Discourse.net

Jon Stewart on Fox

“How is Barack Obama a socialist? As far as I can see, the majority of the billions of dollars he's given, he's given to banks. So if he's a socialist, he's dyslexic.”

—Jon Stewart during his Fox Bill O'Reilly appearance.

How's Obama Doing, A Debate

Even before yesterday's election in Massachusetts, progressives have been split between those who see the Obama administration as a pretty good thing, doing the best one could hope for in difficult circumstances, and those who think they are either political cowards or what would be genuine liberal Republicans if we had such a thing.

On a mailing list I belong to, Nathan Newman posted a strong defense of the Obama record. I think it misses the point. With his kind permission, I'm posting first his text, then a second version interspersed with my responses. (For fairness, I wanted to give readers the full flavor of his argument before I responded to it.)

Here's the bulk of Newman's original posting, responding to the suggestion that Obama had failed to deliver for his electors:

• Obama passed the largest social spending bill in history in the form of the recovery plan last year, directing $300 billion into health care and education spending, along with tens of billions of dollars into food stamps, housing aid, unemployment insurance, and child care.
• Billions were directed into mass transit, weatherization and other conservation programs through the same bill.
• Millions of children have health care because of the SCHIP bill that was also passed.
• CAFÉ standards were raised for the first time in decades—with a 35mpg standard adopted
• Lily Leadbetter and Equal Pay laws passed to fight pay discrimination
• Pro-labor executive orders promoted project labor agreements and helped unionized contract workers
• 2 million acres of land were protected against oil and gas drilling
• Strengthened state authority and restricting federal preemption to protect state consumer, environmental and labor laws
• Reversed Bush ban on stem cell research and on funding overseas family planning clinics

This is just a summary but these are solid achievements, less than what some might want but hardly “fucking us over.” The reality is that this is the first recession ever where we have provided health care insurance for the unemployed, where unemployment insurance was expanded to cover a higher percentage of the unemployed, and other aid to them was expanded in such a significant way. Notably, in December the NY Times found that 61% of the unemployed approved Obama’s handling of his job, quite a bit higher than the general population. But then, the unemployed are seeing first hand the help they’re getting due to Obama’s actions.

People are free to want more but we saw nothing like this during Clinton’s or Carter’s Presidency—and the Great Society was delivered in the middle of an economic boom. So you basically have to go back to FDR to find this level of social and economic legislation enacted in the middle of a recession.

Yes, Obama hasn’t delivered FDR-level political accomplishments, at least not yet. But that hardly justifies the animosity some people seem to have adopted.

• Obama passed the largest social spending bill in history in the form of the recovery plan last year, directing $300 billion into health care and education spending, along with tens of billions of dollars into food stamps, housing aid, unemployment insurance, and child care.

It was too small. 1 out of 5 men are unemployed. And we knew it was too small when he proposed it. It was pre-compromised: he didn't fight for more.

•Billions were directed into mass transit, weatherization and other conservation programs through the same bill.

Very little has trickled down yet. And by the way, that's approximately equal to the cost of one year of Bush's tax cuts for the richest 5% — which have not been repealed.

•Millions of children have health care because of the SCHIP bill that was also passed.

A win. But not one the middle class notices.

•CAFÉ standards were raised for the first time in decades—with a 35mpg standard adopted

When does that take effect? 2020? Yawn.

•Lily Leadbetter and Equal Pay laws passed to fight pay discrimination

Back to the status quo ante (before Supreme Court). An important (and relatively uncontroversial) change – because this had been the rule previously.

•Pro-labor executive orders promoted project labor agreements and helped unionized contract workers

How many workers have actually gotten jobs from this? Not many.

•2 million acres of land were protected against oil and gas drilling

•Strengthened state authority and restricting federal preemption to protect state consumer, environmental and labor laws

Way below the radar.

•Reversed Bush ban on stem cell research and on funding overseas family planning clinics

Payoffs are either abroad, or far in the future.

This is just a summary but these are solid achievements, less than what some might want but hardly “fucking us over.”

Almost nothing there for the middle class. Very little for the poor except SCHIP

The reality is that this is the first recession ever where we have provided health care insurance for the unemployed, where unemployment insurance was expanded to cover a higher percentage of the unemployed, and other aid to them was expanded in such a significant way. Notably, in December the NY Times found that 61% of the unemployed approved Obama’s handling of his job, quite a bit higher than the general population. But then, the unemployed are seeing first hand the help they’re getting due to Obama’s actions.

Much better than nothing — but jobs would be much better. Where's that big new public works infrastructure push to fix bridges? Nowhere visible. Do you see any signs anywhere in your neighborhood about a federal works project? I sure don't see any here.

People are free to want more but we saw nothing like this during Clinton’s or Carter’s Presidency—and the Great Society was delivered in the middle of an economic boom. So you basically have to go back to FDR to find this level of social and economic legislation enacted in the middle of a recession.

The PROBLEM is that it's nowhere on the scale of what FDR did (modulo bailouts) — and yet that is what the times require. We need FDR. We have … Nelson Rockefeller?

Yes, Obama hasn’t delivered FDR-level political accomplishments, at least not yet. But that hardly justifies the animosity some people seem to have adopted.

It's not simply the failure to deliver. It's the failure to show any DESIRE to deliver them. For someone who was such a great campaign speaker to fail to make the public case, repeatedly, for the big programs — not the crippled stimulus, with all the tax breaks, or the health care plan that contracted HillaryCare disease — failing to have a simple progressive (or populist) narrative that people could rally behind.

Without that big, public, bet-your-Presidency commitment, it all looks pretty half-hearted at best, Republican Lite at worst.

Harsh But Fair?

Glenn Greenwald labels Sen. Evan Bayh as The face of rotted Washington.

And not without reason.

Coming Soon to a Country Near You?

The Ultimate Horror flic.

(From SNL)

There's a lot that rings true in the broad-brush parts Matt Tabbi's latest screed although I take exception to the most vicious bits, like the line about Palin “having the brains of an innertube.”

No, Palin is stupid like Ronald Reagan was stupid. Which certainly makes her smart enough to be dangerous.

DSCC Pokes at GOP Senate Obstructionism

Via SFDB, The GOP Plan, an unusually tough video from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

I thought this one was unusually good, although (or perhaps because?) it seems a lot like an ad for some new second-rate sitcom.

Most Terrifying Obama Pix Ever

Via Open Left, some truly terrifying photos of President Obama:

Turnabout is Fair Play

President Obama did Letterman; now Limbaugh is going on Leno.

Seems fair: Letterman gets the head of the Democratic Party, Leno gets the head of the Republican party.

Taylor Branch Has the Clinton Tapes

Who would have guessed that Taylor Branch —Taylor Branch — had umpteen hours of secret tapes of Bill Clinton during his Presidency chewing over his plans and setbacks. History narrated as it happens by a master (but exhausted) talker. And now it's going to be a big book: The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President.

It seems that Branch — an amazing historian and writing — had been friends with Clinton in their salad days, but they had drifted apart. Then Clinton pulled him back into the orbit, in the hopes he would become the court historian. And from the sounds of it, the President got both more and less than he wanted.

Unarmed, This Time

The ultra-rightist mob had a demonstration in DC this weekend. Although organizers predicted a huge turnout, and some partisans claimed over a million, reports are that there was in fact something in the mid-five figures. So it wasn't a big crowd by DC standards — maybe 30-50% the size of the anti-war rally in 2005 that got almost no media coverage.

This rally, though, got front-page treatment. In addition to having a cable network as a sponsor, this group of protesters had two other advantages: they're overwhelmingly white, and they're scary. Anti-war protesters of this decade have worked within the system, and mostly it has ignored them. (Contrast to the anti-globalism protesters, who have had a violent fringe, and have enjoyed violent police preemption and reaction.) The teabaggers act in a way that makes you think shouting at meetings is only the start.

(Source: Josh Nelson)

Imagine if anti-Iraq-war protesters had carried signs with such a whiff of violence? The media would have crucified them as the second coming of the SLA, Baader-Meinhof, and the Weathermen. But these guys? Salt of the earth, of course.

Making the Rounds

This email is making the rounds. Original source unknown (to me anyway):

this morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right

Bingo.

Update: Kevin Drum reminds us that for really infuriating customer service you have to be a budget-minded consumer dealing with a large faceless profit-minded corporation.

Class Act

This was a classy move by the President — Obama visits White House press room on birthday:

On the day he turned 48, President Barack Obama decided to splash a little celebration on someone with whom he shares the birthday: legendary White House correspondent Helen Thomas, now a columnist with Hearst Newspapers. She turned 89 on Tuesday.

Helen Thomas is not, based on my one short conversation with her, a deep thinker. But for two generations she has had her eye on the essentials and remains as tenacious as any of the best reporters of yore. And she calls them as she sees them — no fakery.

The Telling Link Tags

Slashdot reports on Computerized Election Results With No Election:

“In Honduras, according to breaking Catalan newspaper reports (translations available, USA Today mention), authorities have seized 45 computers containing certified election results for a constitutional election that never happened. The election had been scheduled for June 28, but on that day the president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted. The 'certified' and detailed electronic records of the non-existent election show Zelaya's side having won overwhelmingly.”

Which is indeed interesting.

And one of the tags the editors put on the story is …. “Florida2000”.

Sing Along With the Wingnuts

This video Auto-Tune the News uses great technical trickery to take a TV feed and turn the speakers into singing self-parodies. The content feels a little heavy-handed, even if most of the targets are deserving, but I'm wowed by the make-'em-sing technique.

Spotted via Jazz From Hell who says,

Right after I first posted about them, The Gregory Brothers are back with “Auto-Tune the News” No. 6, featuring my favorite insane elected official, Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN). And here's a recent interview with Michael Gregory of this very inventive and destined-to-be-legendary band of brothers.

Textbook Takedown

Statistical Proof that You Hate Freedom: Daily Kos has a textbook takedown of a hack study purporting to show a correlation between the lack of freedom in a US state (measured, it turns out, according to a somewhat peculiar metric) and the propensity to vote for Democrats.

Emily's List Phone Fundraising Could Be Better

I think Emily's List is a perfectly fine organization, although I don't think their behavior in Florida's 18th district in the last cycle was anything to brag about — they were very very slow about endorsing Taddeo.

So I'm not about to give them money.

I was polite about that when they called a few days ago, we were in the middle of something, and I said I was busy.

They called back today. I had more time today, so I asked to be put on the 'do not call' list, this being the second call in a few days. The guy (!) on the phone denied they'd ever called me before.

I can't say they lost my dime, as I wasn't going to give anyway, but really.

Bipartisan Group of Miami Legal Luminaries Endorse Koh

A powerhouse list of the local bar, including major Cuban-American luminaries, have written an open Bipartisan Letter from Miami attorneys in support of Dean Koh's nomination as Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State.

Kudos to Roberto Martinez (US Attorney, SDFL 1992-93), Robert Josefsberg (President and Dean, International Academy of Trial Lawyers, 1998-2001; Counsel to Florida Governor Robert Graham, 1979- 1980), Marcos Jimenez (US Attorney, SDFL 2002-05), Cesar Alvarez (Greenberg Traurig, CEO), Frank Jimenez (U.S. Navy, General Counsel, 2006-present; U.S. Department of Defense, Deputy General Counsel, 2005-06; HUD, Chief of Staft 2002-04; Governor Jeb Bush, Acting General Counsel, 2000), Jacqueline Becerra (DOJ 1994-2004), Rene Murai (President, Cuban-American Bar Association, 1985-1986) and Francisco Angones (President of The Florida Bar, 2007-08, President, Cuban-American Bar Association, 1982-1983).

Earlier post: Of Koh, Johnsen … and Bork.

Jon Stewart Tackles Obama Derangement Syndrome

This other riff, making fun of Obama's trip, is pretty wonderful too:

After something of a fallow period, Stewart seems back in full form.

Of Koh, Johnsen ... and Bork

Astonishingly, a group of Republican Senators is threatening to filibuster the nominations of Dean Harold Koh (for Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State) and Dawn Johnsen (for head of OLC). There appear to be two threads to this campaign. The overt thread is simply based on lies and the occasional irrelevancy. The covert campaign, if reports can be believed, is based on something even more disgusting.

The campaign against Koh is based on the scurrilous allegation that he supports the application of Sharia law in the US. The source for this is the New York Post's reporting of what someone seems to have misheard or misremembered from an alumni event a few years ago. It's bunk. But don't take my word for it, or that of his long-time colleagues, turn instead to well-known lefty Theodore Olson and to Tom Smith, of the Right Coast, who blogs Right wing nuts should not be nuts about Koh.

I do not believe that Professor Koh said let's enforce sharia in the US at some alumni gathering. Possibly some Yale Law Alum thought that was what he said. One of the things I like about having gone to a wealthy law school is that open bars are frequently present at alumni gatherings. But seriously, you don't get to be the dean of Yale Law School by saying stupid things, or at least not that sort of stupid thing.

… Speaking just for myself then, I will say that the right wing critics of Koh are doing an excellent job appearing to be nearly totally ignorant of the relevant areas of law and look like know-nothing attack puppies of anything liberal. As is their right, I suppose. Everyone has to make their own way down the right wing nut career path I suppose. But just maybe they should consider talking to some real conservative international law experts (of which I am not one, but there are some out there) before they shoot off their mouths. Just a thought.

More from Tom in a minute. But first, the Dawn Johnsen case. The ostensible case against Dawn is that she has misrepresented a position she took in litigation relating to abortion law. The charge is wholly false, as detailed in an open letter to Senator Specter from Andrew Koppelman which begins,

It has come to my attention that a footnote in my article, Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion, 84 Northwestern U. L. Rev. 480 (1990), has been cited for the proposition that the brief that Dawn Johnsen wrote in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services claims that the Thirteenth Amendment guarantees a woman’s right to abortion. The Webster brief to which my article referred, however, was not the brief submitted by Dawn Johnsen but was an entirely different brief.

Another idea bruited about is that Prof. Johnson isn't up to the job somehow — even though she held the job in an acting capacity for some time in the Clinton administration.

So much for the overt cases. Stupid politics of destruction only somewhat worse and stupider than usual.

The alleged covert manoeuvrings, on the other hand, are much worse. Scott Horton reports,

Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public. The source says these threats are the principal reason for the Obama administration’s abrupt pullback last week from a commitment to release some of the documents. A Republican Senate source confirms the strategy. It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward.

After being one of the first people online to dissect the first torture memos to be released, I've mostly stopped posting about the newer torture memos because so many others were doing it so well. But it bears repeating that there is no excuse for these memos to be kept secret (there might be a case for the occasional redaction, it's impossible to say in the abstract). It's not proved, but holding nominations hostage in order to either keep a cover up in place, or to protect the guilty from whatever consequences may be due for alleged war crimes, would be — if true — a sign of a the ultimate moral collapse on the part of the Senate GOP.

Even if the torture angle turns out to be a red herring, there's still some ugly politics going on here — in part to block Koh and Johnsen from any future court appointments, in part as the rollout of a general campaign of obstruction on all court appointees who don't belong to all-male country clubs or contribute to the Republican party.

The excuse commonly trotted out by saner and more moral Republicans for obstructionist behavior of the overt sort described is that it's simply payback for what they believe was done (unfairly) to Judge Bork (and sometimes Justice Thomas gets mentioned too). There's some of this in Tom Smith posting noted above. The claim is that somehow Judge Bork was subjected to a 'politics of destruction' and that changed the terms of the debate.

There are two major problems with this assertion. The first is that while the overt case against Koh and Johnsen is based on lies, the gravamen of the case against Judge Bork was based on his actual views: he didn't believe there is a right to privacy in the Constitution; this wasn't just about abortion, but also about cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (striking down a ban on condom sales, even to married people). That was a legitimate inquiry, and a perfectly sound reason to turn down his nomination. The howls of rage it produced on the right were because, but for their reframing, the Bork case would have stood for the proposition that right-wing extremists are not welcome on the Supreme Court. In the event we ended up with four of them.

The second major problem with the “Koh is payback for Bork” thesis is that the cases are not parallel. There's much more scope for considering a nominee's views who is up for a judgeship than there is for an executive branch job. Judges have life tenure. Supreme Court Justices have independent power. The people in the executive branch work for the President. (Independent agency officials occupy a middle ground.) I'm not saying there is no scope for inquiring into an executive branch nominee's views. On the contrary, sometimes it's a good way to get the nominee to make promises of future action. Second, there are views or histories that do disqualify someone from having an executive post, and not just the obvious ones like racism, sexism, violent temper (think “John Bolton”), criminal past, tax evasion (yes), or the like. I'd also include people who had committed themselves in their speech or writing to views inimical to the agency's mission. None of this, however, remotely applies here, and none of it justifies even the threat of a filibuster. (I'm not against filibusters - I do think we should go back to the old-fashioned kind where people actually have to hold the floor, though.)

[Note: I was a student of Harold Koh's when he started teaching at Yale. Great course. And Dawn Johnsen was, I think, a year ahead of me in law school. I've stayed vaguely in touch with Professor and then Dean Koh since graduation, but haven't seen Dawn in a very long time.]

An Insight Into Obama's Vetting Problems

My law school classmate Richard Painter is guest blogging up a storm over at Chez Volokh. This has been a reminder that Richard thinks very differently from me.

I found this remark about Team Obama's vetting troubles insightful:

the nominees who have been problems have not been from the President's Chicago inner circle but other Democratic party stalwarts, many of whom did not work for his campaign until he got the nomination. Contrast this to the problems with the inner circles of Nixon, Carter (remember Bert Lance!) and Clinton and other presidents who brought to Washington some people from their home states who should have stayed home.

