that their congressional majorities, particularly in the House, might be in serious jeopardy in the November '06 elections. One new poll released today reports that only 29 percent of Americans support President Bush's handling of Iraq; another, released a few days ago, reports that 66 percent believe the U.S. is losing ground in preventing a civil war in Iraq. And before Bush defenders start complaining that all these polls are "biased" or creatures of the "MSM," I'll also point out that, in the latest Fox News poll, only 34 percent of Americans are optimistic that Iraq will ever have a "free, stable government."
And while checking out the Sunday shows, it's not hard to see why the domestic mood is so downbeat. Anyone hoping for straight-shooting candor was quickly disappointed.
Exhibit A: Dick Cheney. No surprise there. On CBS, he was asked to revisit his 2005 contention that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes" and his prewar contention that U.S. troops would be "greeted as liberators." He replied that statements such as his "were basically accurate and reflect reality."
Exhibit B: Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Casey is a military man, not a political leader, so he probably deserves a little slack. But there was something downright Clintonian about his repeated parsing of words.
At one point, on NBC, he was asked about Bush's May 1, 2003 declaration that "all major combat operations have ended." How does that statement square with what happened the other day, when Operation Swarmer, a joint U.S.-Iraqi assault against insurgents, supposedly the biggest U.S. air assault since 2003?
Casey's answer: "I wouldn't categorize Swarmer as a major combat operation."
Maybe it all depends on what the definition of "major" is. Swarmer was staged with American helicopters, planning, logistics, artillery, and medical evacuation teams, and today is Day Four of the operation. But since only 80 people have been reportedly arrested, and 20 of them released, Casey now says "it got a little more hype than it deserved." He omitted the fact that the hype was stoked by the military briefers in the first place.
And later in the NBC interview, Casey was asked about a remark he made last November, when he said Iraq would not be stabilized without "several more years of a major American presence." His answer: "It depends on how you define 'major American presence.'"
Casey didn't parse on one key point, however. He was asked whether he agreed with a weekend statement by ex-Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi, who declared that "we are in civil war...we are in a terrible civil conflict now."
Casey replied, "I don't think he's correct."
How ironic. On October 1, 2004, Allawi was being lauded as "a brave, brave man," whose "credibility" was not open to being "questioned." In fact, it was wrong to criticize "the brave leader of Iraq." The speaker was President Bush.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Networking news
I want to thank Chris Cillizza, the Washington Post staffer who tracks politics in his online column "The Fix," for citing me as one of his favorite reporter-bloggers. As you can see here, Chris singled out five blogs written by mainstream political reporters, and what's most interesting is that four of those blogs are authored by teams of people who share the workload. On Chris' list, yours truly is the only one going it alone.
So if I post something really lousy in the future, allow me to chalk it up right now to fatigue.
So if I post something really lousy in the future, allow me to chalk it up right now to fatigue.
It's Jack's world, we just live in it
Caution: If you are not hooked on the TV show "24," and if you don't greet each of life's dilemmas with the thought, "What would Jack Bauer do?," then this post may not be of interest. However (as Jack might say), THERE'S NO TIME TO EXPLAIN, but all viewers of "24" are required to read to the very end, NOW! RIGHT NOW!
As someone who believes that American politics and American popular culture are inextricably linked, I can't help but wonder about the apparent sea change in the subliminal ideological thematics of "24" this season.
As any fan of the show well knows, until recently the Fox entertainment division seemed intent on mirroring the rightward tilt of Fox News, by depicting our hero Jack as a one-man torture crew who viewed the Geneva Convention as a pact for wimps; last season, he even juiced his lover's estranged husband, using wires ripped from a lamp. (The guy turned out to be innocent, but, naturally, Jack's lover has forgiven him.) I also recall, from last season, that a thoroughly meddlesome human-rights attorney from an Amnesty International-type group showed up at an inopportune moment to argue for the rights of suspected terrorists (who apparently had him on speed dial). Then there was the Arab family next door that really did turn out to be a terrorist cell, thus giving the lie to all that liberal politically-correct concern about racial profiling.
It was no wonder that veteran conservative activist, and former presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan could write so glowlingly about "24," chortling a few months ago that Jack's liberties with torture are mirrored by President Bush's priorites in the war on terror:
"The left may be right on the law (governing torture), but the people seem to be standing by Bush. Believing the character of this war, where the enemy's preferred tactic is to slaughter civilians with terror bombings, people seem to agree that we have to follow Jack Bauer's rules, not ACLU rules...one wonders what liberal Democrats of the ACLU variety would do to a real-life Jack Bauer?"
But hang on -- something new seems to be happening this year.
The entire plot appears to hinge on a neoconservative plot gone awry. A cabal of super-patriots inside the administration - embodied by White House aide Walt Cummings, who hung himself (or so we think) a few "hours" ago - hatched a conspiracy to extend American hegemony into central Asia. The idea was to manufacture an actual terrorist incident, and sacrifice Chechen rebels in the bargain, in order to give the U.S. a pretext to step in, put freedom on the march, and seize the region's oil for the next generation. The whole thing backfired, and now the Chechens (we think they are Chechens, there's always the possibility of a new Mr. Big) are retaliating by aiming their nerve gas at American targets.
In other words, this plot is about the dangers of misplaced U.S. patriotic overzealousness. And the idea of using pretexts to seize a region's oil...that's an accusation about the Bush administration that you can find on any placard at an antiwar rally.
But there's more: now we have a new character, a vice president who wants to boss around the president and circumvent the Congress at the same time. The veep wants to unilaterally declare martial law in Los Angeles, and he argues forcefully - to the point where the new conscience of America, the First Lady (who is off her meds but thinking clearly), has to remind her husband that he should not allow himself to be bossed around by the number two guy.
No need to put a shotgun in this veep's hands. We get the reference.
So I am just wondering. Is "24" mirroring the new political zeitgeist - tilting a bit leftward at a time when Bush and Cheney are down, after years of tilting rightward when Bush and Cheney were up? The only clue comes from the executive producer, Joel Surnow, who recently told the Washington Times that the show has both liberal and conservative writers. I suspect that the long-suffering camp is now in ascendence. Maybe it's just all about expanding the audience, beyond what the WashTimes calls its "conservative cult following." Whatever the shift in theme, it would appear that the new season of "24" brings a new wrinkle to the Fox notion of being "fair and balanced."
As someone who believes that American politics and American popular culture are inextricably linked, I can't help but wonder about the apparent sea change in the subliminal ideological thematics of "24" this season.
As any fan of the show well knows, until recently the Fox entertainment division seemed intent on mirroring the rightward tilt of Fox News, by depicting our hero Jack as a one-man torture crew who viewed the Geneva Convention as a pact for wimps; last season, he even juiced his lover's estranged husband, using wires ripped from a lamp. (The guy turned out to be innocent, but, naturally, Jack's lover has forgiven him.) I also recall, from last season, that a thoroughly meddlesome human-rights attorney from an Amnesty International-type group showed up at an inopportune moment to argue for the rights of suspected terrorists (who apparently had him on speed dial). Then there was the Arab family next door that really did turn out to be a terrorist cell, thus giving the lie to all that liberal politically-correct concern about racial profiling.
It was no wonder that veteran conservative activist, and former presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan could write so glowlingly about "24," chortling a few months ago that Jack's liberties with torture are mirrored by President Bush's priorites in the war on terror:
"The left may be right on the law (governing torture), but the people seem to be standing by Bush. Believing the character of this war, where the enemy's preferred tactic is to slaughter civilians with terror bombings, people seem to agree that we have to follow Jack Bauer's rules, not ACLU rules...one wonders what liberal Democrats of the ACLU variety would do to a real-life Jack Bauer?"
But hang on -- something new seems to be happening this year.
The entire plot appears to hinge on a neoconservative plot gone awry. A cabal of super-patriots inside the administration - embodied by White House aide Walt Cummings, who hung himself (or so we think) a few "hours" ago - hatched a conspiracy to extend American hegemony into central Asia. The idea was to manufacture an actual terrorist incident, and sacrifice Chechen rebels in the bargain, in order to give the U.S. a pretext to step in, put freedom on the march, and seize the region's oil for the next generation. The whole thing backfired, and now the Chechens (we think they are Chechens, there's always the possibility of a new Mr. Big) are retaliating by aiming their nerve gas at American targets.
In other words, this plot is about the dangers of misplaced U.S. patriotic overzealousness. And the idea of using pretexts to seize a region's oil...that's an accusation about the Bush administration that you can find on any placard at an antiwar rally.
But there's more: now we have a new character, a vice president who wants to boss around the president and circumvent the Congress at the same time. The veep wants to unilaterally declare martial law in Los Angeles, and he argues forcefully - to the point where the new conscience of America, the First Lady (who is off her meds but thinking clearly), has to remind her husband that he should not allow himself to be bossed around by the number two guy.
No need to put a shotgun in this veep's hands. We get the reference.
So I am just wondering. Is "24" mirroring the new political zeitgeist - tilting a bit leftward at a time when Bush and Cheney are down, after years of tilting rightward when Bush and Cheney were up? The only clue comes from the executive producer, Joel Surnow, who recently told the Washington Times that the show has both liberal and conservative writers. I suspect that the long-suffering camp is now in ascendence. Maybe it's just all about expanding the audience, beyond what the WashTimes calls its "conservative cult following." Whatever the shift in theme, it would appear that the new season of "24" brings a new wrinkle to the Fox notion of being "fair and balanced."
Friday, March 17, 2006
The modified limited hangout route
For those of you who are not as old as I am (my congratulations), the title of this post is a phrase uttered back in the '70s, during the Watergate scandal. A Nixon aide coined it as a synonym for a partial mea culpa. It sprang to mind this morning when I read David Frum's latest observations of his old boss, President Bush.
Ex-White House speechwriter Frum wrote a book a few years ago extolling Bush as "The Right Man" for the era. But now he's wrestling with that judgement. He does take note of what he calls "doubts and disappointments in (Bush's) performance," and says that performance has demontrated "the president's sometimes over-hasty decision-making, his disinclination to ask sufficiently probing questions, his aversion to detail, the overcentralization of decision-making, his often surprisingly poor personnel decisions, his unwillingness or inability to explain himself as fully and convincingly as a president ought."
But, for Frum, there's still a silver lining: "we need to remember how many of the problems of today originate in the drift and weakness of the 1990s."
Let's see...who was president during the '90s...of course! Whatever Bush's failings might be, in then end, it's all Bill Clinton's fault.
But lest anyone think that I am a reflexive Clinton defender, allow me to dispel the notion. It's not my job to build up or knock down Hillary Clinton's '08 presidential candidacy, because a journalist's first priority is to follow the facts where they go. The fact is that many Democrats are privately nervous that Hillary's past baggage might be too heavy for a future White House bid -- and this story in Editor & Publisher, a journalism magazine, demonstrates the point.
H0llywood gumshoe Anthony Pellicano, fresh from prison, has cut quite a swath in Tinseltown's seamy underside, as reported here and elsewhere. But, as E&P points out, the major media have said virtually nothing about Pellicano's long ties to the Clintons, in whose employ he cleaned up various "bimbo eruptions" during the '90s, including spreading false information about Gennifer Flowers. As E&P says, "Did the current front-running Democratic Presidential contender Hillary Clinton hire or direct any or all of Anthony Pellicano’s activities in her particular known area of interest? You have to totally lack journalistic curiosity or be brain dead to miss an opportunity like this."
Bimbo eruptions...the '90s...maybe this is what Frum meant by "drift and weakness."
Ex-White House speechwriter Frum wrote a book a few years ago extolling Bush as "The Right Man" for the era. But now he's wrestling with that judgement. He does take note of what he calls "doubts and disappointments in (Bush's) performance," and says that performance has demontrated "the president's sometimes over-hasty decision-making, his disinclination to ask sufficiently probing questions, his aversion to detail, the overcentralization of decision-making, his often surprisingly poor personnel decisions, his unwillingness or inability to explain himself as fully and convincingly as a president ought."
But, for Frum, there's still a silver lining: "we need to remember how many of the problems of today originate in the drift and weakness of the 1990s."
Let's see...who was president during the '90s...of course! Whatever Bush's failings might be, in then end, it's all Bill Clinton's fault.
But lest anyone think that I am a reflexive Clinton defender, allow me to dispel the notion. It's not my job to build up or knock down Hillary Clinton's '08 presidential candidacy, because a journalist's first priority is to follow the facts where they go. The fact is that many Democrats are privately nervous that Hillary's past baggage might be too heavy for a future White House bid -- and this story in Editor & Publisher, a journalism magazine, demonstrates the point.
H0llywood gumshoe Anthony Pellicano, fresh from prison, has cut quite a swath in Tinseltown's seamy underside, as reported here and elsewhere. But, as E&P points out, the major media have said virtually nothing about Pellicano's long ties to the Clintons, in whose employ he cleaned up various "bimbo eruptions" during the '90s, including spreading false information about Gennifer Flowers. As E&P says, "Did the current front-running Democratic Presidential contender Hillary Clinton hire or direct any or all of Anthony Pellicano’s activities in her particular known area of interest? You have to totally lack journalistic curiosity or be brain dead to miss an opportunity like this."
Bimbo eruptions...the '90s...maybe this is what Frum meant by "drift and weakness."
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Unsullied by experience
This is no big surprise, coming from the leadership team that is averse to admitting error:
The Bush administration said today that the 2002 Bush Doctrine – which argued for the right to initiate wars against imminent foreign threats - is alive and well in 2006, and unsullied by the ongoing furor over whether Saddam Hussein was truly an imminent foreign threat.
As articulated in the new National Security Strategy (a government document required by law and updated every few years), the Bush Doctrine essentially "remains the same," despite the fact that the Iraq experience has arguably demonstrated the pitfalls of initiating war on the basis of flawed WMD intelligence. As chief weapons inspector David Kay admitted two years ago, "we were all wrong."
Some of the fine print in the new document appears less assertive than in the previous document, which was unveiled in September 2002. The old document said that America reserves the right to launch hostilities against "emerging threats before they are fully formed. " The new document says that if America is facing a potentially "devastating" WMD attack, "we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
It seems to me that the new wording establishes a stricter rationale for a preventive attack; in practice, however, these could be distinctions without a difference.