One commentator suggested it was because the old guard had already been thrown under vehicles during the campaign, but I don't think most of the few cause célèbres would have up for jobs anyway.

Nice Clean Political Fun

The DCCC is having some nice clean fun with this “Rush Limbaugh rules the GOP” thing.

Here's the latest: I'm Sorry Rush apology generator for GOP leaders who dare to criticize the Leader, and then need to write a grovelling apology.

Unfortunately, the options are too limited, and will quickly be used up by Congressional Republicans.

What He Said (Gang of 4 Hypocrites Dept.)

TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime, Remember The “Gang Of 14?”

So when McCain, Graham, Snowe and Collins promised to only filibuster “under extraordinary circumstances,” they were lying.

Carl Malamud for Public Printer

Carl Malamud is an early hero of the battle for access to knowledge. He was on the ground floor of the standards wars. He's responsible for EDGAR. He's put more information on line than universities.

And he'd like to be the Public Printer. We should be so lucky.

Support Carl Malamud for Public Printer. Visit Yes We Scan! for more information. Or place your signed endorsement in the comments to this blog posting.

The Speeches

It's difficult to resist using the difference between President Obama's oration and Gov. Jindal's baby-talk sing-song of a presentation as metaphors for the state of the debate between the two parties.

No, I can't resist.

The President's speech was a return to the virtues that served him so well on the campaign trail. It was meaty. It inspired. It contained the outlines – vague outlines, but outlines nonetheless discernible – of a complex program whose goals and motives were explained to an attentive public in sentences with a reading level well in excess of junior high school. There was much to quibble with – the assertion that the US invented the car, the equally dubious claim that Social Security has problems in any way comparable to the other crises addressed to name but two – but there was even more to look forward to.

Contrast the GOP's spokesperson, so-called rising star Gov. Bobby Jindal. He spoke in sentences that clocked in at a grade-school level, the speed of delivery was lugubrious, or perhaps aimed at the part of the audience that processes the occasional polysyllable rather slowly. And the ideas, to the extent there were any (spend less money, government is bad) were rather simplistic too. He insulted our intelligence, or rather, assumed we didn't have any to insult. The contrast to Obama was stark, and unflattering.

After the initial shock wore off – the first returns for Jindal were bad even on Fox – the GOP noise machine swung into action, and revved up the line that Obama's policies were a 'spending fiesta' full of 'pork' that will pass uncountable debt on to our grandchildren (Jindal's soundbite was something like 'things we do not need and cannot afford'). I can understand a party and its propaganda arm betting that voters have never heard of Keynes, or are instinctive believers in the long discredited 'Treasury View' of macroeconomics. But can it also count on voters forgetting where much of current deficit came from (Bush and the GOP)? Or where it went (rich taxpayers' pockets, Haliburton)?

At present there are genuine reasons why an intelligent person might disagree with the President's ambitious, expensive, and (at present) somewhat formless plans for a revolution in energy, health care, and education. But are there any reasons — other than naked self-interest on the part of taxpayers making over $250,000 who might genuinely reason that the GOP will save them money (at least in the short term, before the dollar crashes were their policies to actually be implemented) — why an intelligent person would agree with the party of Jindal, McConnell, and Cantor?

One of the truest political maxims is that you can't beat something with nothing. Until it regroups and finds something to be for, the party of Jindal will learn the power of that maxim.

The Most Amazing Twitter Story Yet

Not Larry Sabato: Social Media Saves [Virginia State] Senate For Democrats:

Apparently Senator Ralph Northam had agreed with Minority Leader Tommy Norment to vote to give Republicans power sharing in the Virginia Senate today.

Before it was announced on the floor and finalized, RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick tweeted about it.

Majority Leader Dick Saslaw adjourned before it could happen.

The Democrats got into a room and pounded into Northam what would happen if he did this.

Northam backed down. (Now everyone hates him, idiot).

Twitter scares me: I don't need more distractions in my life. But this is an amazing story.

Style, Check. Now As to the Substance....

Mark Nickolas' Blog: Obama Press Conference Answers Three Grade-Levels Higher Than Bush's First.

I copied each full transcript into separate Word documents. After doing that, I deleted the introductions by both men (since those are largely or fully scripted) and then deleted all reporter questions from the transcripts. What you have left are simply the answers that each president offered, off-the-cuff and unscripted, to all questions.

Then I ran Word's readability tool.

Guess what?

Bush's answers were spoken at 7th grade level. Obama's at a 10th grade level.

Yes, he speaks very well, and shows a command of the issues.

But no, (some of) those policies do leave something to be desired. Take, for example, this one: Geithner’s Plan: Bail out the Banks, Keep the same people in charge and let them do what they want.

A Dogged Candidate for Congress

An amazing number of folks I read regularly online practically seem prepared to swear that the only reason congressional candidate Tom Geoghengan hasn't walked on water is that he's been too busy doing good on land. (For more mainstream adulation, see James Fallows, Tom Geoghegan for Congress.)

The latest is How Tom Geoghegan Saved My Dog: Hildy's Story.

Kidding aside, Geoghegan sounds like an absolutely amazing candidate to replace Rahm Emanuel in Congress. They are taking donations.

Small World Dept.

Nick Katzenbach, guest blogging at TPMCafe, Respect for Law and the Constitution Is Also Good Politics, writes a whole load of interesting stuff, but I was especially taken with this aside:

Nor do I think that when I confronted George Wallace to get Vivian Malone admitted to the University of Alabama anyone imagined that her brother in law, Eric Holder, would be attorney general of the United States for its first black president.

Inauguration Day

This is a happy day.

We look forward to an historic moment at noon today: We eagerly anticipate the symbolic if not yet fully actual fulfillment of a national commitment to racial equality begun in the Civil War, largely shelved for two generations, then resurrected and now not perfected but nonetheless made more real and meaningful more quickly and assertively than one might have reasonably imagined. Lincoln's Bible will be there, providing a tangible link to the time when promises, unspoken and sometimes unintended, were nonetheless made and are now in some essence redeemed.

How then to so mar the occasion by a counter-symbolism of an invocation by a true homophobe? Let us not mince words: Pastor Rick Warren is by his own speech and actions revealed to be phobic about gay people. Until recently, he even seemed proud of it. That is his right, but not a great qualification for a so visible supporting role in this national pageant. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that Warren's participation tarnishes a celebration that should have been the apotheosis of equality, the inauguration of a President ethnically and culturally both black and white, a man able to identify himself as black, to be so identified, and still win a landslide in America.

But perhaps we are not so unfortunate to have Rick Warren as a cautionary specter. Equal treatment for all under law remains one of the critical moral issues of our times. Discrimination against black people did not end when we elected Barack Obama; it will not end when we inaugurate him, it will not have ended when he retires from office. So too, only more so, for the next chapter in the progress of our march towards the realization of our fundamental national ideals, the equal rights of gay people. Barack Obama did not campaign on a platform of equal marriage rights, and although he lent his support to civil unions it was in the end treated as a divisive state issue far from the heart of his campaign. Rick Warren symbolizes a part of the work we have left to do.

President-elect Obama has studied his predecessors, both the great and the late. Lincoln is not his only model; already we see signs of Reagan and, yes, even the small better fraction of Nixon. ''Watch what we do, not what we say,'' Attorney General John Mitchell famously advised reporters at the start of the Nixon Administration. Perhaps we, the audience, should vow to apply that test. Then again, both during and after the campaign, President-elect Obama vowed honesty and transparency and truth. And indeed, the Obama transition team last week reiterated in the most unequivocal terms its commitment to abolishing the “don't ask, don't tell” policy for the military. Given that it is entrenched in law, 10 U.S.C. § 654, that may require more than the stroke of a pen, although certainly the existing rules could be weakened without an Act of Congress. Let us hope that President Obama remembers Bill Clinton's first mistake. Clinton had campaigned more clearly than Candidate Obama on a platform of equal rights to wear the uniform. But when faced with generals who objected strenuously, President Clinton backed down. Similarly, we look forward with relief to the speedy redemption of another campaign promise related to basic justice and decency: the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. Let it be done more quickly than all deliberate speed.

President-elect Obama has made a great show, in the last two weeks, of ostentatiously consulting those who are not his natural friends: conservative columnists, Senator McCain, other Republicans. Insofar as a charm offensive can moderate their opposition, this may be good; insofar as it might mean trimming to the prescriptions of those just rejected decisively by an electorate, one is less charmed. Speaking more softly, showing a conciliatory mien, can be great things if they do not stand in the way of (or, better yet, mask) bold actions. And, yes, consultation is not endorsement. But our reflexes are well-trained: as the Presidency has become more Imperial, less democratic, symbol has been one playing field on which policy wars are fought, and thus symbol has come increasingly to signal substance.

For now, those of us far outside the Beltway can only applaud, then wait and see. Perhaps, as words turn into law and regulation, we will be able to relax about the occasional clanging symbol, unfortunate pal or oppositional adviser; that indeed would be a sign of a revitalized democracy.

Meanwhile, as we celebrate the end of eight years of misrule, and the inauguration of a President whom history and circumstance suggest may have greatness thrust upon him, and who shows signs of being fit for the truly overwhelming challenges to come, we can only pledge to try to avoid the twin pitfalls of blind approval and a rush to judgment; to hope, but not blindly, but yes, to hope.

Countdown to the Restoration

Countdown to the Restoration

Countdown to the Restoration

Countdown to the Restoration

Countdown to the Restoration

Countdown to the Restoration

The Holder Strategy

Usually Steve Benen is to my mind one of the most clear-sighted observers of the DC scene. Yet, in an item on Eric Holder's GOP Friends in which he correctly notes that Holder will get confirmed with votes to spare, Steve writes,

I'm struggling to wrap my head around the Republican gameplan on this. Their caucus has 41 members, and even if the GOP were to filibuster Holder's nomination, which seems unlikely, they'd lose.

Why then, he wonders, beat up on the guy?

From out here the answer seems obvious: it's a two-fer. First, the Justice Dept. is one of the bureaus that can really hurt the GOP if it starts to investigate what's been doing these past eight years. There's no harm, and much gain, to bloodying up the Attorney General as much as possible in order to attempt to diminish his credibility, and it sets up future accusations of partisanship and/or attempted payback if prosecutors get frisky.

Second, think of the TV: a well-spoken black lawyer in the dock being accused of unethical conduct. Plus, a chance to hyperventilate about links to Clinton sleaze. Might splash back on the President in some eyes? Can't hurt to try.

Whither the FCC?

Harold Feld is the guy I read when I want to understand what's what in communications policy.

Here's his guide to what he calls “the terrain at the FCC”

What Next For The FCC? Beats the Heck Out of Me — So I'll Just Describe the Terrain … I can describe one thing with some certainty, the terrain at the FCC. Or, more accurately, I can describe the uncertainty around that terrain and how it will likely effect policy. In addition to the power to designate the Chairman, Obama may be looking at appointing no commissioners (very unlikely), one commissioner (reasonably likely), two commissioners (also likely), or three commissioners (unlikely). This uncertainty makes it very hard to predict what happens with the FCC next year. To add to the lack of clarity, the DTV transition occurring in February will pretty much suck up all the attention for the first two months — possibly more if it goes really badly. Add to this the significant turn over in both the House and the Senate Commerce Committees, with accompanying likely changes in staff, and you have a cloud of uncertainty powerful enough to obscure any crystal ball.

And then he does scenarios…

Actual Change

Watch change happen.

Yesterday:

House: Waxman, Dingell look ahead to tomorrow's dramatic Democratic caucus vote:

Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said on the pro-Dingell conference call that he did not think Democrats would uproot a seniority system that seldom trumps sitting chairmen. “If I was John Dingell, I'd be feeling very good right now,” Boyd said. “I can't imagine these rank-and-file caucus members replacing John Dingell as chairman.”

Today:

Waxman Defeats Dingell for Gavel - Roll Call

Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.) has ousted Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (Mich.), as Democratic lawmakers voted 137-122 Thursday morning to hand the gavel of the powerhouse panel to its second-ranking member.

Change is unimaginable to some…

Obama FCC Transition Team

Susan Crawford isn't here in New Haven because she has just gotten a new and better gig on the Obama FCC transisiton team:

Science, Tech, Space and Arts Team Leads | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

FCC Review Team Leads

Susan Crawford is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, teaching communications law and internet law. She was a partner with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (now WilmerHale) until the end of 2002, when she left to become a legal academic. Ms Crawford recently ended her term as a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN.

Ken Werbach is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and the organizer of the annual Supernova technology conference (http://www.supernova2009.com). His research explores the legal and business dynamics of information and communications technologies. Formerly, he served as Counsel for New Technology Policy at the FCC during the Clinton Administration. He has also edited Release 1.0, a renowned technology newsletter, and founded Supernova Group, a technology analysis and consulting firm.

Both of these are great choices!

May do a little special pleading, friends? Let's reverse the Brand X decision — odds are this will do more to help net neutrality than any regulations could.

Call Your Senator about Lieberman (UPDATED)

Help remind your Democratic Senator that Lieberman should go (or at least pay a very serious price) for his election-season behavior.

Clicking above will take you to a tool that will ask you for your phone number. When you submit, it calls you, plays a recording with suggestions as to you how to frame your conversation, then connects you with your senator's office. No actual phone dialing is required.

UPDATE: Not sure if this is worth the trouble in light of this news from the HuffPo: Obama Wants Lieberman To Remain In Democratic Caucus.

There is some daylight between “remain in caucus” and “remain unpunished” so I suppose it's not yet an unmitigated disaster, but it will soon be.

I think this shows two things. First, that Obama will tack heavily to the right on many, most issues outside those few liberal issues he directly campaigned on. Rahm Emanuel may be only the beginning.

Second, I think it shows that the Obama people haven't learned as much from the Clinton admin as they should — or are the Clinton admin!

Recall that President Clinton's first controversy was over 'don't ask, don't tell'. He'd said he was going to do something to increase gay rights in the military. Senior brass objected. Clinton backed down. The lesson learned by the Hill was that Clinton had no backbone as he could be buffaloed even by people who had to salute him. And the costs were soon seen as Clinton's health care and other parts of his legislative package plan went down in flames (although there were substantive reasons for the health care plan to run into trouble, the political reality was that Clinton looked weak).

There's a similar danger to Obama if the lesson learned from the Lieberman episode on the Hill is that there's no cost to trashing Obama.

I Expect the Memory Hole to Be Very Busy

Eschaton is one of the first to speculate about all the GOP talking points that are about to be subjected to major forgetting.

To his “Up or down vote” I'd add all the stuff about respecting the commander in chief.

[Lest I be misunderstood, I'd like to note that

(1) I don't think filibusters are inherently wrong, even when they block things I like;

(2) I do think a great deal of the 'respect for the CIC' talk was wrong-headed, an attempt to shut down meaningful debates that should have taken place; but,

(3) I have a very low tolerance for hypocrisy.]

In the Interests of (Social) Science (Final Repeat)

According to a very polite email I got six weeks ago, a research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

They're doing a study and in the hope of getting politically aware respondents are asking bloggers to pass on their request to fill out their survey. The study will, they hope, “shed light on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election”. They “seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world)” to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which they promise will be completely anonymous.

It looks legit.

One interesting aspect of the request is that I turn off comments on this item: “a necessary precaution we have to take in order to avoid the bias that is likely to result when new respondents see comments about the survey before taking it.” That sounds sensible, so I've complied with the request.

Another is that they want time series data:

… we would like to have respondents complete the survey throughout the days leading up to the Election. To this end, if would be ideal if you were willing to have the link appear (i.e., repost it) four times, in equally spaced out intervals (about every two weeks), with the first running asap and the last running several days prior to Election Day. Of course, if you would be willing to post it even once, it would already be a great help to us.

So, what the heck, I've queued it up for science. Excuse the repeats.

Handicapping the GOP

No, I'm not talking about Sarah Palin.

Well, actually, in a way I am: but I mean handicapping in the horse race sense.

Time to stop obsessing about this election and think, for a moment, about the next…

Let's suppose that McCain fails to win on Nov. 4. Who will become the likely nominees for '12?

- Palin will have a big advantage with the remnants of the 'base', but many others will blame her for the loss and her negatives are high. Presumably Palin will start reading foreign news sources, like the New York Times, and learn to mouth seemingly relevant platitudes instead of irrelevant ones. I don't think it will work.

- Huckabee will contest Palin for the evangelical vote, and his folksy ways will help with other groups too. I think it will work.

- Florida's own Charlie Crist will be a bigger possibility than Jeb! as the Bush brand will remain tarnished nationally, and Jeb!'s association with the financial meltdown will finish the job. His marriage will help.

- Tancredo will run again, but get as little traction.

- Romney will run again, he's got the money, but the same set of obstacles.

- Gulliani, Paul, and Thompson are not going to be factors (although Paul might try the third party thing, conceivably, as might Barr).

- Newt Gingrich is looking for a comeback.

I'd say the early leaders will be Crist and Huckabee, but handicapping Republicans is not obviously my strong suit. Who have I left out?

In the Interests of (Social) Science (Second Repeat)

According to a very polite email I got four weeks ago, a research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

They're doing a study and in the hope of getting politically aware respondents are asking bloggers to pass on their request to fill out their survey. The study will, they hope, “shed light on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election”. They “seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world)” to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which they promise will be completely anonymous.

It looks legit.

One interesting aspect of the request is that I turn off comments on this item: “a necessary precaution we have to take in order to avoid the bias that is likely to result when new respondents see comments about the survey before taking it.” That sounds sensible, so I've complied with the request.

Another is that they want time series data:

… we would like to have respondents complete the survey throughout the days leading up to the Election. To this end, if would be ideal if you were willing to have the link appear (i.e., repost it) four times, in equally spaced out intervals (about every two weeks), with the first running asap and the last running several days prior to Election Day. Of course, if you would be willing to post it even once, it would already be a great help to us.