Moreover, the administration does not believe that its failed prewar WMD claims have undercut the Bush Doctrine. The new report does acknowledge that those prewar claims were a tad off base; nevertheless, it argues that we can never be 100 percent certain about the information that is used to justify a preventive war.
As the new report puts it, "there will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs, since proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities."
Here's the problem with that argument, as it applies to Iraq: it's highly misleading.
Paul Pillar, who until last year coordinated Middle East intelligence for the CIA, writes in a recent Foreign Affairs article that the Bush administration decided ahead of time that it wanted to invade Iraq, and that "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made."
Secondly, even though the new Bush Doctrine report says that brutal regimes will always seek to hide their WMD activities, it doesn't mention what actually happened in the case of Hussein. As another new Foreign Affairs article points out - it's authored by three military analysts for the U.S. Joint Forces Command- Hussein actually went to great lengths to conceal the fact that he didn't have WMDs anymore, because admitting he was weapon-free would have looked like a sign of weakness. In the author's words, Hussein "found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world."
It's conceivable that the Bush war planners didn't know that back in 2002, when they were assessing the Hussein threat. But it's striking that the updated Bush Doctrine does not acknowledge what Hussein actually did, nor acknowledge the possibility that brutal regimes might be bluffing rather than concealing.
By the way, here's a little light reading, an article contradicting the administration's view that the doctrine lives on. It argues that there's intramural GOP skirmishing over the doctrine's future. I saw no skirmishing last weekend when GOP bigwigs met in Memphis, but that means nothing. Substantive foreign policy issues are generally the province of the wonks who work behind the scenes; most Republicans at this point are standing with Bush on Iraq; and one doubts that "Amend the Bush doctrine!" would be a catchy political slogan on the stump.
The Bush administration said today that the 2002 Bush Doctrine – which argued for the right to initiate wars against imminent foreign threats - is alive and well in 2006, and unsullied by the ongoing furor over whether Saddam Hussein was truly an imminent foreign threat.
As articulated in the new National Security Strategy (a government document required by law and updated every few years), the Bush Doctrine essentially "remains the same," despite the fact that the Iraq experience has arguably demonstrated the pitfalls of initiating war on the basis of flawed WMD intelligence. As chief weapons inspector David Kay admitted two years ago, "we were all wrong."
Some of the fine print in the new document appears less assertive than in the previous document, which was unveiled in September 2002. The old document said that America reserves the right to launch hostilities against "emerging threats before they are fully formed. " The new document says that if America is facing a potentially "devastating" WMD attack, "we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
It seems to me that the new wording establishes a stricter rationale for a preventive attack; in practice, however, these could be distinctions without a difference.
Moreover, the administration does not believe that its failed prewar WMD claims have undercut the Bush Doctrine. The new report does acknowledge that those prewar claims were a tad off base; nevertheless, it argues that we can never be 100 percent certain about the information that is used to justify a preventive war.
As the new report puts it, "there will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs, since proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities."
Here's the problem with that argument, as it applies to Iraq: it's highly misleading.
Paul Pillar, who until last year coordinated Middle East intelligence for the CIA, writes in a recent Foreign Affairs article that the Bush administration decided ahead of time that it wanted to invade Iraq, and that "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made."
Secondly, even though the new Bush Doctrine report says that brutal regimes will always seek to hide their WMD activities, it doesn't mention what actually happened in the case of Hussein. As another new Foreign Affairs article points out - it's authored by three military analysts for the U.S. Joint Forces Command- Hussein actually went to great lengths to conceal the fact that he didn't have WMDs anymore, because admitting he was weapon-free would have looked like a sign of weakness. In the author's words, Hussein "found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world."
It's conceivable that the Bush war planners didn't know that back in 2002, when they were assessing the Hussein threat. But it's striking that the updated Bush Doctrine does not acknowledge what Hussein actually did, nor acknowledge the possibility that brutal regimes might be bluffing rather than concealing.
By the way, here's a little light reading, an article contradicting the administration's view that the doctrine lives on. It argues that there's intramural GOP skirmishing over the doctrine's future. I saw no skirmishing last weekend when GOP bigwigs met in Memphis, but that means nothing. Substantive foreign policy issues are generally the province of the wonks who work behind the scenes; most Republicans at this point are standing with Bush on Iraq; and one doubts that "Amend the Bush doctrine!" would be a catchy political slogan on the stump.
Latest dispatch from inside the Bush bubble
At the White House yesterday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan was asked whether the Bush administration might consider it wise, at this point, to shake up the team a bit and bring in some new blood -- in other words, to do the kind of thing that presidents generally do, especially when they are winning plaudits from only 33 percent of the American people (see the latest Pew poll, which I linked yesterday).
McClellan took great umbrage at that such an impertinent suggestion: " There's a perception out there on the part of the American people that Washington tends to get caught up in a lot of this parlor game, and they tend to get caught up in all this babble, process-oriented stuff. I think the American people want us to stay focused on their priorities."
Well, the source of that impertinent suggestion, the source of that "babble," was none other than Norm Coleman, the Republican senator from Minnesota, who had been personally recruited by President Bush to run for the Senate seat in 2002. Coleman had told the Associated Press yesterday that the White House had a political "tin ear," and that a shakeup might be wise.
But still no changes are contemplated, even though one-time Bush titans continue to get dissed by people who normally defend the administration. Witness David Brooks, the conservative commentator, who this morning described Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thusly: "a formerly intimidating figure who now just seems pathetic."
Rumsfeld, by the way, told Congress the other day that his war-gamers are now busy scenarioizing about the theoretical paremeters of a possibly future civil war in Iraq -- a war that does not now exist, he quickly added, because nothing is happening that mirrors the severity of the American civil war.
Just wondering: since Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere, will the American experience be his sole frame of reference for Iraq?
McClellan took great umbrage at that such an impertinent suggestion: " There's a perception out there on the part of the American people that Washington tends to get caught up in a lot of this parlor game, and they tend to get caught up in all this babble, process-oriented stuff. I think the American people want us to stay focused on their priorities."
Well, the source of that impertinent suggestion, the source of that "babble," was none other than Norm Coleman, the Republican senator from Minnesota, who had been personally recruited by President Bush to run for the Senate seat in 2002. Coleman had told the Associated Press yesterday that the White House had a political "tin ear," and that a shakeup might be wise.
But still no changes are contemplated, even though one-time Bush titans continue to get dissed by people who normally defend the administration. Witness David Brooks, the conservative commentator, who this morning described Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thusly: "a formerly intimidating figure who now just seems pathetic."
Rumsfeld, by the way, told Congress the other day that his war-gamers are now busy scenarioizing about the theoretical paremeters of a possibly future civil war in Iraq -- a war that does not now exist, he quickly added, because nothing is happening that mirrors the severity of the American civil war.
Just wondering: since Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere, will the American experience be his sole frame of reference for Iraq?
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
The donkey kicks itself again
Watching the Democrats fight amongst themselves during the past few days, I am reminded of a line uttered by Michael Corleone in the third Godfather movie: "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."
Just when the Democrats thought they were out in the clear, hammering away at an increasingly unpopular president and his increasingly anxious Republican party, now comes an incident that has pulled them back to their more familiar turf, where disunity reigns.
Their senator from Wisconsin, antiwar liberal Russ Feingold, is pitching a bill to censure President Bush for his domestic spying plan - and his Senate Democratic colleagues have responded by running so far from Feingold that you'd swear had bird flu.
They're all saying the same thing - "I haven't read the bill" - which is Washingtonese for "Get this guy and his wacko ideas away from me, before the Republicans beat us up."
Then there are the grassroots liberals, who love what Feingold is doing and who basically think that the party's Washington leaders are risk-averse wimps with no instinct for the jugular. The liberal wing believes that the timing of a censure is perfect, because Americans, as evidenced in the polls, are generally more critical than ever before about Bush's stewardship of Iraq and the war on terror.
As one Daily Kos blogger wrote today, "The atmosphere is ripe for accountability" -- while lamenting the Democratic establishment's response to the censure idea: "It's like we're watching the Boston Tea Party, with Feingold struggling to toss case after case into the water, while Democrats calmly watch from afar as they sip on their Lipton." Another liberal analyst, Matt Yglesias at the American Prospect, said: "I don't really see why Democrats would feel the need to be walking on eggshells here. An opposition party, faced with an incumbent who's sunk so low, could use a little swagger in their step."
Indeed, the new non-partisan Pew poll released today, reports that only 33 percent of Americans are pleased with Bush's performance (the lowest Pew rating of his entire presidency) -- and he's supported by only 26 percent of independents, a stat that puts him in Dick Nixon territory. It's true that Bush has roughly half the country with him on the domestic spying program, but there are still strong concerns about whether it's legal. So, says the Feingold camp, why not take a stand on principle? (It's not purely a matter of principle, actually. Feingold is interested in running for president, and the censure move is one way to warm the hearts of the antiwar liberals who dominate the early Democratic primaries. On the other hand, every move made by anybody in Washington is a mix of belief and self-interest.)
The problem, however (at least as Feingold's critics see it), is that politics is also about timing and momentum. The Democrats had the momentum last week and over the weekend, thanks to Bush's myriad woes and the worries of his followers. Feingold broke the flow and allowed the Republicans to get off the mat and crank up the old arguments about Democrats playing fast and loose with national security. Moderate Democratic blogger Joe Gandelman says we should "look at the chronology of where the White House was, what polls were showing, how Republicans were scrambling to distance themselves from the White House, amid signs that the GOP base was starting to sour on Bush, and the not-good-news-for-Bush topics of news cycles. Feingold's proposal shifted all of that..."
True, some of the Republicans' retaliatory arguments are not accurate; Bush spokesman Scott McClellan, referring to the censure proposal on Monday, said "if Democrats want to argue that we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications, it's their right" -- yet not a single Democrat is on record arguing any such thing.
But clearly the Democratic leaders don't want to give the GOP any opportunity to shift the focus away from Bush and onto them. The Feingold bill has scrambled the focus. Now the Democrats can either stand with Feingold, and be forced spend valuable time defending themselves (however effectively) - or they can stay away from him, and wind up incurring fresh wrath from the liberal netroots.
There is a ray of hope here for Democrats, though. The ongoing GOP strategy is to paint the Democrats as lefty extremists, and they're trying to do it again, by linking everyone to Feingold. By doing that, the GOP then seeks to size the center and paint itself as the party of the American mainstream. But it's the independent voters who define the mainstream, and since, as Pew reports, only 26 percent are happy with Bush, that ship may have already sailed.
Just when the Democrats thought they were out in the clear, hammering away at an increasingly unpopular president and his increasingly anxious Republican party, now comes an incident that has pulled them back to their more familiar turf, where disunity reigns.
Their senator from Wisconsin, antiwar liberal Russ Feingold, is pitching a bill to censure President Bush for his domestic spying plan - and his Senate Democratic colleagues have responded by running so far from Feingold that you'd swear had bird flu.
They're all saying the same thing - "I haven't read the bill" - which is Washingtonese for "Get this guy and his wacko ideas away from me, before the Republicans beat us up."
Then there are the grassroots liberals, who love what Feingold is doing and who basically think that the party's Washington leaders are risk-averse wimps with no instinct for the jugular. The liberal wing believes that the timing of a censure is perfect, because Americans, as evidenced in the polls, are generally more critical than ever before about Bush's stewardship of Iraq and the war on terror.
As one Daily Kos blogger wrote today, "The atmosphere is ripe for accountability" -- while lamenting the Democratic establishment's response to the censure idea: "It's like we're watching the Boston Tea Party, with Feingold struggling to toss case after case into the water, while Democrats calmly watch from afar as they sip on their Lipton." Another liberal analyst, Matt Yglesias at the American Prospect, said: "I don't really see why Democrats would feel the need to be walking on eggshells here. An opposition party, faced with an incumbent who's sunk so low, could use a little swagger in their step."
Indeed, the new non-partisan Pew poll released today, reports that only 33 percent of Americans are pleased with Bush's performance (the lowest Pew rating of his entire presidency) -- and he's supported by only 26 percent of independents, a stat that puts him in Dick Nixon territory. It's true that Bush has roughly half the country with him on the domestic spying program, but there are still strong concerns about whether it's legal. So, says the Feingold camp, why not take a stand on principle? (It's not purely a matter of principle, actually. Feingold is interested in running for president, and the censure move is one way to warm the hearts of the antiwar liberals who dominate the early Democratic primaries. On the other hand, every move made by anybody in Washington is a mix of belief and self-interest.)
The problem, however (at least as Feingold's critics see it), is that politics is also about timing and momentum. The Democrats had the momentum last week and over the weekend, thanks to Bush's myriad woes and the worries of his followers. Feingold broke the flow and allowed the Republicans to get off the mat and crank up the old arguments about Democrats playing fast and loose with national security. Moderate Democratic blogger Joe Gandelman says we should "look at the chronology of where the White House was, what polls were showing, how Republicans were scrambling to distance themselves from the White House, amid signs that the GOP base was starting to sour on Bush, and the not-good-news-for-Bush topics of news cycles. Feingold's proposal shifted all of that..."
True, some of the Republicans' retaliatory arguments are not accurate; Bush spokesman Scott McClellan, referring to the censure proposal on Monday, said "if Democrats want to argue that we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications, it's their right" -- yet not a single Democrat is on record arguing any such thing.
But clearly the Democratic leaders don't want to give the GOP any opportunity to shift the focus away from Bush and onto them. The Feingold bill has scrambled the focus. Now the Democrats can either stand with Feingold, and be forced spend valuable time defending themselves (however effectively) - or they can stay away from him, and wind up incurring fresh wrath from the liberal netroots.
There is a ray of hope here for Democrats, though. The ongoing GOP strategy is to paint the Democrats as lefty extremists, and they're trying to do it again, by linking everyone to Feingold. By doing that, the GOP then seeks to size the center and paint itself as the party of the American mainstream. But it's the independent voters who define the mainstream, and since, as Pew reports, only 26 percent are happy with Bush, that ship may have already sailed.