So, what the heck, I've queued it up for science. Excuse the repeats.

In the Interests of (Social) Science (Repeat)

According to a very polite email I got two weeks ago, a research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

They're doing a study and in the hope of getting politically aware respondents are asking bloggers to pass on their request to fill out their survey. The study will, they hope, “shed light on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election”. They “seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world)” to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which they promise will be completely anonymous.

It looks legit.

One interesting aspect of the request is that I turn off comments on this item: “a necessary precaution we have to take in order to avoid the bias that is likely to result when new respondents see comments about the survey before taking it.” That sounds sensible, so I've complied with the request.

Another is that they want time series data:

… we would like to have respondents complete the survey throughout the days leading up to the Election. To this end, if would be ideal if you were willing to have the link appear (i.e., repost it) four times, in equally spaced out intervals (about every two weeks), with the first running asap and the last running several days prior to Election Day. Of course, if you would be willing to post it even once, it would already be a great help to us.

So, what the heck, I've queued it up for science. Excuse the repeats.

In the Interests of (Social) Science

According to a very polite email I got today, a research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

They're doing a study and in the hope of getting politically aware respondents are asking bloggers to pass on their request to fill out their survey. The study will, they hope, “shed light on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election”. They “seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world)” to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which they promise will be completely anonymous.

It looks legit.

One interesting aspect of the request is that I turn off comments on this item: “a necessary precaution we have to take in order to avoid the bias that is likely to result when new respondents see comments about the survey before taking it.” That sounds sensible, so I've complied with the request.

Another is that they want time series data:

…we would like to have respondents complete the survey throughout the days leading up to the Election. To this end, if would be ideal if you were willing to have the link appear (i.e., repost it) four times, in equally spaced out intervals (about every two weeks), with the first running asap and the last running several days prior to Election Day. Of course, if you would be willing to post it even once, it would already be a great help to us.

So, what the heck, I've queued it up for science. Excuse the repeats.

[slightly edited since the original posting]

Zinger

Someone at Jack and Jill Politics has a wicked sense of humor.

Don't Look Behind that Curtain!

Greenwald, AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party. Worth reading.

Le plus ça change, le plus c'est la même chose

'The Racial Implications of a Barack Obama Presidency'

This Daily Kos diarist's take on The Racial Implications of a Barack Obama Presidency is deeply cynical, but that doesn't make it wrong.

More Evidence that Hilary Clinton Has Bad Taste In Men

Via Delong, Ezra Klein on the Disloyalty of the Clinton Staffers:

The most powerful case against Clinton's candidacy was always her political advisers. They were, and are, the sort who sign up with Fox News, and enter into business partnerships with Karen Hughes. And they do all that while they're still associated with Clinton, and when their services might still be needed in the near future.

Clinton's domestic policy instincts often seemed better than Obama's, but her political instincts, as evidenced by the folks she gathered around her, were far worse. It was hard to believe anyone who's internal compass pointed progressive would nevertheless spend millions of dollars asking Mark Penn for advice. The answer, from Clinton supporters, was always that it was about loyalty. These folks had been in the foxhole with Clinton, and she trusted them.

But there's nothing loyal about Penn's decision to partner with Hughes, or Wolfson's decision to rush to Fox — these moves hurt Clinton.

This bad taste in advisers is not news. It dates back to her White House days when she relied on Ira Magaziner to do her health plan numbers. Oddly, President Clinton on the whole had better taste in cronies. But don't get me started on his judge picks, which were all over the map.

200 Days To Go

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Go Read Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald, British debate highlights the cravenness and complicity of congressional Democratic “leaders” .

Please say it ain't so — they can't really be selling us out like this on FISA, can they?

Must Read

Rick Perlstein, The Meaning of Box 722 in light of Sen. Obama's historic victory this week.

Best thing you'll read online today. Heck, maybe this week, and it's quite a week.

This excerpt from the start doesn't really do the essay justice, as it picks up steam as it goes along, but at least it sets the stage,

When I started researching NIXONLAND I knew the congressional elections of 1966 would form a crucial part of the narrative. They'd never really been examined in-depth before, but by my reckoning they were the crucial hinge that formed the ideological alignment we live in now.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson—and, apparently, liberalism—achieved such a gigantic landslide victory that it appeared to pundits the Republican Party would be forever consigned to the outer darkness if it ever entertained a Goldwater-style conservative law-and-order platform again. Two years later, most of the new liberal congressmen swept in on LBJ's coattails—the congressional class that gave us Medicare and Medicaid, the first serious environmental legislation, National Endowments for the Humanities and Arts, Head Start, the Voting Rights Act, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the end of racist immigration quotas, Legal Aid, and more—was swept out on a tide of popular reaction.

That reaction, I hope I demonstrate effectively in NIXONLAND, rested on two pillars: terror at the wave of urban rioting that began in the Watts district of Los Angeles; and terror at the prospect of the 1966 civil rights bill passing, which, by imposing an ironclad federal ban on racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing—known as “open housing”—would be the first legislation to impact the entire nation equally, not just the South. (What that reaction most decidedly did not rest on: fear and loathing of “hippies,” which were unknown, except in California, to most of the nation until 1967; or antiwar activists, which were not associated with either party, because Republicans and Democrats had about an equal number of hawks and doves in 1966.)

When I learned that the papers of Senator Paul Douglas were at the Chicago Historical Society (as it was known then; now it's cursed with the decidedly more prosaic name the Chicago History Museum), I decided to make Douglas's 1966 loss to Republican Charles Percy a key case study for my hypothesis.

Got anything as good to recommend? Please note it in the comments.

Sen. McConnell Sings the Congressional Republican Songbook

Sen. Mitch McConnell revives an American Classic of political song in this little video, Elephant Feathers: or Whatever It Is, Mitch Is Against It!

The Republican Creed

I did the entry below a few days ago, and then got unsure about posting it. I like political jokes, but maybe this was too mean? And then I saw this: RNC careful not to humanize Clinton, Obama — and I decided what the heck. Besides, it's almost all true. So here goes:

From Frank Kaiser,

THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A REPUBLICAN TODAY …..

• Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can't find Bin Laden” diversion.
• Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
• A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
• The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
• If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
• A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
• Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
• Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
• A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
• Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
• Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
• You support states' rights, but the Attorney General can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

Lame Duck Watch

We seem suddenly to be in serious lame duck territory.

And, can you imagine a major network running anything even remotely like this a year ago? Much less less three or four years ago?

Good Lottery Numbers

The lottery is a tax on stupidity, since the expected value of a ticket is so low. So I don't imagine many readers of this blog buy lottery tickets.

But if you are betting, may I suggest these numbers: 84, 60, 53, 51, 43, 36 and 32.

Those would be Bush's poll ratings around the time of each State of the Union address.

Spot the Difference

Democratic idea of bipartisan cooperation:

House Democrats will postpone votes on criminal contempt citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, while congressional leaders work with President Bush on a bipartisan stimulus package to fend off an economic downturn, according to party leaders and leadership aides.

“Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would 'step on their message' of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks.

One day later — Bush idea of bipartisanship:

Justice Nomination Seen as Snub to Democrats

The Justice Department lawyer who wrote a series of classified legal opinions in 2005 authorizing harsh C.I.A. interrogation techniques was renominated by the White House on Wednesday to a senior department post, a move that was seen as a snub to Senate Democrats who have long opposed his appointment.

Judging by the results, one has to admit that the White House plays this game much better than the hapless Democrats, who cave time and time again. How did they become such sniveling cowards, and on what possible theory of politics do they think this serves their — much less the nation's — interests?

It seems all too likely that we're going to see a worse example of cowardice today, as leading democrats have been signaling that they'd love to cave in on FISA. Senator Dodd will filibuster, but the question is who if anyone will join him.

Still Going Strong

It's been too long since I recommended that people read the Daily Howler. Today's, Daily Howler: Parents should show their children the Post—and tell them they mustn't be like that, is a real classic.

Euphemism Watch

Enhanced Interrogation Technique: Torture

Intelligent Design: Creationism

Regime Change : Coups

Add yours.

A Finding With Many Implications

Is a photo worth a thousand votes?:

People asked to rate the competence of an individual based on a quick glance at a photo predicted the outcome of elections more than two-thirds of the time.

Nearly 300 students at Princeton University were asked to look at pairs of photographs for as little as one-tenth of a second and pick the individual they felt was more competent, psychologist Alexander Todorov reports in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The participants were shown photos of leading candidates for governor or senator in other parts of the country, but they were not told they were evaluating candidates. Those who recognized any of the photos were not counted.

When the elections took place two weeks later, the researchers found that the competency snap judgments predicted the winners in 72.4 percent of the senatorial races and 68.6 percent of the gubernatorial races.

It seems to me that this finding, if valid, has many implications.

• National political parties should focus group photos before deciding who to recruit or support in primaries
• I'll bet it's a very sexist test — this may explain part of how elections disadvantage female candidates.
• I wonder if this works for law schools? Would student satisfaction be higher when taught by professors whose looks signaled competence? Can we focus group potential hires via their photos? Can we do it without disadvantaging anyone who's not a white male of a certain age?
• Might it be that dress sends signals of competence? If so, is it important to dress up (or down?) for the first day of class?
• “Lookist” takes on a new meaning
• Do I sense the makings of a new suspect class? Are people who don't look competent to others a “discrete and insular minority”? Certainly their disability affect electability, thus undermining their political power, which is one of the tests….

And, how do I look?

Base Arguments

Political discourse continues to be further and further debased.

We get the government we deserve? A frightening thought.

Down We Go

Glenn Greenwald, who seems from his writing to be both shrewd and decent, argues that at present there is no alternative to the politics of the lowest common denominator:

as the MoveOn vote demonstrated, we have the opposite of a healthy political system, and it is thus far preferable — for reasons I I set forth here — to ensure that a corrupt standard is applied equally rather than allow it to be applied by one political faction against another. Taking the corrupt political tactics wielded by the war-hungry Right and applying those same tactics to them (rather than ineffectively protesting the unfairness of the tactics) is the only way to ensure they cease.

Please persuade me he's not right.

Priorities

The Democrats (and a some Republicans) want to increase funding for medical care for poor children. The specter of healthy poor children cased by the expenditure of tax money has so terrified GW Bush that it has turned him into a born-again fiscal tightwad, or so his stennographers would have it. (Actually, for some strange reason the stenography is silent on the subject of the children…)

The debate is pretty simple: how many kids to insure in the federal scheme, with the understanding that as the number grows, the program reaches up into the working poor and even if funded to Democratic levels, substantially above the poverty line.

The Speaker's office has more on the issue, along with a nice chart comparing the cost of this program to a few weeks of the Iraq occupation. (They call it a war.)

But Does He Scare the Horses?

George Bush the Texan is 'scared of horses'

President Bush may like to be seen as a swaggering tough guy with a penchant for manly outdoor pursuits, but in a new book one of his closest allies has said he is afraid of horses.

Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico, derided his political friend as a “windshield cowboy” – a cowboy who prefers to drive – and “the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life”.

He recalled a meeting in Mexico shortly after both men had been elected when Mr Fox offered Mr Bush a ride on a “big palomino” horse.

Mr Fox, who left office in December, recalled Mr Bush “backing away” from the animal.

''A horse lover can always tell when others don't share our passion,” he said, according to the Washington Post.

Mr Bush has spoken of his fondness for shooting doves and cutting brush on his Crawford ranch in Texas, which he bought in 1999.

The property reportedly has no horses and only five cattle.

Fascinating Discussion About AEI

These two blog posts about the AEI,

• Steve Clemons, Norman Ornstein's AEI/Neocon Problem
• Mark Schmitt's My Life Among the Neo-Cons

are really interesting, and the howls in the comments to them are even more so.

Both are mainstream partial defenses of the AEI-as-it-was (an anti-Brookings) and to a very much more limited extent as it is — a think tank in the tank to donors, overrun with neo-con supports of draconian social policies and extremist militarist aggression eerily reminiscent of the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff, which nonetheless remains a home to a few policy people who don't live on a full-time diet of Kool-Aid.

In the comments, some people agree that the AEI deserves props for lingering broad-mindedness (and the lingerers don't deserve guilt by association); others say that conditions have reached a point where guilt by association is appropriate; still others attack the very idea of policy 'analysis' that isn't willing or able to subject itself to peer review, there's debate as to whether a think-tank is more effective if it's centrist and nuanced, or extreme and rabid, and so on …. All in all, something to read.

Healthcare Politics in a Few Words

In We Are All Uninsured Now the Mahablog pithily describes the sorry state of current health care politics.

Straussians Everywhere

Digby, Hail Caesar.

Sterling Newberry Does a Jeremiad

Over at The Agonist, Sterling Newberry does a three-part Jeremiad about the state of modern politics.

• The Decade is Done Part I
• The Fall of the House of Gusher
• The Decade is Done: Hillary Reagan Clinton

Bottom line is that we're into a new politics of scarcity and fighting over a pie that isn't growing and may shrink. Rather than try to assemble a progressive coalition, however, the leading Democrat is playing to the (richer) suburbs.

I'm sympathetic to the claim that a big difference between progressives and neo-conservatives is one favors universalizing programs (rural electrification, health care) and the other thinks it saves money by leaving poor people behind (give the unemployed tax breaks for health care). I am not as persuaded by the description of the coalitions:

Let me summarize then the different cleavages:

1. Within the Democratic Coalition there was a three fold divide: rural Democrats, suburban Democrats, Urban Democrats. The first Republican victory was to cleave the Dixiecratic, if not in location, in cultural pattern vote away from the Democrats, by having resource inflation and big defense budgets. Reagan then cleaved away the suburbanists as a bloc and formed a coalition.

2. Within the surburbanists, there is a division between those that make their money from cities, and those that make their money from defense, resources and sprawl. It was the Rovian understanding that the resource suburbanists were more closely tied to the resource exurbanites than the city suburbanists were to the urbanists. That in a series of political conflicts, the resource bloc would vote as a bloc against two blocs that could easily be divided over a variety of issues.

3. Within the present Democratic coalition, there is a conflict between whether the urbanist or suburbanist wing of the party will be dominant. This division is rapidly closing, because Iraq and corruption are seen by all of them as benefiting the exurbanists.

4. Within the Republican coalition there is a division between the resource extractionists tied to oil, and those tied to agriculture. The agricultural rural voters have been slapped silly by both the war, which has bled them of precious young people, and by high energy prices.

I think it is too economically determinist, for one thing.

But this part sounds right:

Washington is out of touch with, however, a fundamental, and essential, indeed crucial change that is happening: the rift between cities and financial suburbs is rapidly healing, over issues which are in the short term more important than the dwindling wins of offshoring and the rapidly disappearing differences over inflation containment of health and education versus universalization. For one thing, both groups are pro-immigration: since both groups rely on waves of new entrants. For another, off-shoring is now gutting suburbanist jobs as fast as urbanist jobs. For a third thing, the urbanists have an ideology which makes cities, not rural hinterlands, seem the cutting edge of political, economic and social values.

And I worry that this might be right too:

It is into this environment that Hillary Reagan Clinton steps. On one hand she is the only figure in the Democratic party that can unify the suburbanist bloc of the party. The only one. This gives her a base of between 35% and 40% of the party. Enough to win the nomination doing nothing but playing defense. …

In short, Hillary moved far enough to the left to convince self-deluded suburbanists that she won't gut the cities. But she is proposing exactly that, and the cities, and the rural voters, understand this. She offers exactly nothing.

…However, the very “no brainer” road to the White House as a liberal Reaganite dooms Hillary in the short Thousands as much as it makes her the obvious choice in the long Thousands. This for the simple reason that while the city facing suburbs can defeat the rural and urban elements of the Democratic party as long as those elements are divided, it cannot govern. It cannot govern because of the packing of urban districts, which are now filled with legislators who are immune to suburban pressures, since they have almost no suburban voters any more. A generation ago the pizza slice districts combined urban and suburban votes. It cannot govern because the suburbs do not float above the rest of the planet. It cannot govern because the oil resource Republicans are going to demand enormous, and unpayable, concessions to not attack Hillary into the ground.

There is not enough money in the treasury to bribe the hinterlands, and fix the suburbanists problems with medicare and social security.

Sterling promises a part four, that sounds like it might be more optimistic. But then, what good Jeremiad doesn't end with a path to redemption, while of course lamenting that it is unlikely to be followed?

Worth a read, even if it raises your blood pressure.

How to Write Effective Letters to Congress

Firedoglake, Correspondence School, walks us through how to communicate with Congressfolk & Senators for maximum impact. Apparently, sending letters to DC, and the district office and making a phone call are likely to get you triple-counted sometimes.

Check on the Ratings for Bridges in Your Neighborhood

MSNBC.com does a real public service by publishing this State-by-state list of deficient or obsolete bridges. A deficient bridge is what it sounds like; obsolete means that while the bridge doesn't have major maintenance issues, the design isn't sufficient for modern traffic volumes.

Not surprisingly, the North-east, with the oldest infrastructure and a vicious freeze-thaw-heat cycle does worst overall, although the Midwest isn't doing great. Florida, being a fast-growth Sunbelt state has more troubles with “obsolete” bridges (is every bridge in Miami on that list?) than deficient ones.

Happy July 4, 2007

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

600 Blows

I make it 600 more days of the Bush admnistration

Prozac Nation, or the Eye of the Hurricane?

“Most people are under-reacting” to the latest Bush scandals.

That's what Jonathan Chait (& The Carpetbagger Report) say. And indeed, people are awfully calm about this stuff. The question is why.