Heckuva job, Claudie
The case of Claude Allen, the former Bush domestic policy advisor who has been arrested and charged with committing fraud at least 25 times at a Target store, is basically a personal tragedy with no political resonance. Just because a guy who helped craft the State of the Union speech allegedly spent his spare time conning money out of a retail chain, that shouldn't be held against President Bush, or cited as fresh evidence of administration incompetence.
But hang on a second. The Claude Allen affair has thrown a fresh spotlight on the personnel decisions of the administration, particularly the documented ways that it frequently tries to insert its people into critical jobs for which they are not qualified.
Katrina, of course, exposed the fact that Michael Brown's qualifications to helm FEMA consisted of his previous tenure at the International Arabian Horse Association. Last month, we also had the case of George Deutsch, the NASA official who was preventing the agency's top scientists from publicly discussing global warming; it turned out that 24-year-old Deutsch's qualifications consisted of working hard on Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, and graduating from Texas A & M (wait, no, it turns out that he never graduated, despite what his resume said).
This brings us to Claude Allen.
Tracing the arc of success that brought him to the West Wing, we find this little nugget: Bush in 2003 tried to make Allen a federal judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Guess how many times Allen, as an attorney, had acted as lead counsel in a case? The answer: One time. And guess how many years he had practiced as an attorney? Seven and a half -- not even close to what the American Bar Association considers to be the minimum number of years (12) for a qualified judicial nominee. On the other hand, Allen was a born-again Christian who favored a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and who had worked as a press secretary to Senator Jesse Helms and, in that capacity, had once charged a Helms opponent as being aligned with "the queers."
The Democrats ultimately scuttled the appeals court nomination, on the grounds that he wasn't qualified.
But hang on a second. The Claude Allen affair has thrown a fresh spotlight on the personnel decisions of the administration, particularly the documented ways that it frequently tries to insert its people into critical jobs for which they are not qualified.
Katrina, of course, exposed the fact that Michael Brown's qualifications to helm FEMA consisted of his previous tenure at the International Arabian Horse Association. Last month, we also had the case of George Deutsch, the NASA official who was preventing the agency's top scientists from publicly discussing global warming; it turned out that 24-year-old Deutsch's qualifications consisted of working hard on Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, and graduating from Texas A & M (wait, no, it turns out that he never graduated, despite what his resume said).
This brings us to Claude Allen.
Tracing the arc of success that brought him to the West Wing, we find this little nugget: Bush in 2003 tried to make Allen a federal judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Guess how many times Allen, as an attorney, had acted as lead counsel in a case? The answer: One time. And guess how many years he had practiced as an attorney? Seven and a half -- not even close to what the American Bar Association considers to be the minimum number of years (12) for a qualified judicial nominee. On the other hand, Allen was a born-again Christian who favored a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and who had worked as a press secretary to Senator Jesse Helms and, in that capacity, had once charged a Helms opponent as being aligned with "the queers."
The Democrats ultimately scuttled the appeals court nomination, on the grounds that he wasn't qualified.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Quote of the day
Thank you, Jerry Falwell, for clearing that up:
"Earlier today, reports began circulating across the globe that I have recently stated that Jews can go to heaven without being converted to Jesus Christ. This is categorically untrue."
"Earlier today, reports began circulating across the globe that I have recently stated that Jews can go to heaven without being converted to Jesus Christ. This is categorically untrue."
The delusions of Deanworld
While immersed in Republican politics this past weekend, I missed another fascinating Howard Dean interview, which aired Sunday on CNN. At one point, the Democratic party chairman said this: "We are much more united than we appear in the newspapers. And I think -- as often happens -- small differences of opinion get blown up as newspaper articles."
This is the Dean equivalent of President Bush's claim that freedom is on the march in Iraq; in other words, it bears little resemblance to reality.
For instance:
1. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is on record supporting troop withdrawals from Iraq, yet her own top deputy, Stenny Hoyer, is on record opposing troop withdrawals from Iraq. I guess, under the Dean definition, that this qualifies as a "small" difference of opinion.
2. One of the top Democratic operatives, Harold Ickes, has launched his own national grassroots project - a computerized data base of rank and file Democrats nationwide - because he doesn't think that Dean's Democratic National Committee can pull it off. And he's in the process of raising $11 million or more to defy the DNC. As the Washington Post noted, in its report last week on this ambitious project, "Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence" in the Dean operation. Asked about this by CNN, Dean replied, "I would disagree with Harold." But under the Dean definition, this too is a "small" difference of opinion.
3. The news today is that a rich antiwar liberal Democrat, cable television entrepeneur Ned Lamont, will challenge Democratic senator Joe Lieberman in a Connecticut primary this summer. Lamont will get fundraising help from the liberal netroots, which wants to purge the party of politicians it deems to be "Republican lite." The verdict on one prominent liberal blog yesterday: Lieberman is "a cruel, callow, weak little man. He needs to go." Lamont's main beef: Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq. Yesterday he called Lieberman "George Bush's favorite Democrat." He also said that, with the war issue front and center, "We're going to fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party."
I am old enough to remember the Vietnam war, and how it divided Democrats into hawk and dove camps. But under the Dean definition, this too is a "small" difference of opinion.
4. Check out the various Democratic reactions to antiwar Senator Russ Feingold's attempt yesterday to officially censure President Bush over the domestic spying program (Feingold: "The president has violated the law, and Congress must respond"). The liberal netroots community thinks the censure is a great idea, but the entire Washington Democratic establishment (which is loathed by the netroots) thinks that censure is a bad idea, because it might prompt moderate swing voters to think that the Democrats are acting like Bush-bashing extremists.
As Marshall Wittmann, an analyst who works at a centrist Democratic think tank, said on his blog today about the Feingold censure move, "At a time when the Democrats had seized a national security issue (the ports deal), a donkey came to the elephant's rescue with a dramatic over-reach....When will the lefties learn?"
Feingold fired back this afternoon with a swipe at all the fellow Democrats who left him high and dry: "I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide."
Under the Dean definition, this too is just another of those "small" differences of opinion.
This is the Dean equivalent of President Bush's claim that freedom is on the march in Iraq; in other words, it bears little resemblance to reality.
For instance:
1. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is on record supporting troop withdrawals from Iraq, yet her own top deputy, Stenny Hoyer, is on record opposing troop withdrawals from Iraq. I guess, under the Dean definition, that this qualifies as a "small" difference of opinion.
2. One of the top Democratic operatives, Harold Ickes, has launched his own national grassroots project - a computerized data base of rank and file Democrats nationwide - because he doesn't think that Dean's Democratic National Committee can pull it off. And he's in the process of raising $11 million or more to defy the DNC. As the Washington Post noted, in its report last week on this ambitious project, "Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence" in the Dean operation. Asked about this by CNN, Dean replied, "I would disagree with Harold." But under the Dean definition, this too is a "small" difference of opinion.
3. The news today is that a rich antiwar liberal Democrat, cable television entrepeneur Ned Lamont, will challenge Democratic senator Joe Lieberman in a Connecticut primary this summer. Lamont will get fundraising help from the liberal netroots, which wants to purge the party of politicians it deems to be "Republican lite." The verdict on one prominent liberal blog yesterday: Lieberman is "a cruel, callow, weak little man. He needs to go." Lamont's main beef: Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq. Yesterday he called Lieberman "George Bush's favorite Democrat." He also said that, with the war issue front and center, "We're going to fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party."
I am old enough to remember the Vietnam war, and how it divided Democrats into hawk and dove camps. But under the Dean definition, this too is a "small" difference of opinion.
4. Check out the various Democratic reactions to antiwar Senator Russ Feingold's attempt yesterday to officially censure President Bush over the domestic spying program (Feingold: "The president has violated the law, and Congress must respond"). The liberal netroots community thinks the censure is a great idea, but the entire Washington Democratic establishment (which is loathed by the netroots) thinks that censure is a bad idea, because it might prompt moderate swing voters to think that the Democrats are acting like Bush-bashing extremists.
As Marshall Wittmann, an analyst who works at a centrist Democratic think tank, said on his blog today about the Feingold censure move, "At a time when the Democrats had seized a national security issue (the ports deal), a donkey came to the elephant's rescue with a dramatic over-reach....When will the lefties learn?"
Feingold fired back this afternoon with a swipe at all the fellow Democrats who left him high and dry: "I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide."
Under the Dean definition, this too is just another of those "small" differences of opinion.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Fact versus nostalgia
On the way out of Memphis, I wrote a print column about John McCain and his embrace of old for George W. Bush, a necessary step in McCain's plan to woo the grassroots conservatives who have been hostile to him since the 2000 campaign. It's a bit of a mystery to me why those folks don't like McCain, given his overwhelmingly conservative voting record. Check out Paul Krugman's NYTimes column on that topic today. I'd link it, but he is behind the subscription wall.
Now, onto my other topic of the day:
Move, over Elvis. In Memphis this past weekend, there was another dead person who got the full hero worship treatment. Let's go right to the quotes.
Tennessee Republican party chairman Bob Davis: "Ronald Reagan once said..."
Tennessee congresswoman Marcia Blackburn: "Ronald Reagan was absolutely right..."
Ex-congressman J.C. Watts: "Ronald Reagan, in the decade of the '80s, he said..."
Virginia senator George Allen: "When Ronald Reagan was president..."
Kansas senator Sam Brownback: "I met Ronald Reagan once..."
House speaker Dennis Hastert: "What can you say about Ronald Reagan?"
You get the idea. Reagan seems more alive to these people than the guy who currently sits in the White House. It's not a good sign for the GOP, however, that they are wallowing in so much nostalgia; it means they are uncertain about the future, uncertain about how to close the gap between their convictions and their governing performance.
The problem, however, is that they spent three days worshipping the Reagan myth, not the Reagan record. They lauded Reagan as a small-government tax cutter, but there was nary a word about factual reality: Federal spending rose by 25 percent during Reagan's tenure, the size of the federal workforce actually grew, the only major agency that he managed to eliminate was the Civil Aeronautics Board, and he raised taxes in 1982.
Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, the size of the federal deficit (which Reagan denounced in his first unaugural as a threat to "our future and our children's future") actually doubled between 1980 and 1988.
The fact-challenged nostalgia encompassed a whole range of subjects. Brownback lauded Reagan as a pro-life icon (each person "is a sacred child of the living God...Reagan believed that as well"), yet nobody seemed to remember (or chose to remember) the actual truth, which is that Reagan as president never gave more than lip service to the anti-abortion movement. He never showed up at their annual rallies, preferring to phone in his greetings.
As conservatives at the time used to say, "It's not that Ronald Reagan lacks principles, it's just that he does not understand the ones he has."
Maybe the best evidence of GOP cognitive dissonance is the fact that Ronald Reagan's name adorns the Washington building that houses more federal bureaucrats (more than 5000) than any other place in town.
It's human nature to airbrush the flaws of a hero; the Democrats do this all the time with John F. Kennedy. But perhaps the Republicans could chart a more realistic future course if they adopt a more hardheaded view of their own past.
Now, onto my other topic of the day:
Move, over Elvis. In Memphis this past weekend, there was another dead person who got the full hero worship treatment. Let's go right to the quotes.
Tennessee Republican party chairman Bob Davis: "Ronald Reagan once said..."
Tennessee congresswoman Marcia Blackburn: "Ronald Reagan was absolutely right..."
Ex-congressman J.C. Watts: "Ronald Reagan, in the decade of the '80s, he said..."
Virginia senator George Allen: "When Ronald Reagan was president..."
Kansas senator Sam Brownback: "I met Ronald Reagan once..."
House speaker Dennis Hastert: "What can you say about Ronald Reagan?"
You get the idea. Reagan seems more alive to these people than the guy who currently sits in the White House. It's not a good sign for the GOP, however, that they are wallowing in so much nostalgia; it means they are uncertain about the future, uncertain about how to close the gap between their convictions and their governing performance.
The problem, however, is that they spent three days worshipping the Reagan myth, not the Reagan record. They lauded Reagan as a small-government tax cutter, but there was nary a word about factual reality: Federal spending rose by 25 percent during Reagan's tenure, the size of the federal workforce actually grew, the only major agency that he managed to eliminate was the Civil Aeronautics Board, and he raised taxes in 1982.
Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, the size of the federal deficit (which Reagan denounced in his first unaugural as a threat to "our future and our children's future") actually doubled between 1980 and 1988.
The fact-challenged nostalgia encompassed a whole range of subjects. Brownback lauded Reagan as a pro-life icon (each person "is a sacred child of the living God...Reagan believed that as well"), yet nobody seemed to remember (or chose to remember) the actual truth, which is that Reagan as president never gave more than lip service to the anti-abortion movement. He never showed up at their annual rallies, preferring to phone in his greetings.
As conservatives at the time used to say, "It's not that Ronald Reagan lacks principles, it's just that he does not understand the ones he has."
Maybe the best evidence of GOP cognitive dissonance is the fact that Ronald Reagan's name adorns the Washington building that houses more federal bureaucrats (more than 5000) than any other place in town.
It's human nature to airbrush the flaws of a hero; the Democrats do this all the time with John F. Kennedy. But perhaps the Republicans could chart a more realistic future course if they adopt a more hardheaded view of their own past.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
One of those worthless rituals
My Sunday column on the weekend's big Republican confab is here, featuring the '08 presidential hopefuls and their delicate dance with the current White House occupant.
But I didn't bother to discuss one sideshow aspect of this Memphis event (although I plan to mention it in print, and in passing, tomorrow). The Republicans held a "straw poll," supposedly designed to measure the level of sentiment for the early '08 prospects.
Oh please.
It's a nice way for grassroots activists to give a little feedback to the process; it's also inevitable fodder for the political journalists who breathe this stuff 24/7 and who are perpetually ravenous for any numbers that might measure anything. But history demonstrates that these exercises are basically a waste of time.
The term "straw poll" is apparently attributable to a 17th-century thinker named John Seldon, who wrote, "Take a straw and throw it up into the Air — you may see by that which way the Wind is." The problem is, the American straw polls seem to suggest that the wind always blows every which way.
For instance, if straw polls meant anything, we would have seen President Pat Robertson. The religious right leader won the Iowa straw poll of 1987, basically because he organized the most people to show up. (For easy identification purposes, they wore revolving lights on their heads.) Robertson wound up fading fast in the 1988 primaries.