So which is it: Is this seeming calm

(a) A classic case of boiled frog;
(b) A recognition that there's a light at the end of the tunnel, even if it is still 641 days away;
(c) Because we trust Congress to staunch the wounds now;
(d) A media illusion; or,
(e) Real, because it's not really such a big deal?

Or is there an (f) I'm overlooking?

On Imus

One of the few things I've read on the Imus situation this week that wasn't totally predictable: Making Carefully Nuanced Distinctions Regarding the Totally Unacceptable.

US Treaty With Tripoli 1796-97

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797: Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli and Barbary.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

…

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The implications for modern politics are left as an exercise for the reader.

Bush Supporters and Buyer's Remorse

Even some of Bush's own senior campaign staff now have buyer's remorse: Ex-Aide Details a Loss of Faith in the President.

So who are those three out of ten people who tell pollsters they support him?

Bush's support still exceeds that of perennial French presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front (FN) who currently has 17% support.

Worsts

The current administration has managed to achieve an impressive number of record-breaking worsts.

Early Winners

• George W. Bush - our worst President ever. Yes, even worse than James Buchanan
• Richard Cheney - worst Vice President ever
• Donald Rumsfeld - worst SecDef ever
• Alberto Gonzales - worst AG ever (despite tough competition)
• John Bolton - worst UN Ambassador ever
• Alphonso Jackson - worst HUD Secretary ever
• Michael D. Brown - worst FEMA Director ever

• Dr. Condoleezza Rice - arguably worst National Security Advisor ever (gunning for SecState nomination too)
• John Snow - worst Secretary of the Treasury since the Depression (and maybe before?)
• Tommy Thomspon Tom Ridge vs. Michael Chertoff. One of them has to be the worst HDHS Secretary ever, as they are the only two in the department's history.  My money is on ThompsonRidge.
• Margret Spellings - worst Secretary of Education?
• Harriet Miers - worst White House Counsel?
• [update] Tommy Thompson - HHS (for presiding over this)?

Care to add to the list?

Molly on W

The president of the United States does not have the sense God gave a duck — so it's up to us. You and me, Bubba.

This war is being prosecuted in our names, with our money, with our blood, against our will. Polls consistently show that less than 30 percent of the people want to maintain current troop levels. It is obscene and wrong for the president to go against the people in this fashion. And it's doubly wrong for him to send 20,0000 more soldiers into this hellhole, as he reportedly will announce next week.

I don't know why Bush is just standing there like a frozen rabbit, but it's time we found out. The fact is WE have to do something about it. This country is being torn apart by an evil and unnecessary war, and it has to be stopped NOW.

What happened to the nation that never tortured? The nation that wasn't supposed to start wars of choice? The nation that respected human rights and life? A nation that from the beginning was against tyranny? Where have we gone? How did we let these people take us there? How did we let them fool us?

—Molly Invins (1944-2007) quoted at Nieman Watchdog Commentary | An appreciation: Mintz on Molly Ivins.

Sen. Jim Webb's Speech

Now that's a speech.

Full text below.

Democratic Response of Senator Jim Webb To the President's State of the Union Address

Good evening.

I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves “as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

I wonder how long before Webb ends up on people's veep lists?

Move Over "Truthiness" -- Here Comes "Researchiness"

Gotta hand it to the folks at Free Exchange on Campus. They know how to get their point across:

Everybody certainly now knows that "truthiness" is a fundamental tenet of politics.  How else would we be able to separate out who knows the truth in their gut and those who want to over-think everything?  But still, there are those who continue to press for evidence to support public policy positions.  Luckily, there is an answer.

Here is the problem: academics, scientists, think tank fellows, and other trouble-makers are always talking about their "methods" (I think there is even something they call the "scientific method") and their "criteria" for conducting studies--you know the ones: testing hypotheses, double-blind studies, repeatability, objectivity, etc.  But what does that get us?  Just more studies, more questions, more complexity--and really, is that useful?  Of course it isn't.  What we need is some research that helps us prove what we already believe.  Because who can argue with research, right?

I'm not talking about the kind of research with all those standards that get in the way of getting results. I'm talking about starting with a conclusion you want to support, doing a few "scientificy-looking" studies and then writing a report--a report based on what we call "researchiness."

Here is what I am talking about.  Say you want to show that professors are a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals who are obsessed with controlling the minds of all those innocent freshman entering college each year.  What better way than to randomly go through a few course catalogs, find the types of courses that you ideologically disagree with, and then write a report as if those courses represent the whole of higher education?  So much easier than actually looking at all 4,000-plus institutions and all of the courses offered--that would just take too long.  And besides we already know most colleges are one-step away from a gulag.

Or maybe you are trying to show that these crazy liberals are too concerned with seeing education as a means of creating more opportunities for all students.  Sure they call it "diversity," but we all know what that really means--keeping the rich and privileged those who deserve to go to college down!  Let's not get bogged down in any economic analysis of access to college or who benefits most from college.  Again, too much data collection--not to mention math!  Besides, Google can do all that work for you just by counting the number of times the word diversity shows up on a college website.  It is just so much easier when you know what you want to say before you start.

And of course the best part of researchiness is that you can refer to other researchiness reports as evidence of your own findings.

So, it seems unfair that there is this new report out The "Faculty Bias" Studies: Science or Propaganda (PDF) that is trying to hold a set of recent researchiness studies to scientific standards.  C'mon.  These are not supposed to be actual research studies.  They aren't looking to discover anything.  They are trying to prove what they already know! 

So, you can just go tell this Dr. John Lee to take his "social science criteria" and his "findings" and go back to wherever he came from (my bet is some university!).  These pseudo-scientists already know what they know and there are just trying to put together some baseless claims evidence to support for their predetermined positions.

But if you insist on actual research standards and are too afraid to stand up for what everyone should just know in their gut (supported by researchiness, of course), then I guess you can read the silly report (PDF).

The Conservative Crack-Up Begins

Glenn Greenwald points to an NPR essay by a New Republic stalwart -- Rod Dreher: "Hadn't the hippies tried to tell my generation this"?

Better late than later.

Testing Times for Tester Already

Senator Jon Tester's been in office about a day, and already people are fretting about whether his staff choices -- mostly DC insiders -- are going to get with the program or are going to waffle.

Left in the West :: It's Official Today, Jon -- Now How Will You Use This Opportunity? I'm writing this letter, though, because -- to be honest -- a lot of us feel pushed aside, like we're not to be trusted. It's a strange feeling when you get the impression that you can't be trusted by the campaign you gave a year-and-a-half of your life to. But that's the feeling I've been getting -- and I know, once again, that I'm not alone.

Why do I feel this way? Why do others who were among your earliest backers feel this way? Honestly, some of it is personnel decisions. It's nothing against any of them in particular, it's just that the team as a whole doesn't really share the values of the Jon I know. Early on in the campaign, we talked about fighting for the middle class and standing up on trade deals. Now your top policy person comes from a Senator who supported CAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, and full repeal of the estate tax. Last I checked, you didn't want to represent multi-national corporations, Wall Street, or the super-rich. Bridget may be wonderful. I have no idea. But I worry about anyone who spent six years with Bill Nelson.

I worry about what your team will be saying on policy. In the primary, you announced that you wanted a universal Children's Health Insurance Program. Will you be signing on to one soon? What's your big goal on energy -- you'll be on the committee and it's an issue that you care about deeply. If a bankruptcy bill comes up and we can repeal that attack on working families, will you oppose it the way we did in the campaign?

You need a staff that has people at the top who share your values and whose first concern is for you and whether they are running the office the way you would want to. That means that they share your priorities -- even if your priority isn't getting re-elected. Otherwise, on these big decisions, the fight will be non-stop between you and your staff. And while there should be disagreements on the staff and between you and the staff, I want to avoid everything being a battle for you.

You also need a staff that realizes that this race was won as much by the first 3,000 votes you got as it was by the last 3,000 votes you got. The people I know who came together early on to say you could do this are some of the smartest, hardest working people I know in this game. And, unless I'm wrong, it seemed like you enjoyed our company quite a bit, too.

You know me, Jon. I've got a lot of faith in you as a person and as a policymaker. You're now in a place I don't fully understand and that I think it'll take some adjusting to on your end. Beyond that, I hope you know that I am loyal to you -- probably to a fault. I wouldn't be writing this if I wasn't worried. And I wouldn't be writing this if I wasn't hearing from a lot of other people who worked hard for you -- making phone calls, pounding pavement -- that they are also worried.

It may sound premature, although it is far from harsh. ("The revolution eats its children"?) But from what I hear this letter -- and the fairly widespread feelings it reflects -- was sparked not only by the failure to hire any of the insurgent locals as DC staff, but also by some strange comments by Tester's new staff people denigrating his core supporters.

Incidentally, the author of the above, Matt Singer, didn't apply for a job with Tester in DC, so this isn't sour grapes.

This is Hilarious

Lieberman Party Now in Hands of Critic:

After the senator's Nov. 7 victory under the Connecticut for Lieberman Party banner, John Orman switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Connecticut for Lieberman and voted himself chairman.

Orman, a political science professor who ran briefly against Lieberman last year, said only critics, bloggers and anyone named Lieberman can join the party, which he said would be a watchdog of the senator's actions.

Who Does that Cast as Caligula?

Military considers recruiting foreigners - The Boston Globe

I don't want to sound like I'm catching creeping Spenglerism, after all this is only a trial balloon albeit one with antecedents (see #5 on this generally horrifying list), but isn't recruiting foreign legions said to be one of the (many) causes of the downfall of the Roman empire?

Yup.

The introduction of barbarians into the Roman armies became every day more universal, more necessary, and more fatal . . . As they freely mingled with the subjects of the empire, they gradually learned to despise their manners and to imitate their arts. ... and though most of them preferred the ties of allegiance to those of blood, they did not always avoid the guilt, or at least the suspicion, of holding a treasonable correspondence with the enemy, of inviting his invasion, or of sparing his retreat.

And, yes, the headline may be a cheap shot, since Caligula was part of the Western (Roman) empire, and I think in in the quote above Gibbon was writing about the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire. But "Who does that cast as Diocletian?", or Theodosius I, Flavius Zeno or Justin II, would all be better questions, but wouldn't have the same zing.

Whatever Gibbon meant, given the state of things inside the Beltway and outside our borders, it's to the Byzantine and not the Roman Empire that we should be looking to for models. So here's a nice academic parlor game: Which Byzantine Emperor does W most resemble?

Creeping Spenglerism

One thing I'm seeing a lot more of these days is 'Creeping Spenglerism' -- a sense that the US is on the edge of some sort decline, even death spiral.

Now even professional humorists are doing it,

The Portland Freelancer: When young people ask me for career advice - and that's a little frightening right there - I always advise them to learn a skill they can perform to amuse the people around a campfire. Then if everyone laughs ask to share any food. I am only half kidding. America has been arrogant for too long, and it could be about to catch up with us.

This sort of talk makes me want to vote for John Edwards -- as far as I know, he's the only guy out there running a campaign of optimism.

Real Congressional Transparency

This is great. I hope we see a lot more of it.

Congress and the Benefits of Sunshine: Representative-elect Kirsten Gillibrand has decided to post details of her work calendar on the Internet at the end of each day so constituents can tell what she is actually doing for their money.

In fact, it is a quiet touch of revolution. The level of transparency pledged by Ms. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York -- down to naming lobbyists and fund-raisers among those she might meet with -- is simply unheard of in Congress. The secrecy that cloaks the dealings of lawmakers and deep-pocket special interests underpinned the corruption issue that Ms. Gillibrand invoked as voters turned Republicans from majority rule last month.

For all the worthy proposals for ethics reform being hashed out by the incoming Congress, a heavy dose of Internet transparency should not be overlooked in the effort to repair lawmakers' tattered credibility. The technology is already there, along with the public's appetite for more disclosure about the byways of power in Congress.

The Web is increasingly wielded by both campaign donors and bloggers clicking and tapping as wannabe muckrakers. Politicians would be wise to catch up. Local citizens were enlisted to track pork-barrel abuses in the last campaign by a new watchdog organization, the Sunlight Foundation, which enlisted Ms. Gillibrand's disclosure pledge. It aims to have voters use the Internet as an engine of political information.

Thin edge of the populist wedge!

Weird Senatorial Scenarios

Daily Kos peruses Senate arcana in Could Johnson's absence throw the Senate into chaos? to speculate as to various GOP strategies to prevent Democratic control.

It's well worth a read.

I just want to point out one thing: every single strategy described here, including filibustering the organizing resolution, would work equally well (or poorly) if Sen. Johnson were hale and present. So it's hard to see how they would be more (or less) justified by his illness, so long as the Senators present were still split 50-49 in favor of the Democrats.

Update: More goodies from Jonathan Singer at MyDD.

My Only Post on the Hoyer-Murtha Race

Pelosi endorsed Murtha. Hoyer won big. David Sirota spins 'Hoyer Beats Murtha' so well that I would end up believing him if I could bring myself to care about this race.

That said, it's a little eerie to contemplate that when the last Speaker to usher in a revolutionary-change-of-party Congress took office, his first act was to back a losing candidate for the #2 job: In 1994, Newt Gingrich's choice for Majority Whip, Robert Walker, was defeated by ... Tom DeLay.

Let's hope history won't repeat itself too much.

Stealth Realignment

Billmon is perplexed: how did it happen that the Reagan Democrats have started sounding like '70s left-liberals?

I suspect that it's all about betrayal. The Reagan Dems felt betrayed by the left, because it gave them disrespect (and empowered women and minorities while white guys were having status anxiety), because they blamed the Left for "losing Vietnam", and because when times weren't good Reagan promised shiny tax cuts without pain (remember the Laffer curve?).

Slow to change, slow to change back, but not stupid. The Reagan Dems are concluding that they've been betrayed (they'd say "again"), and they're mad about it. They still don't get respect, this time for having the wrong bank balance instead of the wrong sexual politics. They blame the Right for Iraq, and who wouldn't? Times if anything feel worse, but those tax cuts turned out be worth $50, raises lag medical insurance inflation, and the idea that today's tax cuts for rich folks are tomorrow's tax increases for the rest of us is starting to take hold --the checkbook metaphor is a powerful one for folks who feel economically precarious.

Meanwhile gays turned out not be so scary now that they're out of the closet and are revealed to be real folks, like the neighbor's kid. Throw in the GOP's corruption, and Reagan Democrats need a new home. The DLC is just Reagan Lite, so that's no use. Why not economic populism? The only strange thing about it is having populist leaders willing to argue for their followers' true interests...

The Democrats' Stunning Win -- What Does It Mean?

By any measure — except the inflated spin of Republican commentators who tried to move the goalposts — this is an historic victory for the Democratic party, even if they don't end up with a Senate majority. They have a real margin in the House, and picked up several governorships.

More importantly, the candidates elected to the House and Senate are by and large much smarter and more progressive than any entering class since 1994.

What does it mean? I think it means three things:

• Voters gave Democrats a mandate for change and accountability. Or to put it more bluntly, the people decided that an intervention was needed for this administration.
• The pocketbook is back as an issue: just talking about tax cuts is no longer a winning strategy. America looked in its wallet and purses, saw that the tax cuts weren’t there – and neither were any raises.
• And, post-Katrina and Iraq, people are warming to the idea that incompetent government is a bad thing – and that good government might just be worth paying for.

Quip

According to reports, Fidel Castro is alert and being briefed. And I'm thinking, why didn't we get a president like that?

A Parsimonious Theory

I had to link to this for the headline, even more than the content, Is Dick Cheney a Sith Lord?

Happy July 4, 2006

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Rebarbative

Heard an excerpt from Bush's Memorial Day address on the radio while driving around today, including the line, "In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war."

Yes, he really said that.

There Is a Theme Here

• Grunt's-eye view: Rumsfeld to blame for 'breaking' the Army
• Hawks for Dissent
• West Point Graduates Against The War -- being sued threatened with suit for a trademark violation by the military academy! As if this wasn't classic nominative fair use as per Playboy Enterprises, Inc., v. Wells, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) and Century 21 Real Estate Corporation v. LendingTree, Inc. , 425 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2005)! Not to mention that the chance of confusing Graduates Against the War with a military academy seems somewhat low. As for the possible dilutive effect, if any, see nominative fair use again, not to mention the First Amendment...
• Iraq today (and yesterday): Forget the hearts and minds, worry about the corrupt cops and militias
• Domestic security: planning process years behind schedule
• But don't worry, we're ready to prosecute the reporters who tell you about it
• U. Chicago Prof. Geoffrey Stone's powerful congressional testimony on why prosecuting journalists for publishing is, well, un-American
• At least the kids are all right (back home)

Good News / Bad News

1000 days to go in the current Presidential term.

ORGWare: What Tomorrow's Campaigns Need Today

If I ever have to run a political campaign, I want one of these ORGWare things that Brit Blaser is building.

'Billboard Liberation Front' Strikes

Via Boing-boing, an account of the guerilla (theater) tactics of the "Billboard Liberation Front"

The Great American (Liberal) Novel?

The Carpetbagger Report asks an interesting question:

A long-time regular, R.M., recently raised an interesting question via email. A conservative friend recommended that he read "Atlas Shrugged," which the friend thought would help open his liberal eyes and lead him to the embrace poorly-written novels contrived plots conservative thinking.

Setting Ayn Rand aside, R.M. asked a good question: If the situation was reversed, and a liberal wanted to recommend one book to a conservative, which book should he or she pick?

Some of the more recent books that came to mind are preaching-to-the-choir kind of texts, which a) have their place; and b) when it comes to Al Franken and Molly Ivins, can be fun to read, but wouldn't necessarily be the first thing I'd recommend to a conservative or politically-neutral reader.

The point isn't to pick your favorite liberal book, or the one that has had the most impact, but rather the one that can speak to a broad audience and help present a liberal ideology in a persuasive way.

Fiction or non-fiction, recent or "classic" -- which book would you pick?

For fiction, I was thinking along the lines of Grapes of Wrath, but it's a bit dated.

For non-fiction, Simple Justice? Or is that too dated too? If so, really any decent account of the Bush administration ought to do...

The Secret Is Out -- But No One Will Listen

Bob Somerby of the The Daily Howler lets slip the secret to getting things right:

Sometimes, readers ask us how we manage to get these matters so right. Folks, our secret is known as "reading." You hold the key document up to your face. Then you say all the words to yourself.

Vain Hopes Dept.

Is there any hope at all that these poll results will constitute a spine graft for Senate Democrats?

Brownshirts Without Shame

No better than modern brownshirts: The Carpetbagger Report | That Ann Coulter, what a kidder.

After all these secret service trips to investigate high school students based on what they do for class assignments, I trust a full squad of investigators will soon be giving this kook the third-degree?

Where Was This Guy Hiding During the Elections?

So Al Gore gave a great speech. It's worth reading.

I sure would like to know why he didn't do stuff like this when he was running for President.

UPDATE: The Washington Post covered the speech, which is more than most TV networks apparently did.

Sea Change in US Politics?

Daily Kos contributor "Hunter" thinks he's spotted a sea change in inside-the-beltway political discourse, one likely to have national impacts if it really exists.

[Newsweek's Howard] Fineman was remarkably blunt in his assertions that the "ethics" and other attacks on Murtha are being orchestrated by Karl Rove -- by name -- and the White House, which intends to hit Murtha with everything "necessary". He stated directly that the White House sees everything as a political operation. He was blunt in Murtha's record and leadership position in the war, and in attributing to Murtha the behind-the-scenes voices of many top Pentagon voices who are unhappy with both the state of the war effort and with Rumsfeld's planning in the specific.

In short, he made it perfectly, bitterly clear that the White House itself sees Murtha as a tremendous threat, considers itself at war with Murtha, and that Rove -- again, by name -- intends to hit him with everything at the administration's disposal.

And without betraying any secrets of the Washington press corps, I'd have to say that Fineman, for one, met the airways today genuinely either angry or disgusted with the effort.

... There is something different in the air, the past few weeks. Murtha has managed to tap a tuning fork that the whole war sounds off of -- one I'm not sure he ever intended to find.

...

Whether or not Karl Rove survives the excesses of being Karl Rove, I have to wonder if the same crass, one-note song will play, or if the audience has changed. When the only weapon the White House is capable of using is to impugn the very patriotism and Americanness of their opponents, what happens if the reactions to that attack change?

What happens if the press decides that dissent is, after all, patriotic?

Now wouldn't that be something.

Obligatory Bob Dylan reference.

Worst President Ever?

Nice sticker. But is it true?

Nominations for Presidents even worse than GWB -- if any -- are now open.

I have come around to the view that GWB is substantially worse than Nixon. And also Jefferson. But is he worse than Andrew Johnson? Than US Grant? Andrew Johnson had some principles, but they were pretty bad ones on the whole. Grant was a great general but an unabashedly awful President. And there are surely some obscurely bad Presidents that I've neglected?

Or, I suppose, this could perhaps be no more than another example of the middle-aged propensity for the jeremiad...

Herd Migration Warning

Today the GOP coalition cracks up on domestic policy.

The shape of tomorrow's (ok, maybe January's) foreign policy crackup can be glimpsed in this piece of apostasy from a conservative military-loving Democratic Congressman, Congressman John Murtha's turnabout on Iraq. Not only does it serve as prologue for the next act, but it increases the pressure...

Who Are the Six Senators?

As everyone who pays attention to politics knows, the outcome of Sen. Harry Reid's brilliant stunt the other day was a promise that a bipartisan six-Senator committee would report back by Nov. 14 -- a week from today -- as to the fate of the long-delayed Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the creation and use of the intelligence data that the administration cited as its casus belli, or perhaps causus belli, for the invasion of Iraq.

But here's what I can't find out: who are the six Senators in this group?

Somewhere, Saul Alinsky is Smiling

How Bush Visit Became the Siege Of Howard U.

What He Said (Mark Schmitt edition)

The Decembrist: Norquist's Paradox has some wise things to say about the political meaning of the victory of Colorado"s Referendum C, suspending the state's "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" (TABOR) law which limited government spending.

Spontaneous Generation Observed in Nature (II)

Who would have guessed that we have an opposition party in the US? Yet, all of a sudden -- now that Bush appears so very very weak -- all of a sudden it appears that we do: TPMCafe || Power Shifts. And see the videos here and here.

Earlier post: Spontaneous Generation Observed in Nature (I).

$9 Billion, A Few Times Over

Kevin Hayden of The American Street offers up some quotes and links on the subject of $9 billion dollars. More than one set of $9 billion at that.

Yes, Sen. Dirksen, it's real money.[1]

And it used to be ours, too.

----

1. Did Sen. Dirksen ever say, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money"?

So True

A New Moment of Truth For a White House in Crisis:

John D. Podesta, who was chief of staff to Clinton, said Bush may be more constrained by his troubles than Clinton was by his. Noting that Clinton's approval ratings remained above 60 percent throughout the impeachment battle, while Bush's are in the low 40s, Podesta said, "When Clinton said, 'I'm going back to do my work,' people cheered," Podesta said. "When Bush says, 'I'm going to do the job I've been doing,' people say, 'Oh, no.'"

It's the gang that can't shoot (or even lie) straight. People are fairly mad at FEMA down here, although the screwups being reported are just upsetting not life-threatening.

Now *That's* An Idea

100% lifted from Stirling Newberry at The Blogging of the President just because it's such a fun idea:

Paul Krugman for Senate: I'm going to believe that Jon Corzine will win the governor's race in New Jersey. But who should be the Senator? There is one outstanding resident of New Jersey who has both demonstrated intellectual saavy, and now partisan political chops in getting the word out to the public: Paul Krugman.

If progressives want to take the mantle of "the party of ideas." This would be a sure fire way to do it: appoint Krugman to the seat that Corzine, knock on wood, will be vacating when he becomes governor.

Two Years Later

Two years later, I'm no more optimistic than I was when I wrote Rose Burawoy, Political Scientist. Less, rather.

Stuff Which Would be Much Funnier If It Had Less Truth

Sort of funny, sort of tragic.

• A rant about George of the BungleDaily Kos Diarist on Moral Decay in America

The Strategy: How the GOP Will Relaunch the Culture War With its Next Supreme Court Appointment

There are a lot of people who think that George Bush's political weakness will result in a more moderate appointment to replace Justice O'Conner to the Supreme Court.

They are deluding themselves. In fact, it's worse than wishful thinking: it's exactly backwards.

The weaker Bush gets, the more certain it is that he (or Cheney or Rove) will appoint someone certain to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Do the math. The one thing that this crew is any good at is electoral strategy. And the weaker they are, the greater the danger to the GOP ticket in congressional elections next year, not to mention the Presidential election in 2008. The Bush-Rove strategy for winning elections is simple and well-understood: it's to fire up 'the base' with culture war stuff, to distract from the environment, economic and health issues, all issues that as an abstract matter the majority of the electorate actually prefers the Democratic position to the Republican one.

Currently Cheney and Rove face two problems.

First, the failure to cope with Katerina Katrina and the issues of rebuilding will dominate the public agenda for some time. It is a debate which already shows signs of derailing additional tax cuts that only a month ago were due to be enacted by a compliant congress that treats fiscal discipline the way we used to treat levees. Only something major can displace Katerina Katrina from public consciousness -- and even Iraq isn't big enough.

Second, Cheney and Rove are deprived of their accustomed freedom to maneuver legislatively, as Congress becomes less and less willing to enact the "Bush agenda".

These problems have, however, an obvious solution.

The only effective way to retake control of the public debate and distract from Katerina Katrina is to reignite the culture war, a move which would give the GOP a reasonable shot at controlling the debate for the next election. And the best way to do that is to appoint an anti-abortion Justice such as Patricia Priscilla Owen shortly after Roberts is confirmed. Far better to have the next election be about abortion than competence, Iraq, or indeed anything to do with the way the nation has recently been governed.

From a Rovian perspective it's a win up and down the fight card. First Senatorial democrats can be demonized for filibustering. Then they can be shown to be wimps when muscular Cheney invokes the nuclear option and silences them. [If the filibuster should somehow survive, that's just as good -- it keeps alive the intransigence meme and explains to the base why it is so important to have more GOP Senators.] Any challenge will go before a Supreme Court with a chief justice who thinks little of congressional power and much of the executive’s and who will have, in familiar conservative doctrine, many avenues such as the political question doctrine available to leave the new status quo alone. Finally, the ensuing election can be framed as the war of law against obstreperous extremists seeking legislative and executive power to overturn the historic decision that returned the US to the blessed path of righteousness. (Quiet subtext: Katerina Katrina was divine chastening to ensure the right sort of appointment. Now that it has been made, we can relax.) The abortion issue will fire up the base like nothing else could any more, and even those doubtful about Katerina Katrina will come home when told they have a moral duty to do so. Some Democratic fringe group will undoubtedly cooperate by making an inept campaign commercial and a clip from it will become the Dean Scream of 2008.

While not guaranteeing a favorable result, this strategy plus a financial advantage at least creates a possibility of locking in GOP gains against what otherwise would be a renewed and nationally vigorous Democratic challenge.

Now if only I could figure out what we do about it...

It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell Truth from Fiction

Here's a little test of your acumen. Can you tell (without clicking the links) if

A) Both I & II are true

B) Both I & II are parodies

C) I is true but II is a parody

D) I is a parody but II is true

Remember, no clicking links until you've picked one of the above.

I. Everyone is a Meteorologist Now

Dateline: Hollywood - ROBERTSON BLAMES HURRICANE ON CHOICE OF ELLEN DEGENERES TO HOST EMMYS: Hollywood -- Pat Robertson on Sunday said that Hurricane Katrina was God's way of expressing its anger at the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for its selection of Ellen Degeneres to host this year's Emmy Awards.

... Robertson added that other tragedies of the past several years can be linked to Degeneres' growing national prominence. September, 2003, for example, is both the month that her talk show debuted and when insurgents first gained a foothold in Iraq following the successful March invasion. "Now we know why things took a turn for the worse," he explained.

II. They're Under the Bed Too!

There's controvery over a planned memorial to Flight 93 -- the flight hijacked 9/11 in which passengers fought back and which crashed in Pennsylvania.

A committee was formed of surviving 9/11 family members, people from the community and designers/architects. They solicited proposals for a fitting memorial to be built on the crash site and received an amazing 1100+ entries!

After several elimination rounds a winner was chosen... The stunning "Crescent of Embrace" design by Paul and Milena Murdoch, architects, of California ... will feature a "Tower of Voices, containing 40 wind chimes -- one for each passenger and crew member who died -- and two stands of red maple trees that will line a walkway caressing the natural bowl shape of the land. Forty separate groves of red and sugar maples will be planted behind the crescent, and a black slate wall will mark the edge of the crash site, where the remains of those who died now rest," according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Not everyone is pleased, however: Michelle Malkin blogs to warn about the proposed design, because it's a crescent. And bin You Know Who loves crescents.

"Is this a coincidence, an example of amazing cluelessness, or something more deliberate?" Malkin asks, approvingly quoting a blogger from Little Green Footballs. Also quoted approvingly from another source: "What next--a holocaust memorial in the shape of a swastika?"

Hints as to the answers below.

Dateline: Hollywood could be America's second-finest news source. Meanwhile America's finest news source sports this headline: "Bush: 'It Has Been Brought To My Attention That There Was Recently A Bad Storm'.

Michelle Malkin actually exists. Item II spotted via Making Light.

America's Battered Wife Syndrome

From 12thharmonic Blog, America's Battered Wife Syndrome. (thanks, SAC)

Billmon Peers Into His Crystal Ball

Billmon has seen the future and it's not pretty:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Two key U.S. senators said on Friday they will launch a bipartisan coverup of what they described as an "immense, but probably unavoidable failure" of the government response to Hurricane Katrina.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who heads the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the panel's othertop-ranking Republican, said they hope to shift as much blame as possible to lower-ranking officials and career federal employees -- ideally at an obscure government agency that few Americans have ever heard of.

There's more...

Worse Than A Crime

“Worse than a crime—a blunder” describes so many of the major decisions of this administration. It's odd, however, to see popping up on a mailing list of law professors the query as to whether the current failure to plan for or to provide disaster relief might be grounds for impeachment.

Personally, I think mere incompetence, even gross incompetence, is not a “high crime and misdemeanor” as the Constitution understands the term, so were I in office I would not vote to impeach for that. Furthermore, I have some trouble seeing what impeachment would accomplish given that the person who'd take over is probably making many of the key decisions now anyway.

On the other hand, lying to the people to take us to war…

Ouch

Painfully true jokes via Daily Kos:

The White House announced that the public would not be allowed to see the memos produced by John Roberts when he represented the United States government as a lawyer. They say this is because of the attorney-client privilege. Here's the part I don't understand: he represented the United States, we're the client, he's our lawyer. Shouldn't we be allowed see our own notes?"
--Jay Leno

"North Korea is making several demands in exchange for giving up their nuclear program, including a promise from America not to attack them. Which is a little strange because for us to attack them we would have to have `slam dunk' proof that they have weapons of mass destruction. I mean, for Gods sakes people, we're not maniacs. It would have to be an air-tight case. We wouldn't just come in there and start bombing you..."
--Jon Stewart

"It was so hot down in Florida Jeb Bush was rigging ice machines."
--David Letterman

"The White House dropped the phrase `war on terror' when polls showed no one thought we were winning it. They think they know how to make it more popular. They're going to stop calling it `war on terror' and start calling it `Shrek 3.'"
--Argus Hamilton, comedian and columnist (Via Time magazine)

Happy to be Here

I'm happy to be here, and I'll try to hold down the fort while Michael's out of town. This is the first blog I read every day; I can't really live up to Michael's standards, but I'll give it my best shot.

As Michael explained in his too-complimentary introduction, I'm a law teacher. The O'Connor resignation, though, has been reminding me of the year I spent, way back when, working for the Justice Department. Late in the year, Harry Blackmun announced his resignation, and I found myself part of an ad hoc team putting together a memo for a White House working group on the decisions of Richard Arnold, an Eighth Circuit judge then being considered for the top job. I got the gig helping to summarize Arnold's jurisprudence not because of any merit of my own, and not because I'd done anything like this before (I hadn't), and not even because I worked for a unit of the Justice Department that was concerned with such things (I didn't), but pretty much by happenstance. I thought we wrote a pretty good memo, considering that none of us had ever vetted a potential Supreme Court Justice before, and we were making up our procedures as we went along.

What I began to realize then, and came to realize much more fully later on, is that government decision-making routinely is undertaken, with the best of intentions, by people who have never been in this situation before and are making it up as they go along. I was working for the government again a few years later -- this time for the Federal Communications Commission -- and found myself part of an interagency group trying to figure out what to do about the domain name system. That was the process that brought you ICANN. And the most salient facts about it were that (1) we had the best of intentions; (2) we didn't have a lot of humility; and (3) we didn't know what we were doing. And it showed.

Don't get me wrong. I like government. Some of my best friends have been in government. And these were the good guys -- while I got a pretty good sense of the clueless and humility-free tendencies of government back then, nobody during the Clinton Administration was so hubristic and detached from reality as to pop off and invade another country at the cost of more than 1700 American lives, more than 20,000 Iraqi lives, and incalculable damage to U.S. foreign policy interests -- so far, with only quagmire in our future. (That's a matter for another post, I guess.) I did come away with the firm lesson, though, that one should never overestimate the extent to which government players (or anyone else) know what they're doing, or have done it before.

Back to Normal at the VA

I missed the news that Anthony Principi, the only member of the Bush cabinet I respected, had resigned as VA Secretary. It seems he went on to chair the base closure commission.

Meanwhile, it's back to the bad old days at the VA. Last week they revealed they are facing a $1 billion health funding shorfall, which you would think is something of crisis — two months after the new Secretary, Jim Nicholson, told Congress “I can assure you that VA does not need [additional funds] to continue to provide timely, quality service….” Now, the Washington Post reports that the VA Deputy Undersecretary told VA hospitals and clinics that their “highest priority” should be…wait for it…to make sure that Principi's picture is replaced with Nicholson's. (spotted via The Carpetbagger Report)

… we hear some officials disagreed that the photos should be their “highest priority.”

“And here we're trying to figure out where our next patient meal is coming from and what furniture to sell to buy drugs next year,” one VA official said.

Who Said It and About What?

Media Matters for America cites this great snippet from a recent book review:

This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word.

Can you guess who said it, about which recent much-hyped book?

Brad DeLong Explains Why He is a Democrat

Bard DeLong explains why he is a Democrat:

I'm a Democrat, and I believe that I will always be a Democrat: Richard Nixon's decision that the appropriate reaction to Lyndon Johnson's commitment to Civil Rights was to turn the Republican Party into The Party for People Who Don't Like Black People was a sufficiently evil action to make it next to impossible for me to think of situations in which I would vote Republican (and it may well have destroyed the soul of the Republican Party). But I would be happy to build bipartisan coalitions from the center outward, based on what policies are likely to work and achieve agreed-on long-run prosperity and security. I would, that is, if there were grownup Republicans to be found…

Then he offers a thumbnail analysis of the Democrats' fortunes:

In my view, the Democratic Party is doing OK in an age of high income and wealth inequality. The rich are spending lots of money to brainwash the rest, and the Democrats have to hold on against that tide. The Democratic Party is doing OK given its extraordinary success over the past two generations in pushing social equality and liberty—for African-Americans, women, homosexuals, Hispanics… pretty much anyone who isn't white and male—faster and further than large components of the electorate are comfortable with. Twenty-seven percent of Americans still disapprove of interracial marriage. They aren't going to vote Democratic. That's a powerful Republican base.