And if straw polls meant anything, we would have seen President Alan Cranston. The charismatically-challenged Democratic senator won the Wisconsin straw poll of 1983, largely because he was a peace candidate at the height of the nuclear freeze movement. Cranston wound up as an early dropout in the 1984 primaries.
One could go on. George H. W. Bush won a Maine straw poll in 1979, and was beaten by Ronald Reagan a year later. Texas senator Phil Graham also won a Main straw poll, and never got anywhere close to the nomination.
It all comes down to who can pack the house or hand out the most goodies. Steve Forbes finished second in the 1999 Iowa straw poll (it was perhaps the high point of his '00 campaign), in part because he had the best food and the best hospitality tent. The tent, as I recall from being there, featured French doors.
So that brings us to the Tennessee straw poll last night. Maybe it's sheer unmitigated coincidence, but the first-place finisher in Tennessee was the senator from Tennessee, Bill Frist. His victory had little to do with his speech, which was easily the most tepid of all the '08 hopefuls. No, his victory can be attributed to the three busloads of loyalists who were brought in from nearby towns. So if you see the MSNBC website headline today that reads "Sen. Frist passes first test for 2008," you might want to ask, "What test? That he can pull 526 straw poll votes - 36.9 percent of the total - on his own home turf?"
But if I was compelled to annoint somebody who did well, it would be Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. He finished second (14.4 percent), in a region where he is arguably little known. That should give him bragging rights for a day or so.
But I didn't bother to discuss one sideshow aspect of this Memphis event (although I plan to mention it in print, and in passing, tomorrow). The Republicans held a "straw poll," supposedly designed to measure the level of sentiment for the early '08 prospects.
Oh please.
It's a nice way for grassroots activists to give a little feedback to the process; it's also inevitable fodder for the political journalists who breathe this stuff 24/7 and who are perpetually ravenous for any numbers that might measure anything. But history demonstrates that these exercises are basically a waste of time.
The term "straw poll" is apparently attributable to a 17th-century thinker named John Seldon, who wrote, "Take a straw and throw it up into the Air — you may see by that which way the Wind is." The problem is, the American straw polls seem to suggest that the wind always blows every which way.
For instance, if straw polls meant anything, we would have seen President Pat Robertson. The religious right leader won the Iowa straw poll of 1987, basically because he organized the most people to show up. (For easy identification purposes, they wore revolving lights on their heads.) Robertson wound up fading fast in the 1988 primaries.
And if straw polls meant anything, we would have seen President Alan Cranston. The charismatically-challenged Democratic senator won the Wisconsin straw poll of 1983, largely because he was a peace candidate at the height of the nuclear freeze movement. Cranston wound up as an early dropout in the 1984 primaries.
One could go on. George H. W. Bush won a Maine straw poll in 1979, and was beaten by Ronald Reagan a year later. Texas senator Phil Graham also won a Main straw poll, and never got anywhere close to the nomination.
It all comes down to who can pack the house or hand out the most goodies. Steve Forbes finished second in the 1999 Iowa straw poll (it was perhaps the high point of his '00 campaign), in part because he had the best food and the best hospitality tent. The tent, as I recall from being there, featured French doors.
So that brings us to the Tennessee straw poll last night. Maybe it's sheer unmitigated coincidence, but the first-place finisher in Tennessee was the senator from Tennessee, Bill Frist. His victory had little to do with his speech, which was easily the most tepid of all the '08 hopefuls. No, his victory can be attributed to the three busloads of loyalists who were brought in from nearby towns. So if you see the MSNBC website headline today that reads "Sen. Frist passes first test for 2008," you might want to ask, "What test? That he can pull 526 straw poll votes - 36.9 percent of the total - on his own home turf?"
But if I was compelled to annoint somebody who did well, it would be Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. He finished second (14.4 percent), in a region where he is arguably little known. That should give him bragging rights for a day or so.
Friday, March 10, 2006
What, you have something better to do on Sunday?
There won't be a Saturday entry, due to the workload at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference here in Memphis, where various '08 presidential hopefuls are peddling their wares. I am also scheduled to be busy eating a large amount of fried and barbecued food.
However, I am scheduled to assess the Memphis event and the GOP situation during a guest appearance on C-Span, 8:30 am EST. on Sunday morning. Tune in. Why should I be the only one getting up nearly?
However, I am scheduled to assess the Memphis event and the GOP situation during a guest appearance on C-Span, 8:30 am EST. on Sunday morning. Tune in. Why should I be the only one getting up nearly?
The marketing of fear
So the Dubai ports deal has collapsed. It is a vivid testament to President Bush's current political weakness - and the flaws in his post-9/11 rhetoric.
The White House pulled the plug because its ostensible Republican allies on Capitol Hill no longer march to Bush's command. When the deal first surfaced in the press, Bush's defense was that he didn't know about it. Then, while still apparently knowing little, he immediately told Congress to bring it on: if it moved to block the deal, he'd veto it. Congress moved to block the deal anyway, voting 62-2 in committee. Guess who blinked. In the words of a Republican consultant who writes on the conservative redstate.org website, Republicans on many issues are now treating Bush as if he was "a diseased person who is possibly infectious."
One big irony of this debacle, however, is that the United Arab Emirates is probably the most pro-western, America-loving nations in the Middle East. One factoid might be of special interest to my fellow Philadelphians: the chairman of Dubai Ports World is a graduate of Temple University who still has a yen for Philly cheesesteaks. One of my Republican contacts, strategist Rich Galen, told me recently, "Dubai looks like Disney World. It's not a bunch of terrorists running around and shooting AK47s into the air."
The problem, however, is that Bush since 9/11 never educated the American public about the distinctions among Arabs. They were all grouped together as enemies who "hate our freedoms."
There was a fundamental difference, for example, between Iraqis and the al Qaeda terrorists, but, through his rhetoric, he repeatedly allowed Americans to blur those distinctions, to the point where a substantial percentage of people truly believed that the 9/11 plot was hatched in, and financed by, Iraq.
No wonder the grassroots erupted at the news of the Dubai deal. Perhaps the fears of Americans were not justified. Perhaps Republican congressmen were not justified in their arguably kneejerk reactions to those fears. But this administration has been on record since the 2002 election season with the argument about eternal vigilance against faceless foreign enemies. It's too late now to put a friendly face on the UAE. The Bush team has reaped what it sowed, to its own political detriment.
The White House pulled the plug because its ostensible Republican allies on Capitol Hill no longer march to Bush's command. When the deal first surfaced in the press, Bush's defense was that he didn't know about it. Then, while still apparently knowing little, he immediately told Congress to bring it on: if it moved to block the deal, he'd veto it. Congress moved to block the deal anyway, voting 62-2 in committee. Guess who blinked. In the words of a Republican consultant who writes on the conservative redstate.org website, Republicans on many issues are now treating Bush as if he was "a diseased person who is possibly infectious."
One big irony of this debacle, however, is that the United Arab Emirates is probably the most pro-western, America-loving nations in the Middle East. One factoid might be of special interest to my fellow Philadelphians: the chairman of Dubai Ports World is a graduate of Temple University who still has a yen for Philly cheesesteaks. One of my Republican contacts, strategist Rich Galen, told me recently, "Dubai looks like Disney World. It's not a bunch of terrorists running around and shooting AK47s into the air."
The problem, however, is that Bush since 9/11 never educated the American public about the distinctions among Arabs. They were all grouped together as enemies who "hate our freedoms."
There was a fundamental difference, for example, between Iraqis and the al Qaeda terrorists, but, through his rhetoric, he repeatedly allowed Americans to blur those distinctions, to the point where a substantial percentage of people truly believed that the 9/11 plot was hatched in, and financed by, Iraq.
No wonder the grassroots erupted at the news of the Dubai deal. Perhaps the fears of Americans were not justified. Perhaps Republican congressmen were not justified in their arguably kneejerk reactions to those fears. But this administration has been on record since the 2002 election season with the argument about eternal vigilance against faceless foreign enemies. It's too late now to put a friendly face on the UAE. The Bush team has reaped what it sowed, to its own political detriment.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
The shelf life of politicians
As I truck on down to Memphis today (wow, I sound just like Elvis) to attend the Southern Republican Leadership Conference and hear from a slew of 2008 presidential hopefuls (oh well, so much for Elvis), I can't help but recall the last time I hung out at one of these confabs. Then, as now, the purpose was to watch GOP presidential hopefuls in action. But with a bit of perspective, it's clear these events are often a primer on the short shelf life of ambitious politicians.
I went to the SRLC meeting of 1998. We in the press, along with a thousand Republican activists, gathered at a casino hotel in Biloxi, Mississippi (that hotel no longer exists, courtesy of Katrina), ate a lot of barbecue chicken, and assessed the rhetorical efforts of the GOP notables who were thirsting to succeed Bill Clinton in the White House.
The people we heard from included:
Dan Quayle.
Steve Forbes.
Lamar Alexander.
Jack Kemp.
John Ashcroft.
See what I mean when I say short shelf life? None of those guys wound up being big players in the 2000 race. John McCain didn't show up, and nobody had an inkling about him anyway. And George W. Bush didn't show up either, and I remember a party consultant saying "he's busy running for re-election in Texas, and we want to be loved, up close and early."
So instead we had Quayle, who made Bill Clinton jokes ("The centerpiece of my anticrime policy is 'three interns and you're out!"); Forbes, the flat tax missionary, who was working on not sounding robotic while trying to pander to the religious conservatives in the hall; Alexander, who was everybody's third or fourth choice, and looked like the guy who played Patty Duke's father on the old Patty Duke sitcom; Kemp, who jabbered nonstop and ended with a lament about how he wouldn't live long enough to ski with his grandson's future children; and Ashcroft, who walked around with a sonogram photo of his future grandchild in utero. (Ashcroft dropped out not long after, went back to Missouri to seek a new Senate term, and literally lost his re-election race to a dead person.)
The point is, beware the burnout factor, and the absentee factor. But at least John McCain is coming to Memphis, to face some of the same southern Republicans who spurned him in 2000. That's a decent story. He'll try to win them over without forfeiting his maverick profile. He'll walk the line.
I went to the SRLC meeting of 1998. We in the press, along with a thousand Republican activists, gathered at a casino hotel in Biloxi, Mississippi (that hotel no longer exists, courtesy of Katrina), ate a lot of barbecue chicken, and assessed the rhetorical efforts of the GOP notables who were thirsting to succeed Bill Clinton in the White House.
The people we heard from included:
Dan Quayle.
Steve Forbes.
Lamar Alexander.
Jack Kemp.
John Ashcroft.
See what I mean when I say short shelf life? None of those guys wound up being big players in the 2000 race. John McCain didn't show up, and nobody had an inkling about him anyway. And George W. Bush didn't show up either, and I remember a party consultant saying "he's busy running for re-election in Texas, and we want to be loved, up close and early."
So instead we had Quayle, who made Bill Clinton jokes ("The centerpiece of my anticrime policy is 'three interns and you're out!"); Forbes, the flat tax missionary, who was working on not sounding robotic while trying to pander to the religious conservatives in the hall; Alexander, who was everybody's third or fourth choice, and looked like the guy who played Patty Duke's father on the old Patty Duke sitcom; Kemp, who jabbered nonstop and ended with a lament about how he wouldn't live long enough to ski with his grandson's future children; and Ashcroft, who walked around with a sonogram photo of his future grandchild in utero. (Ashcroft dropped out not long after, went back to Missouri to seek a new Senate term, and literally lost his re-election race to a dead person.)
The point is, beware the burnout factor, and the absentee factor. But at least John McCain is coming to Memphis, to face some of the same southern Republicans who spurned him in 2000. That's a decent story. He'll try to win them over without forfeiting his maverick profile. He'll walk the line.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Another bite of apple pie
There are some things in this life that you can always depend on: a fresh steroid scandal in baseball, a new Van Morrison album every year, a "Sopranos" rerun marathon on HBO, a vow from Democrats that they will soon unveil an agenda, the four-cheese pizzas at Trader Joe's...the list is long.
And here's another item for the list: the GOP's flag desecration issue. From Senate Republican leader Bill Frist's office, in a press release yesterday:
"The American flag is a proud and sacred reminder of the principles of freedom and opportunity that form the foundation of our Republic. Our flag reminds us that there is more that unites us as Americans than divides us, and a constitutional amendment will give one of our Nation's proudest and most treasured symbols the protection it deserves. It honors the sacrifice of countless brave men and women who died defending our flag and the ideals it represents. I look forward to bringing the Flag Protection Amendment to the floor at the end of June so we can debate legislation that respects one of the principal symbols of our nation, and appropriately honors the sacrifice and commitment of all those who've acted to protect it."
Yes, it's that durable evergreen, the Flag Protection Amendment. This is how we know that the springtime buds are about to bloom, and that an election season looms: the Republicans decide to go after the national epidemic of flag-burning, and dare the Democrats to demonstrate their lack of patriotism by opposing it. The Senate vote, as always, will be timed to occur somewhere around July 4.
Maybe what's different this year is that the Republicans fear they have ceded some ground on the patriotism front because of their president's port deal.
But that aside, there's nothing really new to say about the flag flap -- as evidenced by this comment from a Republican strategist named David Murray, extolling the issue's political potency: "It's real simple. Get 10 people in a room, other than ACLU types, and ask them if they'd cross the street to punch out somebody who's burning the flag. In a campaign context, anyone saying 'the right of free expression comes first' is saying, 'I'm for legal flag-burning.' Very risky."
He made that remark to me. The year was 1990.
And here's another item for the list: the GOP's flag desecration issue. From Senate Republican leader Bill Frist's office, in a press release yesterday:
"The American flag is a proud and sacred reminder of the principles of freedom and opportunity that form the foundation of our Republic. Our flag reminds us that there is more that unites us as Americans than divides us, and a constitutional amendment will give one of our Nation's proudest and most treasured symbols the protection it deserves. It honors the sacrifice of countless brave men and women who died defending our flag and the ideals it represents. I look forward to bringing the Flag Protection Amendment to the floor at the end of June so we can debate legislation that respects one of the principal symbols of our nation, and appropriately honors the sacrifice and commitment of all those who've acted to protect it."
Yes, it's that durable evergreen, the Flag Protection Amendment. This is how we know that the springtime buds are about to bloom, and that an election season looms: the Republicans decide to go after the national epidemic of flag-burning, and dare the Democrats to demonstrate their lack of patriotism by opposing it. The Senate vote, as always, will be timed to occur somewhere around July 4.
Maybe what's different this year is that the Republicans fear they have ceded some ground on the patriotism front because of their president's port deal.
But that aside, there's nothing really new to say about the flag flap -- as evidenced by this comment from a Republican strategist named David Murray, extolling the issue's political potency: "It's real simple. Get 10 people in a room, other than ACLU types, and ask them if they'd cross the street to punch out somebody who's burning the flag. In a campaign context, anyone saying 'the right of free expression comes first' is saying, 'I'm for legal flag-burning.' Very risky."
He made that remark to me. The year was 1990.
No liberal triumphalism today
It's a bad news morning for liberals everywhere. Tom DeLay, indicted but unbowed, has easily won the Republican primary in his Texas district, which means that he gets to run for re-election against a Democrat in November. Three GOP rivals were trying to knock him out of renomination (see my March 4 post), but clearly the fallen House Republican leader still retains the loyalty of the conservatives in his district who are most motivated to show up for a primary.
Those loyalists wanted to send a message to their perceived antagonists in the outside world. When I saw the vote results, I remembered something that a DeLay diehard said to me last year, when I spent a week in the suburban Houston district. Terese Raia, a feisty red-headed grandma, said: "Just the idea that the Democrats and the media will try to determine who will win or lose next year in our congressional district, that's the most frightening thing in the world. What they tried to do to President Bush, now they're trying to do it to Tom. It's pathetic."
But a triumphant DeLay (for now, anyway) isn't the only disappointment for liberals this morning. They had set up a purity test in a south Texas Democratic primary, a national test for Bush-hating bloggers and activist, but they lost big time.
In a heavily Hispanic district that stretches from San Antonio to Laredo, the faceoff pitted incumbent congressman Henry Cueller, a moderate Democrat, against a challenger, liberal Democrat Ciro Rodriquez. Grassroots liberals nationwide, using the Internet to raise money, backed Rodriguez. They wanted to knock off Cueller, who they viewed as a "DINO" (an acronym for "Democrats in Name Only)," because Cueller had worked with House Republicans on several big issues, and -- this was the worst sin of all -- because Cueller had allowed President Bush to affectionately grab his cheeks in the aisle of the House, prior to the Jan. 31 State of the Union speech.
Liberal activists had hoped to spin a Cueller loss as evidence that any consorting with Bush was political suicide, and that anti-Bush sentiment is a powerful political force. The latter might still turn out to be true in the '06 November elections. But there was no boon in south Texas last night, because political realities often foil a simple story line. There's a strong military presence in that particular district - where the heavily Hispanic electorate backed Bush in the '04 elections by six percentage points.
In this polarized era, there are still a few moderate Republicans and Democrats left in Congress, people who are willing to work with the other side sometimes. Cueller stays on that roster.
Those loyalists wanted to send a message to their perceived antagonists in the outside world. When I saw the vote results, I remembered something that a DeLay diehard said to me last year, when I spent a week in the suburban Houston district. Terese Raia, a feisty red-headed grandma, said: "Just the idea that the Democrats and the media will try to determine who will win or lose next year in our congressional district, that's the most frightening thing in the world. What they tried to do to President Bush, now they're trying to do it to Tom. It's pathetic."
But a triumphant DeLay (for now, anyway) isn't the only disappointment for liberals this morning. They had set up a purity test in a south Texas Democratic primary, a national test for Bush-hating bloggers and activist, but they lost big time.
In a heavily Hispanic district that stretches from San Antonio to Laredo, the faceoff pitted incumbent congressman Henry Cueller, a moderate Democrat, against a challenger, liberal Democrat Ciro Rodriquez. Grassroots liberals nationwide, using the Internet to raise money, backed Rodriguez. They wanted to knock off Cueller, who they viewed as a "DINO" (an acronym for "Democrats in Name Only)," because Cueller had worked with House Republicans on several big issues, and -- this was the worst sin of all -- because Cueller had allowed President Bush to affectionately grab his cheeks in the aisle of the House, prior to the Jan. 31 State of the Union speech.
Liberal activists had hoped to spin a Cueller loss as evidence that any consorting with Bush was political suicide, and that anti-Bush sentiment is a powerful political force. The latter might still turn out to be true in the '06 November elections. But there was no boon in south Texas last night, because political realities often foil a simple story line. There's a strong military presence in that particular district - where the heavily Hispanic electorate backed Bush in the '04 elections by six percentage points.
In this polarized era, there are still a few moderate Republicans and Democrats left in Congress, people who are willing to work with the other side sometimes. Cueller stays on that roster.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Shootout at credibility gap
One big reason why the Bush administration is having serious credibility problems - a new national poll reports that 55 percent of the people view President Bush as untrustworthy - is because its leaders keep contradicting each other on Iraq.
You have the happy talkers, like Bush ("we're making progress," he said again last week) and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace (the war in Iraq is "going very, very well, from everything you look at"). But you also have the gloom and doomers, like Bush's ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who now declares in a newspaper interview that the toppling of Saddam Hussein opened "a Pandora's box" of sectarian and ethnic tensions and violence.
Strangely, I don't recall, back in the prewar phase, that anybody in the administration was warning of a Pandora's box being opened.
Anyway, Bush also told an ABC reporter last week, "I don't buy your premise that there's going to be civil war." (Actually, that wasn't her premise, she was merely asking a what-if question, but never mind.) But whereas Bush was basically dismissing any talk of civil war, his own ambassador is now talking up that possibility.
The "potential is there," said Khalizad, and if another major incident occurs, equivalent to the bombing two weeks ago of a Shiite Muslim shrine, then "Iraq is really vulnerable to it at this time, in my judgment."
It's a sign of trouble when the Bush team's vaunted message discipline falters so blatantly.
And I'll stop here with a question:
A new argument these days, among many Bush supporters, is that anyone in the press who raises the possibility of civil war must, by definition, be rooting for civil war. Would they suggest that Khalizad shares that sentiment?
You have the happy talkers, like Bush ("we're making progress," he said again last week) and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace (the war in Iraq is "going very, very well, from everything you look at"). But you also have the gloom and doomers, like Bush's ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who now declares in a newspaper interview that the toppling of Saddam Hussein opened "a Pandora's box" of sectarian and ethnic tensions and violence.
Strangely, I don't recall, back in the prewar phase, that anybody in the administration was warning of a Pandora's box being opened.
Anyway, Bush also told an ABC reporter last week, "I don't buy your premise that there's going to be civil war." (Actually, that wasn't her premise, she was merely asking a what-if question, but never mind.) But whereas Bush was basically dismissing any talk of civil war, his own ambassador is now talking up that possibility.
The "potential is there," said Khalizad, and if another major incident occurs, equivalent to the bombing two weeks ago of a Shiite Muslim shrine, then "Iraq is really vulnerable to it at this time, in my judgment."
It's a sign of trouble when the Bush team's vaunted message discipline falters so blatantly.
And I'll stop here with a question:
A new argument these days, among many Bush supporters, is that anyone in the press who raises the possibility of civil war must, by definition, be rooting for civil war. Would they suggest that Khalizad shares that sentiment?
Abandoning ship..with a Ralph Reed addendum
Bill Thomas is not a household name - actually, it sounds like a name found in any household - but it's an important name in politics this morning. There's a Bill Thomas serving in Congress, a very powerful House leader who has advanced the Bush agenda since 2001, but now he has announced that he will not run for reelection in November.
What's significant is that he's merely the latest congressional Republican to announce his retirement, thereby fueling more talk about whether GOP lawmakers are starting to rush for the exits, in anticipation of a Democratic takeover on Capitol Hill in the sixth year of President Bush's increasingly embattled tenure. That's certainly what happened to the Democrats in 1994, when Bill Clinton's woeful initial performance inspired as many as 30 congressional Democrats to abandon ship (and we know what happened that November: enter the Newt Gingrich majority).
Naturally, the Democrats right now are acting gleeful about the prospect of more GOP retirements - three have been announced during the past two weeks - because retirements create open seats, and open seats (theoretically, anyway) are more ripe for the taking than seats defended by incumbents who have all the incumbent advantages, such as money and name recognition. With Thomas stepping down, there are 26 open seats -- 17 of them abandoned by Republicans. If Democrats can pick up 15 House seats in November, they take over the chamber.
But that's tougher than it sounds, even with these GOP retirements. Thus far, virtually all of the retirees hail from districts that are solidly Republican - voters in Thomas' California district gave Bush 68 percent of the vote in the '04 presidential election - so it's hardly a cinch for Democrats to turn those seats.
The future, however, may be brighter, if (as many predict) incumbent Republicans from more competitive districts decide to bail out in the months ahead. That could hinge on whether Bush's standing continues to slide, along with the prospects for succeess in Iraq, and along with the prospects for quick closure in the Jack Abramoff case.
Abramoff, the conservative idealogue who morphed into a super lobbyist and confessed felon, is still a wild card whose ties to the Republican majority may still provide fresh embarrassments -- check out the third and fourth paragraphs of this story -- for certain vulnerable incumbents. Such as Tom DeLay, who faces a competitive primary contest today (see my March 4 posting) and a tough re-election race in November.
And speaking of Abramoff: Another way to gauge his impact on GOP fortunes is keep an eye on Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition director who is trying to get elected as lieutenant governor of Georgia. To put it mildly, Reed is an ambitious guy who does not see the number-two Georgia job as his ultimate destination.
But his lucrative financial ties to Abramoff, his pal of several decades, may well trip him up.
Reed must first win a GOP primary in August, and he's facing tough competition from a state senator and fellow conservative, Casey Cagle. Cagle is raising more money than Reed at this point, and a majority of state senate Republicans sent Reed a letter the other day, demanding that Reed quit the race.
Reed hasn't been charged with any crime, but his Abramoff baggage is a big reason why his career plan might go awry; for starters, a U.S. Senate investigation has unearthed stacks of emails between Abramoff and Reed, indicating a close lobbying relationship. Moreover, Reed has been insisting for months that when he signed up in 2000 to lobby against a proposed congressional ban on Internet gambling, he had no idea that his client was an online lottery firm with ties to Abramoff. Yet now comes evidence, laid out here, which suggests that he knew all along. He's still deying it, though.
What's significant is that he's merely the latest congressional Republican to announce his retirement, thereby fueling more talk about whether GOP lawmakers are starting to rush for the exits, in anticipation of a Democratic takeover on Capitol Hill in the sixth year of President Bush's increasingly embattled tenure. That's certainly what happened to the Democrats in 1994, when Bill Clinton's woeful initial performance inspired as many as 30 congressional Democrats to abandon ship (and we know what happened that November: enter the Newt Gingrich majority).
Naturally, the Democrats right now are acting gleeful about the prospect of more GOP retirements - three have been announced during the past two weeks - because retirements create open seats, and open seats (theoretically, anyway) are more ripe for the taking than seats defended by incumbents who have all the incumbent advantages, such as money and name recognition. With Thomas stepping down, there are 26 open seats -- 17 of them abandoned by Republicans. If Democrats can pick up 15 House seats in November, they take over the chamber.
But that's tougher than it sounds, even with these GOP retirements. Thus far, virtually all of the retirees hail from districts that are solidly Republican - voters in Thomas' California district gave Bush 68 percent of the vote in the '04 presidential election - so it's hardly a cinch for Democrats to turn those seats.
The future, however, may be brighter, if (as many predict) incumbent Republicans from more competitive districts decide to bail out in the months ahead. That could hinge on whether Bush's standing continues to slide, along with the prospects for succeess in Iraq, and along with the prospects for quick closure in the Jack Abramoff case.
Abramoff, the conservative idealogue who morphed into a super lobbyist and confessed felon, is still a wild card whose ties to the Republican majority may still provide fresh embarrassments -- check out the third and fourth paragraphs of this story -- for certain vulnerable incumbents. Such as Tom DeLay, who faces a competitive primary contest today (see my March 4 posting) and a tough re-election race in November.
And speaking of Abramoff: Another way to gauge his impact on GOP fortunes is keep an eye on Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition director who is trying to get elected as lieutenant governor of Georgia. To put it mildly, Reed is an ambitious guy who does not see the number-two Georgia job as his ultimate destination.
But his lucrative financial ties to Abramoff, his pal of several decades, may well trip him up.
Reed must first win a GOP primary in August, and he's facing tough competition from a state senator and fellow conservative, Casey Cagle. Cagle is raising more money than Reed at this point, and a majority of state senate Republicans sent Reed a letter the other day, demanding that Reed quit the race.
Reed hasn't been charged with any crime, but his Abramoff baggage is a big reason why his career plan might go awry; for starters, a U.S. Senate investigation has unearthed stacks of emails between Abramoff and Reed, indicating a close lobbying relationship. Moreover, Reed has been insisting for months that when he signed up in 2000 to lobby against a proposed congressional ban on Internet gambling, he had no idea that his client was an online lottery firm with ties to Abramoff. Yet now comes evidence, laid out here, which suggests that he knew all along. He's still deying it, though.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Are we, or are we not?
While researching my weekend column about our grim options in Iraq on the eve of the third anniversary of war, I had a conversation with former Democratic Senator Gary Hart, who had stopped in Philadelphia to give a speech. Only a fragment of that interview made it into the story, so I've decided to post more of his comments here. On the issue of U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq, he raised an important point that has gotten little public attention thus far:
"Are we or are we not building permanent military bases (in Iraq)? I keep trying to get anybody (in the press) to ask about this..I'll tell you what I mean by permanent: pouring concrete and welding steel. Yes or no? Not tents and ditch latrines. Concrete bases and structures. Yes or no? They (the Bush people) have never disavowed it...You can't say you are leaving Iraq if you're also welding the steel. Any why can't we seem to find out? I know the Republican Congress will not do its job of asking questions, even though that's the job of Congress.
"What are our plans there? The neoconservatives clearly had the idea that we'd put in an Iraqi government hospitable to us, and that we'd use Iraq as our base in the Middle East for the next 100 years. That was the plan. You can't tell me they have totally given up on it. I wouldn't be surprised to pick up the paper in the morning and it says, 'Iraqi government invites us to stay,' and Bush says, 'Gee whiz, they want us to stay there.'"