The real catastrophe in today's America is what has happened to the Republican Party. Fixing that is job #1.

I'm more in agreement with the last paragraph than the one above it. The GOP used to have some virtues: being for a balanced budget, for example (one carried to excess, perhaps, as it failed to be at all attuned to the business cycle). Now it spends like the proverbial drunken sailor in order to give tax breaks and contracts to kleptocrats and multi-millionaires.

But that doesn't mean that the Democrats are doing OK. They have failed to understand that the GOP plays by harsher rules than it did even in Nixon's day. And that the the Fairness Doctrine — which was not without problems, I'd be the first to admit — has been replaced by an Unfairness Doctrine which is poisoning public life. And to the extent that Democrats get this, they react by running scared.

The Durbin escapade — apologizing for remarks that were accurate — is a sign of the Democrats' problem. Howard Dean — on good days — is one path out of the mire (Howard Dean on bad days is proof he couldn't have been elected President….).

Good Advice for Democrats

Via TaxProf Blog some good advice for Democrats from Prof. Deborah Geier:

Democrats should focus on the following statement: The distribution of the tax burden worsens inequality because there is less income inequality before annual tax bills are paid than after they are paid. That's the key point that should be stressed, over and over again, like a broken record (in the days of yore before CDs): The government imposes taxes in such a way that the distribution of income is more unequal than if the government imposed no taxes at all. Congressional Budget Office data discussed below shows that the gap (which is increasing) in pretax income between the very wealthy and the rest is smaller than the gap in after-tax income. Thus, the distribution of the tax burden itself is increasing inequality. I need to stress here that I am not talking about using the tax system to reduce income inequality, which is a use of the tax system that is utterly anathema to conservatives and libertarians alike. What I am saying here is that the tax system should be structured so that the distribution of the aggregate tax burden itself does not actually worsen income inequality. In other words, the government should not be intervening through the tax system to make the gap between the very rich and everyone else actually greater than it otherwise is (in the absence of tax). I think most Americans, whether Democrat or Republican (or Rockefeller Republican), would agree with that statement.

Amen to that.

Bad Times for the Republic

YATA, Afghanistan edition: In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths.

They didn't even think the guy was guilty, and they tortured him to death.

How many 'bad apples' in how many places does it take to make a pattern and practice? How many deaths by torture in how many different places does it take to get top military and civilian commanders to admit responsibility for negligence if not commission? Surely there is some number of deaths (not to mention other barbarisms) at which point we hold, say, Rumsfeld responsible? One? Ten? A hundred? Can we agree a number now, so that when we get there, we can impeach the guy? And then, I think, prosecute him.

This is not a good moment for the Republic. Ordinarily, the public is to blame if it doesn't get outraged over atrocities committed in its name. Can we justly blame the public if it is getting its news from Fox? A steady diet of lies makes it hard to see the truth.

Meanwhile, on the floor of the Senate, Senator Santorum compares Democrats to Nazis … because they filibuster judges. Don't expect to see the people who bayed at the moon about Howard Dean screaming get the least bit anxious about this one. You certainly won't see it repeated on the news several hundred times in one week, even though it is much more serious.

In this context of what people can be expected to know, it's quite significant that the GOP now wishes to fully neuter the already partly neutered staff at PBS and NPR, thus making the only non-conglomerate major broadcast media sound like the ones bought and paid for.

And, oh yes, the people who want to pack the courts with anti-consumer and (by and large) anti-civil-liberties judges…also want to unleash the FBI from judicial oversight. The draft update of the 'Patriot' Act would let the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury.

Yes, that's the same FBI that, it appears, has been investigating protesters on the grounds that protest is a suspicious activity.

Meanwhile, while the Senate fights about procedure, the economy is approaching a precipice.

All it would take to be fully Roman is well organized corruption (more), and orgies.

Oh. Wait.

Pat Robertson Kinda Sorta Has a Point

Pat Robertson is not someone I want to defend.

I think he's dangerous. I think he's quite probably evil. He could be nuts.

He's certainly offensive. For example, Robertson's remarks after 9/11 in which he blamed the attacks on US liberals were monumentally creepy. Or his suggestion that we ought to have a a religious test for judicial office.

But I don't think Robertson is stupid. And I suspect he may be sincere in his religious beliefs, if not always in his political tactics.¹

And in last week's Robertson flap, much as it pains me to say so, I think Robertson kindasorta had a point.

Robertson was recently flamed around the blogosphere for his televised remark on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that judges are a bigger threat to the USA than terrorists. The cudgels came out: what about 9/11, deaths, tragedy, how could he? And yet. And yet.

Are 'the terrorists' really a threat to America? Unless there's evidence they have a nuclear bomb or a fast-mutating virus, I don't think so. 'Terrorists' (a very mixed lot) do threaten many Americans but the only threat to the nation comes from the threat to our fundamental values posed by the over-reaction to the perceived threat. Thus, if 'the terrorists' are no direct threat to our basic institutions it follows that if judges are even a small threat, they're a bigger threat than terrorists.

And who, understanding the simplest principles of threat analysis could deny that the people with the power to decide cases like Dred Scott or Bush v. Gore are a greater threat to the Nation, to national institutions, than any bin Laden? OK, it's a little weird that for Robertson the issues that demonstrate the fearsome power of the judiciary are … wait for it … their power to remove school prayer and “sanction pornography.”

Despite this great oddness on the details, I think that that Robertson's fundamental point, that the terrorists are just a particularly nasty form of modern pirate — geo-political fleas — while the judiciary has enormous power to reshape our domestic institutions, is basically correct. And that's why the Senate's advice and consent role should be taken so seriously.

¹ I narrowly missed my chance to put this presumed sincerity to the test. When he was running for President in the '80s, Robertson came and spoke at Yale. I queued to ask him a question, but they cut off the questions when I was next on deck. Had I been called on, I had planned to ask Robertson whether Christians had a duty to evangelize members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Mormons were some of Robertson's big supporters that year, but my reading of his theology suggested that he did not see them as true Christians any more than he would Catholics, which is to say pretty much not at all. It followed that there was a duty to minister to them. But saying so out loud would have really hurt Robertson with a big part of his base. I was betting the theologian would win over the politician.

Tales of the Boiling Frog

How many stories of parlor-room totalitarianism does it take before it's right to be worried? How many to get very worried?

After reading Orcinus The undertow of totalism, where do we rate on the boiling frog scale? (Even if the metaphor is based on bad science.)

It's Personal Now

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's mad. Reid Calls Bush a 'Loser'. And it looks as if it has something to do with this:

Two weeks ago, Reid essentially called Bush a liar when Vice President Cheney said he agreed with Senate Republicans about changing the filibuster rule. Reid said that violated a commitment Bush had made to stay out of the fight. Reid said that it “appears he was not being honest.”

I missed that comment when it happened, although I inferred it (cf. The Telling Detail).

Actually, it's much worse than mere lying. Bush lies to us all the time, and few professional politicians take it personally, more's the pity. Politicians lie, and others live with it. But what this story is about is breaking your word, delivered eye-to-eye in private. Senators see that as much worse than lying to the public.

Texas to Require Cheerleaders to Wear Burqas

Texas cheerleaders would have to wear burqas under legislation passed by the Texas House.

Well, not really. But just about: Texas targets 'sexy cheerleading'. And who knows what the Texas Taliban plans next?

Has the Texas legislature nothing better to do? Did they conquer poverty while I wasn't looking?

The Telling Detail

This is actually yesterday's news, but it's a telling detail nonetheless. In an article by David Kirkpatrick entitled Rove and Frist Reject Democrats' Compromise Over Bush's Judicial Nominees, we learn that Bush has promised Sen. Reid that he wouldn't get personally involved in the fight over the nuclear option.

So Cheney and Rove are in the trenches (which breaks the spirit but not the letter of the promise?), but Bush will sit this one out. Or break his word. Which would make it all even more personal…

You Could Sell Tickets to This One

The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne Jr. had a fine column today about moderates and self-identified independents abandoning the GOP, using the latest Democracy Corps poll for data, but there was one tidbit that jumped out at me.

[I]n an amusing but revealing question, the pollsters asked how Americans would vote in a contest between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush if the Constitution were changed to allow them to run in 2008. Clinton beat Bush, 53 percent to 43 percent — a rather decisive judgment on our two most recent political legacies.

Go ahead, try and deny how much you'd love to watch that race. I dare you. If they put the debates on pay-per-view, it'd be worth millions.

Of Victors and Spoils

For some reason, I've been thinking a lot about this story I noted yesterday that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission (IATC) because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election.

Let's presume that the only way the Bush administration figured out who the Kerry donors were is by looking at the public records of the Federal Election Commission. And let's recall that the Bush administration has systematically worked to remove unions and other job protections from the federal civil service. Are we moving to a system in which administrations will be able to police loyalty with heightened efficiency? Was this effect contemplated by campaign finance reform? Should we start allowing anonymous contributions, at least up to a point?

Note also that it's only a short step from firing Kerry supporters to only allowing Bush donors.

There are many Supreme Court decisions suggesting that this sort of extortion would not be legal in the civil service. (Perhaps, arguably, diplomatic jobs are slightly different in that although extortion is out, rewarding paying friends has long been traditional.) There is also a law that makes it a serious crime to promise anyone a government job in exchange for a campaign contribution. But the workaround is obvious: just let it be known in a general but visible and effective manner that we reward our friends and punish our enemies. Don't make any specific promises or threats, just act in accordance after the election.

So that's all pretty bad, another drip in the erosion of half-decent government as we knew it.

Or is it? There reasons after all why we would want an elected official to appoint like-minded assistants. At least when the official actually got a majority of the votes actually cast, promotion of the like-minded promotes democratic control of the bureaucracy. And that, political theory tells us, should be a good thing.

What bugs me is that the IATC is a technical standards body. We'd probably like our delegates there to be the engineers and business people who best understand the technologies. Reality-based, if you'll excuse the term.

Three years, 38 weeks, 3 days and a bit more, to go.

Link-o-Rama

The “K Street Project” spreads to technical standard-making: Any Kerry Supporters On The Line? The Bush Administration punishes some Democrat backers. I guess electrons have party affiliations now.

• When Did Lying To Congress Become Okay?
• Steve Clemons, several times over, notably Another Case for the Bolton File: Did John Bolton Ever Meet Someone He Didn't Want to Have Fired? and Dick Cheney Seems to Think “Lowest Common Denominator” Approach to Getting Bolton to U.N. is OK
• Bolton Pulled by White House from Libya Team.
• Bolton and Blair

And, just for fun, an amazing Oops! (via Ann Bartow).

The Filibuster

I've received some email solicitations to sign on to the Law Professors' Letter on Judicial Nomination Filibusters. I hope the 'nuclear option' doesn't pass, because I think the judges being bottled up are by and large either unfit or such extremists as to have no place on the federal appellate bench. (Indeed, I think the Democrats' allowing DC Circuit nominee Thomas B. Griffith to be confirmed is very unfortunate as he's simply too slipshod to be trusted with a lifetime appointment.)

But I'm not going to sign this letter because I don't agree with how it frames the issue. For me, the bottom line is that the filibuster is a tainted institution. It is politically convenient now, and in service to what I think is a very very good cause, but its history is too intertwined with the fight against civil rights for me to try to wrap it in the flag. Furthermore, as a general matter, one of my main beefs with the Senate is that it is too counter-majoritarian due to the radical population imbalances between the states, many times greater than anything imagined by the Framers. The law professors' letter praises the counter-majoritarian role; I think it is quite suspect. Indeed, if the Senate were more representative by population, I don't think there would be a GOP majority. It would certainly be small at best. Recall that the House is a lopsided as it is only due to gerrymandering.

So the filibuster is convenient now. There is some virtue in not letting majorities trample impassioned minorities. But not always. I'm not sure if I have a fully worked out general metric for when filibusters are reasonable and when they are abusive. The size and permanence of the change are relevant. The passion of the minority is relevant. I'd say that the nature of the change matters too — things than enhance freedom should be less subject to it — but that's such a contestable term that I can't put much weight on it.

There are some complicated issues about how many votes, under the Senate's rules, really should be required to pass the 'nuclear option'. These aren't, however, constitutional issues, and I don't pretend to be expert in the Senate's rules of procedure. Ultimately, for me this is a political issue about how much pain the majority wishes to inflict on the minority, and how much the minority can inflict pain back, either by bringing the Senate to a halt, framing the issue as the destruction of a hallowed tradition of free debate, or stomping on the minority when the parties change roles.

Pragmatically, I think if the GOP does this, they'll rue the day, and so meanwhile will the rest of us. But that's not the argument in the letter.

The Politics of the Schiavo Bill

So much one could say about the entire Schiavo mess — How can the GOP support this anti-federalist measure without any hint of shame? How can the same GOP that says federal power should be seen through he lens of a limited Commerce Clause and shrunken 14th Amendment claim that Congress has the power to act here? How can anyone care so much more about the feeding tube in a person with a liquefied cerebral cortex than about the feeding of hungry children both at home and abroad? And what about all the people who die for lack of medical care? Is the Schiavo bill a bill of attainder? Does the insertion of the Congress into an ongoing judicial matter violate separation of powers? — but other people are asking, or will ask, all these questions.

So here's my own addition to the pile: Why didn't the Senate democrats take advantage of this bill to add a rider to it? Say, a requirement that the CIA not use any methods of torture abroad that would be cruel and unusual punishment at home? Or anything else that ought, in principle, to be uncontroversial but would cause Rovian heartburn? Why just roll over without charging a price for quick action?

Whiskey Bar Unearths the Maoists Among Us

Billmon, Whiskey Bar: Scenes From the Cultural Revolution juxtaposes the rantings of our local version of the Red Guards with the substantially similar rantings of the originals.

The Politics of the Withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Consular Convention

Yesterday I blogged the legal issues relating to the US's decision to withdraw from the Consular Convention. Today I want to explore the politics of it. And they're somewhat strange.

I don't of course know what the administration is thinking, and my ability to build a working mental model of the political and legal thinking of the crazed royalists in and around the White House is, I trust, somewhat limited. Nevertheless, from my perch very far outside the Beltway it seems much more likely than not that this move is primarily driven by the Medellin case and the more general problem that foreign states are bringing and winning cases in the ICJ charging failure to inform foreign nationals of their rights under the Consular Convention. These losses, most recently a very quick decision on provisional remedies, interfere with some of our states' desires to execute foreigners convicted of serious crimes, just as those states execute our own citizens.

The US's decision to withdraw from the mandatory jurisdiction of the ICJ over violations of the consular convention is a poke in the eye to the ICJ. It adds its mite to the US's increasing isolation among the civilized and cooperative nations of the world. It – quite intentionally – sets back the cause of the rule of law in the international system. These other effects were probably features, not bugs, in the eyes of the Administration. But they were, I suspect, fundamentally mere side-effects, bonuses..and it is the very casualness with which the administration tolerates such side effects which will magnify the damage they cause.

It's not hard to understand how this administration might think it scores points with the base – or even the masses – by acting in away that it can describe as both pro-death penalty and anti-world government. But in fact the act of withdrawal from the Optional Protocol (presuming it is even valid) is formally neither. The ICJ, unlike the WTO or the ICC, is about as far from world government as you can get. And were the administration committed to the rule of law domestically, the removal of the ICJ's ability to beat us over the head with words is also of almost no significance. Because our law instructs our courts (and other government officials) to beat themselves over the head when needed.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.” International customary law is also part of federal law: as the Supreme Court reminded us over 100 years ago, in the Paquete Habana case, “International law is part of our law.” And, under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, it follows that if the nation is bound to follow international law, that obligation must somehow be communicated to and adhered to by the states. The precise means by which that happens in the absence of legislation may be uncertain; the role of the President and of the federal courts in making that stick may be controversial; but it is clear that the obligation exists in some form. Taking away the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ that arises from the Optional Protocol of the Consular Convention will not change that formal obligation, nor so long as the US remains a party to the Consular Convention will our legal obligations under it be diminished in any way.

The decision to walk away from the Optional Protocol is thus revealed as being only one of three things: (1) It could be an act of simple petulance; (2) It could be a studied move of retaliation against the ICJ for other decisions in other areas, a retaliatory act whose subtlety would seem to exceed the capacity of the people who wish to make paleoconservative John Bolton our ambassador to the UN; or (3) most likely, it is an invitation to the states to take it easy on compliance with our legal obligations under the Consular Conventions, obligations which endure past our withdrawal from the Optional Protocol.

That third option is of course another poke in the eye, a destructive thrust aimed not at international system, but at the domestic commitment to the rule of law. That it emanates from people who do not, in their hearts, speech and writings really consider international law to be law in any binding way, and who see the basic sinews of international legality – the Geneva Conventions, for example – as at most annoyances, only makes it worse. And it further calls into question their belief in domestic law.

Conservative Logic

A study shows that a selected segment of the most highly educated and intelligent people, folks gifted with jobs that allow them to think deeply about the world, tend overwhelmingly to reject the Republican party. Is the rejection of the GOP by professors at California's two leading universities just maybe a sign that Republican ideas don't stand up to sustained scrutiny? No, it seems that this hypothesis isn't even on the table. Instead, it's presumptively a 'Conspiracy of Intellectual Orthodoxy'—if you're a Republican anyway. Seems to me the data is in fact utterly silent as to causes, meaning we should ask ourselves what is more likely.