Hart was pretty passionate about the bases, and he's hardly alone on that. If we do build permanent bases and house some troops there, will it really be accurate to say that we have withdrawn from Iraq? And would permanent bases perpetually inflame the home-grown insurgency that wants the U.S. to go home? Larry Diamond, senior fellow at a conservative think tank and a former consultant to the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, has been arguing that only an unequivocal renunciation of the idea by the Bush administration will truly neutralize the insurgents' "anti-imperial passion."
There have been sporadic reports that the U.S. has been building at least four such bases; in fact, the Washington Post has already published details of a walled-off facility that features four mess halls, a hospital, a huge airstrip, a miniature golf course, a 24-hour Burger King, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye's, and a store that sells TVs and IPods. There have also been reports of a fifth base in the works, near the Baghdad airport, that, in addition to thick blast walls, would feature a gym, swimming pool, beauty shops and a food court.
When top Bush officials have been asked whether such permanent bases exist in actuality or on paper, they have never issued a blanket ironclad denial. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly said last December that "at the moment there are no plans for permanent bases," and nine months earlier he told Congress that "we have no intention at the present time to put permanent bases in Iraq."
Because they decline to engage the issue, Bush officials might be passing up the chance to state the arguably positive case for permanent bases (i.e., keeping some troops in Iraq might help shore up the Iraqi unity government - if and when it is created - and prevent the various sectarian factions from launching a full-blown civil war). But while they stay mute on the topic, the critics of permanent bases are dominating the discussion.
Here, for example, is what Democratic congresswoman and defense specialist Jane Harman said at a Brookings Institition briefing on Iraq two weeks ago: "It is critical that the administration make clear that it does not intend to keep permanent military bases there. I've made this point to every moving part of the White House, and the military side of the Pentagon, and certainly including (Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman) Peter Pace. Every time he sees me coming, he says 'I'm working on it.' But it is absolutely critical to tell the Iraqi people - most of whom don't believe this - that we are not going to be permanent occupiers."
As for Pace, he appeared yesterday on two morning shows - Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press. He wasn't asked a single question about the issue of permanent bases.
"Are we or are we not building permanent military bases (in Iraq)? I keep trying to get anybody (in the press) to ask about this..I'll tell you what I mean by permanent: pouring concrete and welding steel. Yes or no? Not tents and ditch latrines. Concrete bases and structures. Yes or no? They (the Bush people) have never disavowed it...You can't say you are leaving Iraq if you're also welding the steel. Any why can't we seem to find out? I know the Republican Congress will not do its job of asking questions, even though that's the job of Congress.
"What are our plans there? The neoconservatives clearly had the idea that we'd put in an Iraqi government hospitable to us, and that we'd use Iraq as our base in the Middle East for the next 100 years. That was the plan. You can't tell me they have totally given up on it. I wouldn't be surprised to pick up the paper in the morning and it says, 'Iraqi government invites us to stay,' and Bush says, 'Gee whiz, they want us to stay there.'"
Hart was pretty passionate about the bases, and he's hardly alone on that. If we do build permanent bases and house some troops there, will it really be accurate to say that we have withdrawn from Iraq? And would permanent bases perpetually inflame the home-grown insurgency that wants the U.S. to go home? Larry Diamond, senior fellow at a conservative think tank and a former consultant to the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, has been arguing that only an unequivocal renunciation of the idea by the Bush administration will truly neutralize the insurgents' "anti-imperial passion."
There have been sporadic reports that the U.S. has been building at least four such bases; in fact, the Washington Post has already published details of a walled-off facility that features four mess halls, a hospital, a huge airstrip, a miniature golf course, a 24-hour Burger King, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye's, and a store that sells TVs and IPods. There have also been reports of a fifth base in the works, near the Baghdad airport, that, in addition to thick blast walls, would feature a gym, swimming pool, beauty shops and a food court.
When top Bush officials have been asked whether such permanent bases exist in actuality or on paper, they have never issued a blanket ironclad denial. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly said last December that "at the moment there are no plans for permanent bases," and nine months earlier he told Congress that "we have no intention at the present time to put permanent bases in Iraq."
Because they decline to engage the issue, Bush officials might be passing up the chance to state the arguably positive case for permanent bases (i.e., keeping some troops in Iraq might help shore up the Iraqi unity government - if and when it is created - and prevent the various sectarian factions from launching a full-blown civil war). But while they stay mute on the topic, the critics of permanent bases are dominating the discussion.
Here, for example, is what Democratic congresswoman and defense specialist Jane Harman said at a Brookings Institition briefing on Iraq two weeks ago: "It is critical that the administration make clear that it does not intend to keep permanent military bases there. I've made this point to every moving part of the White House, and the military side of the Pentagon, and certainly including (Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman) Peter Pace. Every time he sees me coming, he says 'I'm working on it.' But it is absolutely critical to tell the Iraqi people - most of whom don't believe this - that we are not going to be permanent occupiers."
As for Pace, he appeared yesterday on two morning shows - Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press. He wasn't asked a single question about the issue of permanent bases.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Mea culpa politicking
John Edwards (remember him? Democratic veep candidate with the Bobby Kennedy forelock?) was on Meet the Press today, talking about his 2002 Senate vote authorizing President Bush to wage war in Iraq. See if you can spot the key word:
"I don't think I was the only one who was wrong...It was wrong...the vote was wrong and my judgement was wrong...saying that my vote was wrong is the truth...I was wrong...I was wrong, absolutely."
That's seven renditions of the W-word, all within roughly 60 seconds, and here's what it means: Edwards wants to run for president in 2008.
I'm not suggesting that Edwards doesn't sincerely regret his '02 vote and that his regrets are not substantive. But it just so happens that there will be a niche in the '08 Democratic primaries for a candidate who does a mea culpa on the war. Liberal antiwar voters want the party's pro-war senators of 2002 to show some contrition before the primaries commence. So Edwards is doing it. John Kerry actually did it before Edwards did, swapping his former Hamlet countenance for eating crow.
There has been so anxiety in Democratic circles about doing the mea culpa; as I wrote in a piece last autumn, some Democrats think that a confession of error would be tantamount to saying that they were easily duped by Bush, and therefore would be perceived as too naive for the top job. They also recall what happened in 1967 to Republican candidate George Romney, who said he'd been "brainwashed" by the military brass while visiting Vietnam, a gaffe that dashed his bid.
Nevertheless, doing the mea culpa will be good politics for any Democratic candidate who wants to harvest votes on the left during the primary season. After all, the first stop in '08 is Iowa, where antiwar liberals can be expected to vote heavily.
And maybe 'fessing up will also be spun as a character issue. Edwards took that route today, arguing that "the foundation for moral leadership is the truth." He's touting the message that admitting a wrong is an attractive trait...in contrast to a president who generally insists that he's always right.
Whether that, and an anti-poverty agenda, is enough to establish Edwards as the prime alternative to Hillary Clinton (who has yet to do the mea culpa) is another story.
"I don't think I was the only one who was wrong...It was wrong...the vote was wrong and my judgement was wrong...saying that my vote was wrong is the truth...I was wrong...I was wrong, absolutely."
That's seven renditions of the W-word, all within roughly 60 seconds, and here's what it means: Edwards wants to run for president in 2008.
I'm not suggesting that Edwards doesn't sincerely regret his '02 vote and that his regrets are not substantive. But it just so happens that there will be a niche in the '08 Democratic primaries for a candidate who does a mea culpa on the war. Liberal antiwar voters want the party's pro-war senators of 2002 to show some contrition before the primaries commence. So Edwards is doing it. John Kerry actually did it before Edwards did, swapping his former Hamlet countenance for eating crow.
There has been so anxiety in Democratic circles about doing the mea culpa; as I wrote in a piece last autumn, some Democrats think that a confession of error would be tantamount to saying that they were easily duped by Bush, and therefore would be perceived as too naive for the top job. They also recall what happened in 1967 to Republican candidate George Romney, who said he'd been "brainwashed" by the military brass while visiting Vietnam, a gaffe that dashed his bid.
Nevertheless, doing the mea culpa will be good politics for any Democratic candidate who wants to harvest votes on the left during the primary season. After all, the first stop in '08 is Iowa, where antiwar liberals can be expected to vote heavily.
And maybe 'fessing up will also be spun as a character issue. Edwards took that route today, arguing that "the foundation for moral leadership is the truth." He's touting the message that admitting a wrong is an attractive trait...in contrast to a president who generally insists that he's always right.
Whether that, and an anti-poverty agenda, is enough to establish Edwards as the prime alternative to Hillary Clinton (who has yet to do the mea culpa) is another story.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
A Texas barbecue?
We who get paid to report and prognosticate about politics have been saying for months that 2006 could be a rough election year for Republicans. We've been citing the polls which all suggest that voters are in a throw-the-bums-out mood -- the bums, in this case, being the Republicans, who control everything in Washington, including the special-interest spigots and other sources of pay-for-play corruption. I myself weighed in recently, here.
But, as the studio execs like to say in Hollywood, about the slippery art of reading the public mind, "nobody knows anything." Until people actually start casting ballots, all we've got to work with are the vibes....which is why the Texas primary that takes place on Tuesday, in the 22nd congressional district, is potentially so important. Finally, we might get empirical evidence, in the form of actual votes.
I'm talking about Tom DeLay, the indicted congressman and fallen House leader, who is fighting for his political survival. We may soon learn whether real voters want to roast him on a spit.
He's on the Tuesday primary ballot in his district just south of Houston; he's pitted against lawyer and ex-federal official Tom Campbell, as well as two lesser opponents. It's not likely that the Republican voters in his district, whom he has served for 22 years, will summarily oust him (by giving a majority of their votes to Campbell, who would then face a Democrat in November), although some Houston political analysts wouldn't be surprised, since his favorability rating in his own backyard is now around 38 percent.
What bears watching, however - as a guide to the mood of the Republican rank and file - is whether DeLay wins in an underwhelming fashion. Under Texas rules, if DeLay wins renomination but draws less than 50 percent of the vote in the four-person race, he must face the number-two finisher in an April runoff. That distinct possibility, while politically embarrassing, would prove there is a fair bit of restiveness within the GOP electorate.
DeLay does have his loyalists, as I reported here, during a trip I took last year to his home base in Sugar Land (a place of malls and greenery where, as I noted, the only people seen on foot are golfers and landscapers). And ever since he was dumped as a House leader, he has been able to focus exclusively on bringing home the federal bacon for his district (so much for small-government conservatism). He has also swamped Campbell in the money-raising competition. Nobody in previous primaries against DeLay has ever scored higher than 20 percent.
Yet Richard Murray, a University of Houston political analyst whom I met last year, a canny reader of Texas politics, insists that "DeLay is in trouble. The primary is no sure thing." Meanwhile, Tom Campbell says, "This (primary) is the epicenter of a national debate on how we conduct the public's business." So let's see what the folks say on Tuesday.
But, as the studio execs like to say in Hollywood, about the slippery art of reading the public mind, "nobody knows anything." Until people actually start casting ballots, all we've got to work with are the vibes....which is why the Texas primary that takes place on Tuesday, in the 22nd congressional district, is potentially so important. Finally, we might get empirical evidence, in the form of actual votes.
I'm talking about Tom DeLay, the indicted congressman and fallen House leader, who is fighting for his political survival. We may soon learn whether real voters want to roast him on a spit.
He's on the Tuesday primary ballot in his district just south of Houston; he's pitted against lawyer and ex-federal official Tom Campbell, as well as two lesser opponents. It's not likely that the Republican voters in his district, whom he has served for 22 years, will summarily oust him (by giving a majority of their votes to Campbell, who would then face a Democrat in November), although some Houston political analysts wouldn't be surprised, since his favorability rating in his own backyard is now around 38 percent.
What bears watching, however - as a guide to the mood of the Republican rank and file - is whether DeLay wins in an underwhelming fashion. Under Texas rules, if DeLay wins renomination but draws less than 50 percent of the vote in the four-person race, he must face the number-two finisher in an April runoff. That distinct possibility, while politically embarrassing, would prove there is a fair bit of restiveness within the GOP electorate.
DeLay does have his loyalists, as I reported here, during a trip I took last year to his home base in Sugar Land (a place of malls and greenery where, as I noted, the only people seen on foot are golfers and landscapers). And ever since he was dumped as a House leader, he has been able to focus exclusively on bringing home the federal bacon for his district (so much for small-government conservatism). He has also swamped Campbell in the money-raising competition. Nobody in previous primaries against DeLay has ever scored higher than 20 percent.
Yet Richard Murray, a University of Houston political analyst whom I met last year, a canny reader of Texas politics, insists that "DeLay is in trouble. The primary is no sure thing." Meanwhile, Tom Campbell says, "This (primary) is the epicenter of a national debate on how we conduct the public's business." So let's see what the folks say on Tuesday.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Remember "Clinton fatigue"?
One of the great open secrets within the Democratic party is that many of the activist worker bees would love to see Bill and Hillary Clinton go away. I hear it all the time, abeit off the record: Bill put us through the mill with his sex scandal and made us the party of immorality; Bill and Hillary are all about themselves, at the expense of everyone else; if Hillary runs for president, with all her Bill-era baggage, Bill will inevitably upstage or undercut her in some fashion - not because he wants to, but because he's larger than life, he has too many connections in too many places, and besides, an alpha male simply can't help himself.
Sure enough, here we go again. At a time when Hillary, in her capacity as New York senator, is leading the charge against the Dubai port deal, Bill, in his capacity as far-flung private citizen, took a phone call not long ago from some old pals of his - the rulers in Dubai - and offered them some help in managing all the damage control over the port deal. That's not surprising, in a way, since Bill has given six-figure speeches in Dubai, and the rulers have given six figures to the Clinton presidential library.
Anyway, in a story broken first by the subscription-only Financial Times, Bill proposed to Dubai that they hire a veteran damage control expert, Washington strategist Joe Lockhart - the ex-Clinton White House press secretary. The proposed deal apparently reached Lockhart via another longtime Friend of Bill, ex-environmental protection agency head Carol Browner...who works with another Friend of Bill, ex-secretary of state Madeleine Albright..whose lobbying firm represents Dubai Ports World.