(Incidentally, given the authors' tendentious manner of introducing the results, the study relied on should be viewed as presumptively suspect. Anyone who introduces a study of faculty living in California by comparing their political party registrations to the national electoral vote is someone who doesn't understand comparing like with like or who is consciously trying to bamboozle with statistics. I understand that the California state party registration patterns are not as skewed as the ones asserted for Berkeley and Standford, but if we're going to do serious work, let's do it seriously, and compare to people similarly situated geographically and by educational and financial status.)

Update: See also Intellectual Diversity at Stanford for more shocking news about narrow-mindedness ruling the halls of academe:

…my preliminary research has discovered some even more shocking facts. I have found that only 1% of Stanford professors believe in telepathy (defined as “communication between minds without using the traditional five senses”), compared with 36% of the general population. And less than half a percent believe “people on this earth are sometimes possessed by the devil”, compared with 49% of those outside the ivory tower. And while 25% of Americans believe in astrology (“the position of the stars and planets can affect people’s lives”), I could only find one Stanford professor who would agree. (All numbers are from mainstream polls, as reported by Sokal.)

This dreadful lack of intellectual diversity is a serious threat to our nation’s youth, who are quietly being propagandized by anti-astrology radicals instead of educated with different points of view. Were I to discover that there were no blacks on the Stanford faculty, the Politically Correct community would be all up in arms. But they have no problem squeezing out prospective faculty members whose views they disagree with.

Bush v. Facts

It was an amazing moment: After the introductory comments, Andrey Kolesnikov, a correspondent for the Russian business newspaper Kommersant, got up and said -- albeit not so succinctly, and not in English -- Hey, no wonder you guys see eye to eye! You're both authoritarians.

This prompted Bush to launch into a possibly unprecedented defense of himself as a democratic leader. He did it by describing his view of the country.

And while Putin didn't challenge what Bush said, there have been some news reports of late that suggest that things may not be as black and white as Bush said.

"I live in a transparent country.

• Cadre grows to rein in message; Ranks of federal public affairs officials have swelled under Bush to help tighten control on communiques to media, access to information, Newsday, Feb. 24, 2005; Administration Paid Commentator; Education Dept. Used Williams to Promote 'No Child' Law, Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2005; Groups raise concerns about increased classification of documents, GOVEXEC.com, Oct. 27, 2004.

"I live in a country where decisions made by government are wide open and people are able to call people to -- me to account, which many out here do on a regular basis.

• High Court Backs Vice President; Energy Documents Shielded for Now, Washington Post, June 25, 2004; Mr. President, will you answer the question?, NiemanWathchdog.org, Dec. 3, 2004; Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy, Washington Post, Jan. 16, 2005 (in which Bush says: "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections.")

"Our laws and the reasons why we have laws on the books are perfectly explained to people. Every decision we have made is within the Constitution of the United States. We have a constitution that we uphold.

• How U.S. rewrote terror law in secrecy; White House group devised new system in aftermath of 9/11, New York Times, Oct. 24, 2004; In Cheney's Shadow, Counsel Pushes the Conservative Cause, Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2004; Slim Legal Grounds for Torture Memos; Most Scholars Reject Broad View of Executive's Power, Washington Post, July 4, 2004.

"And if there's a question as to whether or not a law meets that constitution, we have an independent court system through which that law is reviewed.

• Recount 2000: Decision Sharpens the Justices' Divisions; Dissenters See Harm to Voting Rights and the Court's Own Legitimacy, Washington Post, Dec. 13, 2000; Scalia Won't Sit Out Case On Cheney; Justice's Memo Details Hunting Trip With VP, Washington Post, March 19, 2004.

"So I'm perfectly comfortable in telling you our country is one that safeguards human rights and human dignity, and we resolve our disputes in a peaceful way."

• Torture at Abu Ghraib, the New Yorker, May 10, 2004; Ground War Starts, Airstrikes Continue As U.S. Keeps Focus on Iraq's Leaders, Washington Post, March 21, 2003.

Al Franken Has a Way With Words

I have no particular reason to think he'd be a good Senator, should he ever choose to run, but Al Franken does have a way with words:

They don't get it. We love America in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world.

From Chapter Five of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

(via The Liquid List)

The Inauguration

Lots of people I know are forwarding me emails about various forms of protest centering on the high cost of the planned Bush inauguration.

I think these complaints, while very well-meaning, and fairly well-taken, are not going to have much traction.

There's no doubt that the inauguration preparations are over the top. The idea of closing off a huge part of downtown DC, not to mention the idea of trying first to stick one of the poorest cities in the US with the bill, then deciding to raid the Homeland Security piggyback to pay so-called security costs (which include building bleachers), is ugly.

But the fact is that the country likes a party. Carter didn't win many points for turning down the heat and wearing a sweater. Reagan won points for reigning regally. Bush isn't regal, but unless it's true that 9/11 changed more than the way in which we justify pointless wars and blank checks to federal contractors, I expect relatively few people will get on board this bandwagon…and those cheering the party will see it largely as sour grapes.

So, sorry friends, good luck, and thanks for thinking of me, but I'm going to keep worrying about casualties in Iraq (soldiers, civilians, our money, their infrastructure, our claims to decency, and counting), the fight over social security, and the environment — which has me increasingly worried about both pollution and systemic, tragedy of the commons, issues such as overfishing and global warming. Oh, and nuclear proliferation. And gerrymandering. And election mismanagement and irregularities. And protecting anonymity and free speech. And, sigh, about twenty other things.

David Neiwert Turns Over Rocks

David Neiwert, aka Orcinus has been turning over rocks and finding ugly things crawl out. The latest example in a depressingly long series of posts is hinterlands of Idaho and Montana, where it seems “eliminationist” rhetoric is getting a strong foothold.

I've been talking for some time about the course that eliminationist rhetoric on the right would eventually take by the force of its own nature: pretty soon we'd go from talking about liberals as traitors to overtly wishing for violence to be visited upon them and discussing locking them up, followed in due course by such violence and incarceration becoming a reality.

Well, it is now becoming a commonly spoken sentiment on the right to wish for violence against liberals and to simultaneously suggest they and all “traitors” (including Muslim Americans) should be locked away. We're firmly into Phase II now.

I would like to assure you — and myself — that Mr. Neiwert is some sort of alarmist crank, and that the attitudes he describes cannot spread.

But I can't do that.

Bush and the Republicans Plan to Abolish Social Security

I am doing my bit to advance The Plan.

They don't call it 'the third rail of politics' for no reason, after all….

Gonzales

Hire an undocumented nanny, and you are unfit to join the cabinet. Sign a memo facilitating war crimes by mis-reading the Geneva convention, or commission a memo that facilitates torture by, excuse the term, torturing the English language and the relevant judicial precedents…no problem…

That Bar Is Looking Mighty Low, Senator

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, is quoted in today's New York Times as saying about Attorney General nominee Alberto R. Gonzales (the man who approved the Torture Memos),

“Generally, for an executive branch position the president gets the benefit of the doubt,” he said. “The general feeling on the committee is that he has probably met that lowered threshold.”

1. attempt to put a patina of legality on war crimes and
2. totally twist the Constitution to suggest the President has powers akin to Louis XIV^th's and
3. mis-state the relevant precedents to make it seem like the above have substantial judicial support when in fact the opposite is true.

As far as I'm concerned, Congress was almost as much to blame for Iraq as Bush — they wrote him a blank check, with the Gulf of Tonkin precedent sitting there in front of them. If there isn't some serious attempt in Congress to come to grips with the torture scandal in the next year, then some of the torture dirt will stick to them as well.

Followup to Vote-Rigging Program Item

Looks as if it's time to promote Wayne Masden's story about a Republican-commissioned program that changes votes out of the tinfoil category, as it seems to be breaking into the major media.

Having Democratic House Judiciary members give Clinton Curtis a platform didn't hurt (video and transcript).

Bad Deal: Snow Stays, Principi Leaves

The Cabinet lost one of its few competent members but retained one its most clueless and ineffectual (note the “and” — many are one or the other only some are both): CNN.com - Snow staying at Treasury. When does the press get to rats and sinking ships? (Although, to be fair, as political matter, pushing through an intelligence bill whatever its actual merits was good survival politics for the administration; failing to do so would have reeked of lame duckishness so hard no one could ignore it.)

How to Question Bush Better

If you are willing to endure the annoying ad required for a 'Day Pass', you can read my brother's article at Salon, Mr. President, will you answer the question?. Here's the start:

George W. Bush has held far fewer solo news conferences than any president in the modern era. And when he does meet with the press, he avoids direct answers so brazenly that there is scant little value in it anyway. It's time the White House press corps did something about it.

How? In interviews, a half dozen of the best White House correspondents of the recent past have offered up some suggestions for the reporters who will be covering Bush's second term. And one place they can start is by reminding the public of a number of important, outstanding questions left unanswered about Bush's first term.

The article gives sober advice to White House journalists about how to try to shame the White House into less infrequent press conferences, and how to ask the sort of direct questions that are harder to fog out of.

I suspect, however, that the two things are in fact contradictory: if the press starts doing less of a lap-poodle act at press conferences, there are going to be fewer press conferences, not more.

But it's a nice article.

How Low Should We Go

Consider Many Women Say Airport Pat-Downs Are a Humiliation. If this were a Democratic administration being attacked by the GOP, you can just imagine what the bloviators on TV and radio would say about how the goverment is trying to feel up America's women, and should keep its prying hands to itself.

Democrats don't usually descend to that level of demagogary, although there are of course exceptions.

Should one fight fire with fire or with water?

Trends in Leader Portraiture and Personality Cults

Over in North Korea, portraits of “Dear Leader” Kim Jong Il are disappearing from offices and public places, creating a “baffling blankness”.

Meanwhile, back here in the US, billboard-sized portraits of “Our Leader” are springing up in public places, as a “public service” from Clear Channel Communications. Cult of personality, anyone?

Brand Democrat

Brand Democrat has the sort of slogans that reflect the sort of thinking that wins elections.

OK, there's one on there I don't like, the one about WWII: even if the Republican isolationists fought entry to the war, they supported winning it, so I think it's wrong to paint it in partisan colors. I'd say the same about Vietnam, which was started by Democrats but escalated then lost by a Republican.

But otherwise, there's some great stuff there.

Lest We Forget: Gonzales Appeared to Obstruct Justice in the Plame Affair

Do not forget that Gonzales — nominated to be the nation's top cop — is the guy who when the Plame investigation was bearing down on the White House ensured that the guilty parties had all the time they could want to shred everything incriminating:

Let me give a quick recap of the timeline. It started with the President's deception in his State of the Union Address in January. In his remarks, Mr. Bush stated Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. A few months later, in July, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's op-ed appears in the New York Times, questioning the President's assertion.

Then in order to discredit Wilson and “seek revenge'' on Wilson, senior administration officials leaked to the press the identity of Wilson's wife and the fact she was a CIA operative, thereby undercutting our national security and clearly violating Federal law.

This happened in early July. Let's see what happened since.

On July 24, Senator Schumer calls on the FBI Director to open a criminal investigation into the leak of a CIA operative based on that column.

In late July, the FBI notified Senator Schumer that they had done an inquiry into the CIA.

Then it appears nothing happened for 2 months.

On September 23, the Attorney General says he and CIA Director Tenet sent a memo to the FBI requesting an investigation.

On September 26, the Department of Justice officially launches its investigation.

Interestingly, it took 4 days after that “official'' launch for the Justice Department to call White House Counsel Gonzales and notify him of the official investigation. Gonzalez then asked for an extra day before the Justice Department gave the White House the official notice, which means all documents and records must be preserved.

A recent letter was sent to the President from Senators Daschle, Schumer, Levin, and Biden which also expresses concern about this break from regular procedure.

They wrote:

Every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that the first step in such an investigation would be to ensure all potentially relevant evidence is preserved, yet the Justice Department waited four days before making a formal request for documents.

Interestingly, the letter goes on:

When the Justice Department finally asked the White House to order employees to preserve documents, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning. The request for a delay was granted. Again, every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that such a delay is a significant departure from standard practice.

That is what has been happening—departure from standard practice.

I am also troubled that the White House Counsel's Office is serving
as “gatekeeper'” for all the documents the Justice Department has requested from the White House. Mr. Gonzales' office said he would not rule out seeking to withhold documents under a claim of executive privilege or national security.

What kind of a zoo is this outfit?

Mr. Gonzales says he can withhold these documents from this investigation on the basis of national security.

Don't care about liberal goo-goo stuff like Geneva conventions and torture? How about outing CIA agents and obstruction of justice?

Confirmation Blitzkrieg Alert

In Ashcroft exits stage right, with a controversial successor waiting in the wings, The Carpetbagger Report spreads the rumor that the White House may be thinking of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as the next Attorney General.

That would be the same Gonzales who is up to his eye teeth in not just the torture memos, but also the idea that the US can unilaterally decide that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to people we designate as 'terrorists' even if they are captured on a battlefield.

I find this rumor very plausible. From the White House's perspective it's a can't-lose proposition. It makes a great trial run for Supreme Court nominations on multiple dimensions.

If the Democrats lie down on this one, it signals they may be patsies on far-right Justices. And, it substantially inoculates Gonzales himself if he turns out to be the Hispanic appointee the White House is said to desire: after all, if he was kosher enough to be the AG, why all of a sudden object to him on the Court?

On the other hand, if the Democrats dare to act like an opposition party faced with the most ideological and extreme government in the history of this nation, then the GOP can try to tar them as anti-Hispanic. Plus, when they filibuster a future paleoconservative Supreme Court nominee, the fight over Gonzales can be cited as evidence that those poor benighted Democrats just don't like anyone and are being continually obstructionist.

The lesson for the Democrats seems clear to me: if you are going to take damage either way, better to be hung for a lion than a lamb. Not to mention that Gonzales's conduct in office has been immoral. To allow him to hold office requiring confirmation is to partake of his taint.

UPDATE: Kos says it's official. Here we go…..

Thought for the Day

Thought for the day:

“There is a lot of ruin in a country,”
—John Maynard Keynes¹

¹ Brad's right—Adam Smith said it first.

Phonecams and the Secret Ballot

Here's Ed Felton with a more elegant discussion of the verifiable voting problem I mentioned yesterday: see his Phonecams and the Secret Ballot.

Boing Boing MoBlogs the Vote

The plane is about to leave, so just a rushed note to see Boing Boing: Vote Save Error .

This incident is a problem on its own….but alas it also shows why we can't allow camera phones in polling places — it would allow people to prove how they voted, which makes vote selling and blackmail feasible. Which isn't the point the post meant to make.

It Can't Happen Here

• Whiskey Bar: The Future Belongs to Me
• Orcinus, Tracking the thuggery
• Orcinus: The Rise of Pseudo Fascism

My Kerry-Edwards Sign (II)

In Part One I described the first day of our ownership of a Kerry-Edwards sign. In this part two, I report the sign's untimely demise.

Orcinus reports there have been a number of violent incidents around the country in which people with the temerity to display a Kerry-Edwards sign have suffered for it. My story is much tamer: someone took the sign a day after I put it up.

I called the cops to report a theft, thinking that if this was not a unique event, it would help build a record of it. This being Coral Gables, a cop was dispatched within minutes to investigate the theft of a $5 sign. Unfortunately, we'd been out much of the day, and couldn't even tell him about what time it likely happened. The cop was very polite. I got the sense he had views about the election and was disciplining himself not to utter them; he was professional enough that when he left I wasn't even sure which side he was on. (Just in case you are thinking white male Florida stereotyped cop, forget it: this was a trim, no-accent, black man I'd guess in his 30s.) His main advice was that if we got another sign, not to put it on the swale (the strip of city-owned land between the sidewalk and the street), but rather on our property. Material on the swale, he instructed us, can be considered abandoned and thus anyone can take it. (My own opinion is that this rule does not apply to yard signs that are clearly fixed in place, even on the swale, but why believe me, I'm not a member of the Florida Bar. Anyway, it's the law on the ground that counts.)

So we went to get another sign. This was not easy as there was a national shortage of Kerry-Edwards yard signs. But we got one, put it up, and it's still there. Unfortunately, the shortage is so acute that the Kerry folks wouldn't even sell me a spare for me to give to Ms. 'Morales' across the street (see part one).

Meanwhile, however, the street has sprouted two other K-E signs … and one Bush sign.

Reality Is Not an Option Indefinitely

Here's news from a study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

I don't find persistent (willful?) voter ignorance very cheerful. On the other hand, I suppose this opens a window for some good advertising.

Of the Dilbertian Pointy Headed Boss and the Next, Wonkish, Presidency

A lucid essay at the aptly named Making Light, wherin not levity but illumination. The title may be Motivation and doubt, but the topic is management style and the world view of the PHB — and what it means to have an ur-PHB in the Oval Office. (Hint: reality need not apply.) Great reading. (And, as always, the comments are good too.)

So too, in a very different way, is Stirling Newberry's The Great Silence:

Bush Wilts without the Media Light, which begins with meditations on the 'ground game' in the last weeks of the campaign, and then takes off in a flight of plausible fancy to imagine the arc of the first term of a Kerry Presidency. Rather than a PHB, suggests Newberry, it will be a wonk's Presidency—at first.

What if the Real Polls Don't Matter

One more reason polls don't matter: people who think they are registered to vote may not be. In Nevada, a GOP-financed firm purported to register voters, but secretly ripped up the forms submitted by people who wanted to register as Democrats.

There are dirty tricks in every election, but this is down there among the slimiest. Thousands of would-be voters may be effected. And it's not the only such story from this electoral cycle. See this voter fraud roundup and the one at Angry Bear.

The US doesn't have a great history on this subject, and I don't mean just the 2000 election. There's substantial evidence, for example, that JFK, LBJ and then-Mayor Daley stole the 1960 election by stuffing ballot boxes in Texas and rigging the vote in Chicago…mitigated only somewaht by some counter-evidence of GOP vote fraud that year. Arguably, Nixon's finest hour was taking that defeat relatively quietly; the counter-argument is he knew what skeletons were in his closet. (You know, this lot makes me miss Nixon. At least when Nixon and Kissinger committed a war crime, they had a somewhat plausible theory motivating it.)

This year, however, the reported evidence of fraud — not to mention the potential for rigging voting machines — leans very heavily one way, and suggests a pattern of voter intimidation (aimed at Blacks and Native Americans) and outright fraud that may continue on to election day.

How many fraud stories leaning the same way, in how many states, does it take before the validity of this election is so much in doubt that we need to ask if we still have a democracy in the real sense of the word?

And if we should conclude that we have failed Benjamin Franklin's test — a Republic, if you can keep it — then what do we do? The mind boggles. One wants to think about something else. Novels. Getting out the vote. The new Chumbawumba CDs that arrived in the mail. Work.

Is it best not to think about it until we know the result of the election? (Even if some Republicans are already laying plans to claim, as they did with Clinton, that only Republicans can be legitimately elected?) After all, it might not be close, and blowout one way would quiet criticism, espeically if it wasn't the party in power that had access to the paperless electronic voting machines.

Or, perhaps, is it already too late in the game?

Updates: Kos1 and Kos2

Were Those the Good Old Days?

Remember when everyone was all worked up about 'apathy'?

Understanding Sinclair and Getting Even

It's not news that 'freedom of the press belongs to he who owns one'. And even in this Internet age of 'everyone a publisher' the fact remains that TV remains the dominant media form in the US, and much of the world.

Sinclair media's decision to abuse its ownership of a group of stations to air a low-quality anti-Kerry propaganda film a few days before the election — to order the stations to dump network programming and run junk instead — is a classic abuse of power.

What's interesting is how Internet users are fighting back. Some, like Ernest Miller, are writing about the context — how the current regulatory climate lacks the safeguards that used to prevent such a blatant abuse of power.

Others are concentrating on how to fight back. One set of ideas comes via Kevin Hayden, suggesting a national pushback aimed at Sinclair's national advertisers. This is a good strategy if you don't live in one of the affected communities.

Another method appears via Kevin Drum, and emphasizes the local angle. I think it's a winner.

A Vote for Bush Is a Vote for Torture

Harsh words, yes, but how else to describe this atrocity?

The Bush administration is supporting a provision in the House leadership's intelligence reform bill that would allow U.S. authorities to deport certain foreigners to countries where they are likely to be tortured or abused, an action prohibited by the international laws against torture the United States signed 20 years ago. …

The provision, human rights advocates said, contradicts pledges President Bush made after the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal erupted this spring that the United States would stand behind the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the Justice Department “really wants and supports” the provision.

For background please see Voting Republican This Year = Voting for Torture .

Voting Republican This Year = Voting for Torture

It's not enough that Rumsfeld and probably Bush not just tacitly condoned but actively encouraged studies of optimal torture regimes, creating a climate in which undeniable and disgusting torture was used against Iraqi civilians, including children. And at Guantanamo (more). Even they at least had the hypocrisy to attempt to do the Iraq torture planning under wraps. (Hypocrisy being “the tribute vice pays to virtue”.) Meanwhile, at home, being too delicate to torture domestically, the Administration quietly subcontracted the job to Syria. (See my post almost exactly a year ago, Maher Arar Affair: What is the Pluperfect of 'Cynic'?.)

Comes now a group of Congressional Republicans who are pure vice, and are not even trying to hide it: they have proposed that US law be amended to remove protections against torture — ie to legitimate torture, to plan to torture — for people we label “terrorists” (modern unpersons). The full horrid details are at Obsidian Wings: Legalizing Torture. The key move would be to exclude “terrorists” from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The “terrorists” could be held in secret unless they could somehow overcome (without lawyers or witnesses?) a presumption of guilt. When they failed to overcome this impossible burden they could be subject to “extraordinary rendition” which is bureaucrat for “being ported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture”—a deportation that currently would be a serious violation of US law.

Anyone who votes for people capable of supporting these policies has blood on their hands. Not to mention what they are doing to the image of the US as the 'City on the Hill', the beacon to mankind. Once we descend into the torture pit, we're just arguing about circles in Hell.

Today's Hot Links

• Eric Muller explains the sloppy mendacity reflected on the cover of Michelle Malkin’s “In Defense of Internment”. It seems you can judge a book by its cover.
• NYT discovers the absentee ballot fraud problem that I've been worrying about for weeks. As of the latest Jeb Bush revisions of the voting law, Florida has fewer safeguards against fraud of anywhere (see the chart) — and a great propensity towards it.
• WashPo on bad decision making in Iraq. And yes, the fish does rot from the head.
• How the Pentagon reports Iraq 'casualties' — it's much, much less than the number of soldiers actually hurt
• CBS document discourse has split into parallel universes. In one universe the claims the documents are modern creations are obviously bogus, while in the other universe they are proved. I was leaning towards suspicious until Safire weighed in with a typically bombastic and tactical column. It's usually a safe bet those sorts of column are wrong, so I'm leaning towards genuine again.

You Rarely See Media Bias this Blatant

Via Atrios, the unbelievable bias of the “question of the day” on the MSNBC TV Front Page. Incredible.

Update: They edited it. But you can see the original reproduced here.

Lyn Nofziger on Bush's Attack on 527's

The don't get much more Reagan Republican than Lyn Nofziger, who was sorta Reagan's Rove, only more substantive, slightly less tricksy, and far more principled. They were, to my eye, somewhat peculiar principles, but he held to them (subject, it must be said, to the 'our sonofabitch' principle of real-life party politics, where sometimes you hold your nose and work for the party's guy). So Nofziger supports Bush — if only because Nofziger hates Democrats (and immigrants, and gays, and taxes) — but he has some issues with the guy. Here's one:

George W. Bush and John McCain are turning out to be the Laurel and Hardy of the Republican party. There‘s no way they can be serious when they propose that the federal government sue to prevent their fellow Americans from exercising their constitutional right of free speech.

I‘ve forgotten who it was who said it, but these comedians need to be reminded of what the guy whose name I’ve forgotten said: “I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.”

McCain’s attitude perhaps is understandable; he spent a good share of his life in the military where free speech is spoken at one’s peril. John Kerry’s attitude, which is much the same, is also understandable. He’s a Democrat and Democrats think that government, not the people, knows best.

But George Bush claims to be a conservative, compassionate maybe, but still a conservative, somewhat in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Can anyone here imagine for a minute that Reagan would advocate putting limits on political speech?

Someone also needs to remind these clowns that the purpose of the first amendment was to insure the right of free political speech. These guys need to pick up and read, probably for the first time, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It might help them to put things into perspective.

What these guys are finding out, and are unhappy about, is that no matter how many laws you pass with the intent of limiting free speech, as long as the first amendment exists, smart people will find a way to get around those laws. Unfortunately, now that they are discovering this truth, they are taking the next step and trying to twist the first amendment for the purpose of limiting of free speech.

Gentlemen, it will not work. Not in the long run. Comes first the revolution.

BBC Reporter Disdains US Counterparts -- With Reason

According to CJR Campaign Desk, here's what Dusan Neumann, the BBC reporter assigned to cover the Cheney campaign, has to say about the BBC, the campaign, and US reporters:

Neumann, who grew up in Prague and who used a fake passport to defect to the U.S. in 1980, noted that the BBC proper doesn't seem interested in the election, since it's already apparently decided that it wants Kerry to win. By contrast, the press — and the public — in eastern Europe, view Bush more favorably, because the memory of totalitarianism is sufficiently recent that anyone who topples a dictator earns admiration.

As for the American news media, Neumann isn't impressed. Like many observers, especially foreign ones, he can't understand the obsession with trivia, and believes the press does a poor job at informing the public about the pressing issues of the day. He told me how he planned to begin his next written piece:

“Whilst U.S. Marines, cavalry, Air Force and Iraq's security forces were tightening a noose around al-Sadr Mahdi militia and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was hustled to Najaf, the cream of the national press core was counting apples, tomatoes, green peppers and ears of corn.”

The last is a reference to this incident.

Optimist, Meet Pessimist

The optimist — in a discussion of war crimes unfolding before our very eyes — says, John Kerry may be the single most qualified man in the entire nation to be president at this moment in history.

The pessimist — in a discussion of how American voters, especially white males, vote out of spite not ideology or interest — says, Kerry is the closest thing to Nixon that the Democrats have ever fielded (spotted via Digby), and means it as a compliment.

And the hell of it is, these two viewpoints are not incompatible.

Air Diversion

The media has decided to accept US Air's claim that it diverted a plane two hours out of its way to pick up stranded passengers in Albany as a matter of routine, and not because the two Bush daughters and secret service detail just happened to be stranded in Albany.

The public is more sceptical, as can be seen from this extraordinary posting to Dave Farber's list, quoted below.

Dave, I know you've closed this discussion, but I have something personal to add; don't worry about passing it to the list. Thought you might be interested.

I fly US Airways almost exclusively; have for about 15 years now.

I have been “stranded” by them for up to 2 days as recently as a year ago, only to be told by them that I could “sleep in the plastic seats” — my request for a hotel was denied. I was told that mechanical delays were to blame, and that if I didn't want to buy a membership in their flight club, I'd have to stay in the seating area until they could get me on a plane that did have an open seat: 23 hours later was the earliest they could give me. (I note that only that year I'd let my Club membership lapse; silly me.)

The kicker? I was wearing a full back brace, walking (with difficulty) with a cane, and all my extra pain meds were in my baggage, which they couldn't get for me. I'd broken my back and the spine was beginning to have mechanical difficulties of its own.

Since then I was stranded in Charlotte, NC, on a bereavement fare, with my father dying as I stood in the airport in tears, because my plane couldn't leave, and the next plane — the last plane of the day to go to my destination — was full — I was told to my face, in front of shocked witnesses, that I was “out of luck.” I'd have to stay “in the seats” until they found a place for me =the next day=. A very kind man gave me his seat in the plane and spent the night in the airport himself, after he saw me sobbing. The airline never apologized and instead a stewardess scolded me for “taking that man's seat from him.” I suggested they could make it up by giving him a hotel room. She said, “We don't do that for stranded passengers.”

I can cite at least 6 more times I was stranded by US Airways, all around the country, for between 4-24 hours at a pop, with no offer of even a hotel room. “We don't do that,” is the chorus.

If only I'd known then that I could get a plane diverted for me.

Yeah, right.

—Nancy who is disgusted that people believe the airline spokespeople couldn't possibly be stretching the truth to cover their asses

Archivist Update

Last April, I blogged the flap over the Bush administration's attempt to replace the Archivist of the United States, something that looks suspiciously like an attempt to have a hand-picked successor on hand next January, which when the GHW Bush administration papers become potentially open to public viewing. The Washington Post has an article on the issue, which includes a thumbnail of the proposed new Archivist's confirmation hearings. It has to be said that he doesn't sound so bad…although why the Bush people wanted to push out the incumbent early remains very mysterious.

Bravo, Larry!

Larry Lessig does a good deed.

It's Cynicism All the Way Down

This may be one of the most cynical ploys in US politics I ever read about. And I read a lot.

New York Times, White House Helps Block Extension of Tax Cuts: The White House helped to block a Republican-brokered deal on Wednesday to extend several middle-class tax cuts, fearful of a bill that could draw Democratic votes and dilute a Republican campaign theme, Republican negotiators said

In other words, the only reason Bush & Co. support tax cuts is to use them as a wedge issue. Give them the tax cuts they ask for bipartisanly, they not only lose interest, but scupper it.

Fortunately, if recent polls are to be believed, President Lincoln was a better judge of the American character than PT Barnum.

Update: Apparently, PT Barnum may never actually have said that there's a sucker born every minute.

Movies You Will Not See on TV for a LONG Time

Today's NYT “Week in Review” section has a small but remarkably clueless item by Sharon Waxman on the profusion of liberal movie/DVD documentaries being released this year. Lights, Camera, Liberal begins like this:

If talk radio is dominated by conservatives, documentaries must be the preferred medium of liberals. It’s not only “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore’s box-office hit about the Iraq war. A number of films — all left of center — are set to be launched in the coming weeks, as the electoral season gets underway in earnest.

Why so many documentaries, and why now?

The article not only fails to explain “why now” but it fails to connect its lede with the fact it explains: the main reason why anti-Bush documentaries are going to film or DVD is that the broadcast media, largely owned and run by right-wing Republicans, won't make them and won't play them. If even a mildly hagiographic TV mini-series like the Reagan biography gets mau-maued by the right wing, who in the broadcast world is going to dare to speak truth (or anything unwelcome) to power? No one. And most of the cable news networks are overtly or covertly Republican. So that relegates centrist and especially liberal documentaries to independents working through distinctly second-best alternate distribution channels. And even that can be hard, witness the various obstacles film chains have put in the way of 9/11, a money-making film.

Politcal Music! Yay!

Sea Lion Records has made Election Day USA, a CD compilation of anti-Bush, anti-war music, free for download as .mp3s. I'm a sucker for political songs—even those I disagree with, so I enjoyed these even if they're not all musically top-notch. Besides, I agreed with most of them. And, some of them are pretty good on any terms, especially (in no particular order),

• John McCutcheon, Let’s Pretend (I actually heard this one on the radio once)
• The Positive Chi Units, Rise Up!
• Coiler, Rogue Nation
• John Kasper, Conspiracy of Silence
• Kris Penn, Coming Home No More
• Musical Graffiti, Peace Inside
• David Rovics, The War Is Over

… and then there's the Sonofa Bush rap which isn't my sort of thing, but will appeal to some.

Why does all this remind me of The Folk Song Army?

Bonus, funny, equal-opportunity-offender (from jibjab, via half the blogs in the world, which is probably why sever keeps saying it's overloaded): Jibjab does This Land

Brad DeLong Ponders Three Theories of Relations in the White Palace

In Cheney as Grand Vizier, Brad DeLong wishes that the DC Press Corps would give him enough information to choose between competing theories of Cheney:

What I am hearing from senior Republicans I talk to who talk to people who are in the administration is confused. There are three theories about what is going on:

Theory 1 is, of course, that everything is wonderful. Theory 1 is that the Republican Party by accident stumbled upon a secret of American politics: that the presidency is too big a job for anyone. In 1981, therefore, they accidently divided the presidency into two: Ronald Reagan was Head-of-State, and gave speeches, and awarded medals, and went to events, and waved at the American people; James Baker was Head-of-Government, and did the job of running the country and the administration. Things fell apart in Reagan's second term when Baker decided he was sick of having all the work and little of the glory, decided he wanted to be Treasury Secretary, and switched jobs with Donald Regan. But once you got a new and competent Chief-of-Staff—Howard Baker—in as Head-of-Government, the machine hummed once again.

George W. Bush is, on this theory, a second-rate Ronald Reagan: somebody who can do the job of Head-of-State (although he does not excel at it), and leave the running of the government to those who know policy and politics: Cheney as Grand Vizier, with Andy Card as his deputy running the White House, Donald Rumsfeld as his deputy running foreign policy, and (originally) Paul O'Neill as his deputy running domestic policy. O'Neill didn't work out and had to be replaced. Colin Powell has still not quite internalized the fact that Donald Rumsfeld is really in charge of foreign policy—holds the job of deputy to the Vice President for foreign affairs. But otherwise things have gone fine: Cheney has headed up the government apparatus and made the tough and dangerous decisions, while George W. Bush has done the meeting-and-greeting.

Theory 2 is the other side of the coin that is theory 1. It is that George W. Bush is indeed Head-of-State and that Richard Cheney is Head-of-Government, but that Cheney is not a qualified and competent administrator-policymaker but incompetent, irrational, short-sighted, and no longer up to the job: a guy whose theory of government is “who the hell knows? And this will please the base.” If only Cheney could be levered out of power, and a new Head-of-Government installed—a strong Chief-of-Staff (i.e., not Andrew Card)—things would be fine.

Theory 3 is that George W. Bush was supposed to be Head-of-State, but that those who thought he would be satisfied to let other, wiser heads run the government were guilty of wishful thinking: that George W. Bush wants to be Head-of-Government as well. When he makes decisions, he makes snap judgments based on inadequate information (i.e., that the American economy's biggest problem is “SEC overreach”), and he will not revisit a decision once it has been made. Thus the task of managing George W. Bush is a ticklish one. He's not curious enough to seek out information on his own. So you have to (a) present him with a lump of information that will push him in the direction you want him to go and then (b) get him to immediately make the decision you want him to make—all the while guarding against your bureaucratic enemies who want the decision to go the other way.

As an abstract matter, this all seems completely right, and will no doubt be a question of great interest to historians and biographers. Heck, I'm interested myself. Its practical payoff, however, only comes if Bush drops Cheney from the ticket — a choice that pits the Bush survival instinct against the never-admit-error reflex — or if one but not the other of them suddenly leaves office for some other reason. (Incidentally, I bet on the reflex over the instinct.)

Come November, I hope it all will be, well, academic.

Distributed Bush Question Generation

My brother's washingtonpost.com - Live Online discussion yesterday includes some interesting suggestions from readers about what questions they would like the press to ask GW Bush. Another good example of harnessing the power of the 'net…except that I doubt somehow that many reporters have the guts to actually ask any of them.

Dumbest FOIA Excuse Ever?

David Sklar, Justice Department's Fragile Read-Never Database. This must surely be a candidate for the dumbest FOIA excuse ever:

The