Lockhart turned the deal down. Maybe that decision was tied to the fact that he is a Friend of Hillary, a member of her farflung political network.
One report today says that Bill never told Hillary about his February phone conversation with Dubai. One can only imagine how the spouses sorted out this latest tiff; nobody has yet said whether Hillary wanted to "wring Bill's neck" (her self-confessed reaction during the Monica scandal). Publicly, of course, she says there's no problem: "The president, my husband, supports my position." And there was Paul Begala, another Friend of Bill/Hillary, on CNN yesterday, defending the First Couple just like in the old days. (Bring back the '90s! Team Clinton spin on the cable nets! Folky Jewel CDs! New spongeworthy Seinfeld episodes!) Said Begala: "She's going to put what she thinks is best for New York and the United States first, and whatever speeches that her husband gives comes second."
Exasperated Democrats - and bemused Republicans - recognize that, as Hillary charts her ascent, this kind of episode probably won't be the last.
Sure enough, here we go again. At a time when Hillary, in her capacity as New York senator, is leading the charge against the Dubai port deal, Bill, in his capacity as far-flung private citizen, took a phone call not long ago from some old pals of his - the rulers in Dubai - and offered them some help in managing all the damage control over the port deal. That's not surprising, in a way, since Bill has given six-figure speeches in Dubai, and the rulers have given six figures to the Clinton presidential library.
Anyway, in a story broken first by the subscription-only Financial Times, Bill proposed to Dubai that they hire a veteran damage control expert, Washington strategist Joe Lockhart - the ex-Clinton White House press secretary. The proposed deal apparently reached Lockhart via another longtime Friend of Bill, ex-environmental protection agency head Carol Browner...who works with another Friend of Bill, ex-secretary of state Madeleine Albright..whose lobbying firm represents Dubai Ports World.
Lockhart turned the deal down. Maybe that decision was tied to the fact that he is a Friend of Hillary, a member of her farflung political network.
One report today says that Bill never told Hillary about his February phone conversation with Dubai. One can only imagine how the spouses sorted out this latest tiff; nobody has yet said whether Hillary wanted to "wring Bill's neck" (her self-confessed reaction during the Monica scandal). Publicly, of course, she says there's no problem: "The president, my husband, supports my position." And there was Paul Begala, another Friend of Bill/Hillary, on CNN yesterday, defending the First Couple just like in the old days. (Bring back the '90s! Team Clinton spin on the cable nets! Folky Jewel CDs! New spongeworthy Seinfeld episodes!) Said Begala: "She's going to put what she thinks is best for New York and the United States first, and whatever speeches that her husband gives comes second."
Exasperated Democrats - and bemused Republicans - recognize that, as Hillary charts her ascent, this kind of episode probably won't be the last.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
"Heckuva job," the prequel
President Bush, four days after Katrina hit New Orleans: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
Scientist Max Mayfield of the National Hurricaine Center, speaking to President Bush during a briefing one day before Katrina hit New Orleans: A major breach of the levees, he warned, "is obviously a very, very grave concern."
But just in case your knowledge of the English language, and your basic auditory skills, might tempt you to think that the release of this video makes the president look bad (he didn't ask a single question during the session), a White House spokesman is here to help. From Trent Duffy: "I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing."
Actually, hang on a second, here's an even more helpful one, from a Department of Homeland Security flak: “There’s nothing new or insightful" on the video - or on any of the other Katrina videos that will not be released to the public.
Wait, hang on another second, this one is even better: The administration's diehard supporters, who have never met a Bush miscue that they cannot defend, have settled on a rebuttal theme. It can be found on the conservative powerlineblog (see link at right-side of this page). They note that Mayfield never uttered the word "breach," that in fact he was literally warning that the levees would be "topped" by the flooding waters. And because Mayfield only said "topped" as opposed to "breached," that somehow means that Bush didn't later mislead Americans when he said nobody anticipated a "breach."
But the Bush defenders are being a tad Clintonian, since they are basically splitting hairs over what the meaning of the word "breach" is. And the fact is, water engineering experts have long argued that one of the most common causes of "levee breach initiation" is "overtopping of the levee by high water levels and subsequent downward erosion." (Those quotes come from the engineers at Haestad.com.)
Keep trying, guys.
Scientist Max Mayfield of the National Hurricaine Center, speaking to President Bush during a briefing one day before Katrina hit New Orleans: A major breach of the levees, he warned, "is obviously a very, very grave concern."
But just in case your knowledge of the English language, and your basic auditory skills, might tempt you to think that the release of this video makes the president look bad (he didn't ask a single question during the session), a White House spokesman is here to help. From Trent Duffy: "I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing."
Actually, hang on a second, here's an even more helpful one, from a Department of Homeland Security flak: “There’s nothing new or insightful" on the video - or on any of the other Katrina videos that will not be released to the public.
Wait, hang on another second, this one is even better: The administration's diehard supporters, who have never met a Bush miscue that they cannot defend, have settled on a rebuttal theme. It can be found on the conservative powerlineblog (see link at right-side of this page). They note that Mayfield never uttered the word "breach," that in fact he was literally warning that the levees would be "topped" by the flooding waters. And because Mayfield only said "topped" as opposed to "breached," that somehow means that Bush didn't later mislead Americans when he said nobody anticipated a "breach."
But the Bush defenders are being a tad Clintonian, since they are basically splitting hairs over what the meaning of the word "breach" is. And the fact is, water engineering experts have long argued that one of the most common causes of "levee breach initiation" is "overtopping of the levee by high water levels and subsequent downward erosion." (Those quotes come from the engineers at Haestad.com.)
Keep trying, guys.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
The "threat" of a Hillary victory
With regards to the Hillary Clinton factor in '08 presidential politics (see my Feb. 23 post), it appears that there are four camps:
Those who like Hillary and think she can win.
Those who like Hillary but think she can't win.
Those who dislike Hillary and think she can't win.
Those who dislike Hillary but think she will win.
One noteworthy member of the latter camp is Dick Morris, the one-time Bill Clinton pollster who was forced to quit in the middle of the '96 campaign after being exposed as a prostitute's john. Morris used to be in the I-like-Hillary camp (see page 39 of his '97 memoir: "The more often people heard Hillary speaking out for her beliefs, the better they would like her...she is a sound, practical thinker"), but has since moved to the I-dislike camp in more recent books and in the column he writes for a Capitol Hill weekly. He can be quite obsessive about Hillary, calling her a faux moderate and riffing about her sexuality. No doubt his banishment from the Clinton inner circle had absolutely nothing to do with his conversion.
In any case, today he does offer an intriguing argument about why he thinks she'll win in '08 (a scenario which he nevertheless views as a threat to the republic), and, more significantly, his belief clashes with the predictions offered by President Bush and Karl Rove in "Strategery," the latest pro-Bush book hot off the conservative presses.
Those who like Hillary and think she can win.
Those who like Hillary but think she can't win.
Those who dislike Hillary and think she can't win.
Those who dislike Hillary but think she will win.
One noteworthy member of the latter camp is Dick Morris, the one-time Bill Clinton pollster who was forced to quit in the middle of the '96 campaign after being exposed as a prostitute's john. Morris used to be in the I-like-Hillary camp (see page 39 of his '97 memoir: "The more often people heard Hillary speaking out for her beliefs, the better they would like her...she is a sound, practical thinker"), but has since moved to the I-dislike camp in more recent books and in the column he writes for a Capitol Hill weekly. He can be quite obsessive about Hillary, calling her a faux moderate and riffing about her sexuality. No doubt his banishment from the Clinton inner circle had absolutely nothing to do with his conversion.
In any case, today he does offer an intriguing argument about why he thinks she'll win in '08 (a scenario which he nevertheless views as a threat to the republic), and, more significantly, his belief clashes with the predictions offered by President Bush and Karl Rove in "Strategery," the latest pro-Bush book hot off the conservative presses.
"Solid granite"
A guy can get weary talking so much about the "Bush bubble," but how can one ignore the topic when the president keeps supplying fresh evidence of its existence? Witness his interview yesterday on ABC News. He was asked at one point about a statement that he made right after his 2004 re-election ("I have political capital, and I intend to spend it"). That prompted the question, Does he think he still has political capital, given the fact that the national polls show him to be more unpopular than ever before?
His answer: "I've got ample capital, and I'm using it to spread freedom...If I worried about polls, I would be -- I wouldn't be doing my job."
Let's unpack that one. By any objective measure, he does not have "ample capital" anymore, because his own Republican allies on Capitol Hill are in open revolt - defying his stance on the Dubai ports deal, and insisting that his domestic spying program be subject to congressional oversight, among other things. As one House staffer told the conservative Washington Times, in today's paper, "No longer will Republicans simply fall into line on major issues when they disagree with the president." In fact, they have already derailed a key facet of Bush's second-term agenda - the Social Security privatization plan, which he kept stumping for long after it was politically dead - because they were afraid of running on that issue in the 2006 congressional election. And currently they are girding for a fight with Bush over illegal immigration, which they (and many of their voters) see as a critical national security problem that Bush has refused to address.
The point is, even if Bush isn't "worried about the polls," his Republican allies are. They can't help noticing that Bush in the polls is heading toward Richard Nixon territory (or Bill Clinton territory, circa 1994). That affects how they do their job. And that has to affect how Bush does his job, even though his statement above doesn't seem to take into account congressional sensitivities.
As for the other part of his remark, that he is "spreading freedom," one need only note the grim developments these days in Iraq - as well as in Washington, where the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency testified yesterday that, contrary to Bush's claim again yesterday that "we're making progress," the anti-American insurgency actually "remains strong and resilient."
No wonder Conrad Burns, a Republican senator facing a tough re-election fight, told an audience on Monday that Bush is a stubborn guy, that his head is "solid granite."
Yesterday, Burns' PR guy rushed forward to say that Burns was just joking.
His answer: "I've got ample capital, and I'm using it to spread freedom...If I worried about polls, I would be -- I wouldn't be doing my job."
Let's unpack that one. By any objective measure, he does not have "ample capital" anymore, because his own Republican allies on Capitol Hill are in open revolt - defying his stance on the Dubai ports deal, and insisting that his domestic spying program be subject to congressional oversight, among other things. As one House staffer told the conservative Washington Times, in today's paper, "No longer will Republicans simply fall into line on major issues when they disagree with the president." In fact, they have already derailed a key facet of Bush's second-term agenda - the Social Security privatization plan, which he kept stumping for long after it was politically dead - because they were afraid of running on that issue in the 2006 congressional election. And currently they are girding for a fight with Bush over illegal immigration, which they (and many of their voters) see as a critical national security problem that Bush has refused to address.
The point is, even if Bush isn't "worried about the polls," his Republican allies are. They can't help noticing that Bush in the polls is heading toward Richard Nixon territory (or Bill Clinton territory, circa 1994). That affects how they do their job. And that has to affect how Bush does his job, even though his statement above doesn't seem to take into account congressional sensitivities.
As for the other part of his remark, that he is "spreading freedom," one need only note the grim developments these days in Iraq - as well as in Washington, where the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency testified yesterday that, contrary to Bush's claim again yesterday that "we're making progress," the anti-American insurgency actually "remains strong and resilient."
No wonder Conrad Burns, a Republican senator facing a tough re-election fight, told an audience on Monday that Bush is a stubborn guy, that his head is "solid granite."
Yesterday, Burns' PR guy rushed forward to say that Burns was just joking.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
"Mission Accomplished" update
Amidst reports today that insurgents have triggered another round of sectarian violence in Iraq and raised anew the specter of civil war (this insurgency was supposed to be in its "last throes," as Vice President Cheney contended last spring), the big question on the table is whether the deadly realities on the ground will impede the administration's desire to begin limited U.S. troop withdrawals in 2006. That very question was put to national security advisor Stephen Hadley on Sunday, and his response was, "we'll have to see, we'll have to see," because perhaps the violence will "incentivize" Iraqi security forces to more speedly stand up for themselves. The troop withdrawal question was also put to President Bush today, as he sat at the White House with the prime minister of Italy. Here is Bush's full response. Don't knock yourself out looking for even a phrase that addresses the question:
"The United States strongly condemns the bombing of holy sites. We believe people should be allowed to worship freely. Obviously, there are some who are trying to sow the seeds of sectarian violence. They destroy in order to create chaos. And now the people of Iraq and their leaders must make a choice. The choice is chaos or unity. The choice is a free society, or a society dictated by the -- by evil people who will kill innocents. This weekend I spoke to seven of the Iraqi leaders. They understood the seriousness of the moment. They have made their choice, which is to work toward a unity government. The Iraqi people made their choice. Since last December, 11 million people, in defiance of the terrorists and the killers, went to the polls and said, we want to be free."
It is common, of course, for presidents to dodge questions, and at times it might even be prudent; however, at a time when Americans appear increasingly desperate for answers - the new CBS poll says that only 30 percent support Bush's handling of Iraq - the risks of non-responsiveness are bound to increase. Especially when he's sitting there with the Italian prime minister, who is in the process of withdrawing his own troops from Iraq.
And now comes new evidence today - from the U.S. inspector general for Iraq reconstruction - that the Bush administration is to blame for much of the current mess in Iraq. There was "insufficient systematic planning" for the rebuilding of postwar Iraq, according to the inspector general. And according to this report today in the conservative press, even "the Pentagon's initial plans for reconstruction crumbled when it encountered an unexpected foreign and domestic insurgency..." The key word in that sentence is "unexpected."
"The United States strongly condemns the bombing of holy sites. We believe people should be allowed to worship freely. Obviously, there are some who are trying to sow the seeds of sectarian violence. They destroy in order to create chaos. And now the people of Iraq and their leaders must make a choice. The choice is chaos or unity. The choice is a free society, or a society dictated by the -- by evil people who will kill innocents. This weekend I spoke to seven of the Iraqi leaders. They understood the seriousness of the moment. They have made their choice, which is to work toward a unity government. The Iraqi people made their choice. Since last December, 11 million people, in defiance of the terrorists and the killers, went to the polls and said, we want to be free."
It is common, of course, for presidents to dodge questions, and at times it might even be prudent; however, at a time when Americans appear increasingly desperate for answers - the new CBS poll says that only 30 percent support Bush's handling of Iraq - the risks of non-responsiveness are bound to increase. Especially when he's sitting there with the Italian prime minister, who is in the process of withdrawing his own troops from Iraq.
And now comes new evidence today - from the U.S. inspector general for Iraq reconstruction - that the Bush administration is to blame for much of the current mess in Iraq. There was "insufficient systematic planning" for the rebuilding of postwar Iraq, according to the inspector general. And according to this report today in the conservative press, even "the Pentagon's initial plans for reconstruction crumbled when it encountered an unexpected foreign and domestic insurgency..." The key word in that sentence is "unexpected."
The politics of abortion, Chapter 10,000
I like South Dakota. I spent a week out there a few years ago, working on a story, and the people were nice, the undulating prairie was bewitching in the spirit of "Lonesome Dove," and the airport outside the state capital was the size of a bus station circa 1959. An easterner can be tricked into thinking that not much happens in such a place. But now, from the hinterlands, comes a potentially big national story.
Thanks to the actions of 50 legislators in a state with 750,000 people, abortion could well become a first-tier national political issue over the next few years. With South Dakota now poised to ban all abortions except those required to save a woman's life - the bill enacted last week needs only the Republican governor's signature, which is expected soon - we can expect a long countdown until the inevitable court case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, everybody in the increasingly fragile Republican coalition will be put on the spot...especially those GOPers who want to run for president.
Remember, the party's conservative grassroots wants all abortions banned, and the first major step toward that goal would be a high court renunciation of Roe v. Wade. The Republican party platform essentially echoes those desires. The South Dakota bill has been designed as a direct challenge to Roe. So, the big question will hang out there for awhile: Do the Republican presidential candidates favor or oppose the South Dakota bill? The conservative base has a new litmus test on abortion.
The early returns are already revealing. John McCain suggested on ABC two days ago that he thought the bill was too restrictive. He hedged a little, saying that he was unfamiliar with South Dakota's "technical" aspects, but he did say that he has always supported abortions in cases of rape, incest, and the imperiled life of the mother (actually, he said the "health" of the mother, but a McCain flak later said that he meant "life").
So, if he was governor of South Dakota, would he veto that bill? He replied, "If that (bill) is in keeping with (his position), yes, but I don't know..."
Wow, did the Straight Talk Express blow a tire? A flat-out endorsement of the South Dakota ban would please many of the social conservatives whom McCain has been assiduously trying to woo -- but it could tick off a lot of the moderates and swing voters who still seem to view McCain as an independent maverick.
Anyway, another '08 hopeful, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, is all for the South Dakota ban. But yet another, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (the star of my Monday post) is said by a spokesman to be undecided about the ban.
Let the squirming begin.
Thanks to the actions of 50 legislators in a state with 750,000 people, abortion could well become a first-tier national political issue over the next few years. With South Dakota now poised to ban all abortions except those required to save a woman's life - the bill enacted last week needs only the Republican governor's signature, which is expected soon - we can expect a long countdown until the inevitable court case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, everybody in the increasingly fragile Republican coalition will be put on the spot...especially those GOPers who want to run for president.
Remember, the party's conservative grassroots wants all abortions banned, and the first major step toward that goal would be a high court renunciation of Roe v. Wade. The Republican party platform essentially echoes those desires. The South Dakota bill has been designed as a direct challenge to Roe. So, the big question will hang out there for awhile: Do the Republican presidential candidates favor or oppose the South Dakota bill? The conservative base has a new litmus test on abortion.
The early returns are already revealing. John McCain suggested on ABC two days ago that he thought the bill was too restrictive. He hedged a little, saying that he was unfamiliar with South Dakota's "technical" aspects, but he did say that he has always supported abortions in cases of rape, incest, and the imperiled life of the mother (actually, he said the "health" of the mother, but a McCain flak later said that he meant "life").
So, if he was governor of South Dakota, would he veto that bill? He replied, "If that (bill) is in keeping with (his position), yes, but I don't know..."
Wow, did the Straight Talk Express blow a tire? A flat-out endorsement of the South Dakota ban would please many of the social conservatives whom McCain has been assiduously trying to woo -- but it could tick off a lot of the moderates and swing voters who still seem to view McCain as an independent maverick.
Anyway, another '08 hopeful, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, is all for the South Dakota ban. But yet another, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (the star of my Monday post) is said by a spokesman to be undecided about the ban.
Let the squirming begin.
Monday, February 27, 2006
The Mormon factor
I wrote today at length about President Bush and the White House bubble syndrome, here.
But let's look ahead this morning to the post-Bush Republican presidential race of 2008. A very interesting dynamic is developing, with respect to the prospective candidacy of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. He is a Mormon, and that could be a problem for a lot of the evangelican Christian conservatives who vote heavily in the early primaries (especially make-or-break South Carolina). This issue came up yesterday when Romney was interviewed on Fox News, and he may not have said enough to defuse it.
Romney could be an important player, first of all. The GOP polls right now favor the better-known John McCain (who is not quite trusted by religious right), Condoleezza Rice (who says she's not running), and Rudy Guiliani (who probably doesn't have a chance because he supports gay rights and abortion rights). Romney is lesser known, but he is a governor (voters like governors, because they have executive experience), he's telegenic, and he's rich enough to keep a primary season candidacy alive. He can also present himself as a guy with crossover appeal to moderates and independents, because he has won in arguably America's bluest state.
But he is a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and it's a fact that a lot of evangelical Christians - and particularly southern Baptists in the GOP's strongest region - view Mormonism as a cult that follows extra-biblical works of scripture. So Romney might find his religion to be the greatest challenge for any candidate since John F. Kennedy had to defend his Catholicism in 1960.
This all came up yesterday when Romney was interviewed by Fox's Chris Wallace. Romney at first recited his standard answer, which is that "people in this country want a person of faith to lead them," regardless of "what brand of faith" the leader has. But when Wallace noted the evangelicals' big concern - that Mormons "believe in books of scripture that are outside the Bible" - and asked whether Romney followed those tenets, Romney stonewalled:
"You know, I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs and about particular doctrines of my church," because what matters most is the oath of office to "abide by a nation of laws and the Constitution."
Wallace dropped the subject after that. What he could have done, however, was to point out that, in the Bush era, Republican candidates have been openly parading their religiosity; it was Bush, after all, who told an Iowa audience that his greatest hero was Jesus. Wallace could then have asked how Romney expects to successfully navigate the Republican primary season by claiming that the details of his religious faith are essentially nobody's business.
I'll also make a prediction, based on my own belief that popular culture influences our politics and vice versa: A new HBO series, "Big Love," which debuts on March 12 right after "The Sopranos," won't do Romney any favors, fairly or not. The series is about a Mormon fundamentalist sect that practices polygamy; the lead character has three frisky wives. HBO is high on the series, and thinks it will be around for a few years. Wait until the grassroots evangelical conservatives get wind of that.
But let's look ahead this morning to the post-Bush Republican presidential race of 2008. A very interesting dynamic is developing, with respect to the prospective candidacy of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. He is a Mormon, and that could be a problem for a lot of the evangelican Christian conservatives who vote heavily in the early primaries (especially make-or-break South Carolina). This issue came up yesterday when Romney was interviewed on Fox News, and he may not have said enough to defuse it.
Romney could be an important player, first of all. The GOP polls right now favor the better-known John McCain (who is not quite trusted by religious right), Condoleezza Rice (who says she's not running), and Rudy Guiliani (who probably doesn't have a chance because he supports gay rights and abortion rights). Romney is lesser known, but he is a governor (voters like governors, because they have executive experience), he's telegenic, and he's rich enough to keep a primary season candidacy alive. He can also present himself as a guy with crossover appeal to moderates and independents, because he has won in arguably America's bluest state.
But he is a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and it's a fact that a lot of evangelical Christians - and particularly southern Baptists in the GOP's strongest region - view Mormonism as a cult that follows extra-biblical works of scripture. So Romney might find his religion to be the greatest challenge for any candidate since John F. Kennedy had to defend his Catholicism in 1960.
This all came up yesterday when Romney was interviewed by Fox's Chris Wallace. Romney at first recited his standard answer, which is that "people in this country want a person of faith to lead them," regardless of "what brand of faith" the leader has. But when Wallace noted the evangelicals' big concern - that Mormons "believe in books of scripture that are outside the Bible" - and asked whether Romney followed those tenets, Romney stonewalled:
"You know, I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs and about particular doctrines of my church," because what matters most is the oath of office to "abide by a nation of laws and the Constitution."
Wallace dropped the subject after that. What he could have done, however, was to point out that, in the Bush era, Republican candidates have been openly parading their religiosity; it was Bush, after all, who told an Iowa audience that his greatest hero was Jesus. Wallace could then have asked how Romney expects to successfully navigate the Republican primary season by claiming that the details of his religious faith are essentially nobody's business.
I'll also make a prediction, based on my own belief that popular culture influences our politics and vice versa: A new HBO series, "Big Love," which debuts on March 12 right after "The Sopranos," won't do Romney any favors, fairly or not. The series is about a Mormon fundamentalist sect that practices polygamy; the lead character has three frisky wives. HBO is high on the series, and thinks it will be around for a few years. Wait until the grassroots evangelical conservatives get wind of that.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Hell freezes over
That inconceivable phenomenon has occurred twice this weekend:
A new Rasmussen poll asks Americans the question, Who do you trust more to protect national security - President Bush or congressional Democrats? The results are in: 41 percent say Bush, 43 per cent say congressional Democrats. I know, those numbers look like some kind of optical illusion, and there is only one explanation: a visceral backlash against the administration for approving the deal that puts those six U.S. ports under the management of a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. This is not a guess on my part; the same Rasmussen poll finds that only 17 percent of Americans like the deal.
Yes, this is only one poll. But Tom Bevan, a frequently Bush-friendly commentator, sees trouble ahead for Bush, as he explains here.
It may well be true that the public backlash is somewhat irrational, given the fact that UAE is an ally in the war on terror (despite having recognized the Taliban, and despite its current official position advocating the destruction of Israel). Even Richard Clarke, the ex-national security aide who in his book hammered the Bush team for allegedly poor pre-9/11 preparedness, thinks that Bush is right on the merits of the UAE deal, as Time columnist Joe Klein reports today.
But, at the very least, the White House, its political antennae seemingly on the fritz, has been demonstrably slow in making its case -- conservative commentator William Kristol said on Fox News today, "One has the sense sometimes that the Bush administration is just mailing it in" -- and, more generally, it now appears that Bush is being hoisted on his own petard. He and Karl Rove for years have been invoking 9/11 at every turn; now comes a port deal with a country whose banking system was a key conduit for the 9/11 terrorists.
This explains those Rasmussen numbers. Congressional Democrats being trusted more than Bush on national security? That's certainly not because of anything bold that the Democrats have done (the words "bold" and "Democrats" often don't belong in the same sentence). The Rasmussen numbers are strictly a thumbs-down verdict on Bush -- on his signature issue no less -- and that could spill over onto his congressional allies as they seek re-election this year.
And that's just the first weekend shocker. The second involves conservative analyst Fred Barnes, author of the new laudatory Bush book "Rebel in Chief," which might as well have been written by Rove himself. But now Barnes has written a piece that actually rebukes the White House for being "tardy" on its handling of the ports deal, for "not seeing political trouble on the horizon." His conclusion: "Bush's strength in Congress has significantly eroded...His Republican base is no longer secure." Barnes might need to write a new closing chapter when his book goes into paperback.
I have written a long newspaper piece exploring the question of whether, or to what extent, the president has become too isolated and out of touch - a common occupational hazard, he wouldn't be the first - with helpful input from Republicans and historians. Here's an advance peek (but it's only a partial version) that moved on the Knight Ridder wire today.
A new Rasmussen poll asks Americans the question, Who do you trust more to protect national security - President Bush or congressional Democrats? The results are in: 41 percent say Bush, 43 per cent say congressional Democrats. I know, those numbers look like some kind of optical illusion, and there is only one explanation: a visceral backlash against the administration for approving the deal that puts those six U.S. ports under the management of a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. This is not a guess on my part; the same Rasmussen poll finds that only 17 percent of Americans like the deal.
Yes, this is only one poll. But Tom Bevan, a frequently Bush-friendly commentator, sees trouble ahead for Bush, as he explains here.
It may well be true that the public backlash is somewhat irrational, given the fact that UAE is an ally in the war on terror (despite having recognized the Taliban, and despite its current official position advocating the destruction of Israel). Even Richard Clarke, the ex-national security aide who in his book hammered the Bush team for allegedly poor pre-9/11 preparedness, thinks that Bush is right on the merits of the UAE deal, as Time columnist Joe Klein reports today.
But, at the very least, the White House, its political antennae seemingly on the fritz, has been demonstrably slow in making its case -- conservative commentator William Kristol said on Fox News today, "One has the sense sometimes that the Bush administration is just mailing it in" -- and, more generally, it now appears that Bush is being hoisted on his own petard. He and Karl Rove for years have been invoking 9/11 at every turn; now comes a port deal with a country whose banking system was a key conduit for the 9/11 terrorists.
This explains those Rasmussen numbers. Congressional Democrats being trusted more than Bush on national security? That's certainly not because of anything bold that the Democrats have done (the words "bold" and "Democrats" often don't belong in the same sentence). The Rasmussen numbers are strictly a thumbs-down verdict on Bush -- on his signature issue no less -- and that could spill over onto his congressional allies as they seek re-election this year.
And that's just the first weekend shocker. The second involves conservative analyst Fred Barnes, author of the new laudatory Bush book "Rebel in Chief," which might as well have been written by Rove himself. But now Barnes has written a piece that actually rebukes the White House for being "tardy" on its handling of the ports deal, for "not seeing political trouble on the horizon." His conclusion: "Bush's strength in Congress has significantly eroded...His Republican base is no longer secure." Barnes might need to write a new closing chapter when his book goes into paperback.
I have written a long newspaper piece exploring the question of whether, or to what extent, the president has become too isolated and out of touch - a common occupational hazard, he wouldn't be the first - with helpful input from Republicans and historians. Here's an advance peek (but it's only a partial version) that moved on the Knight Ridder wire today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
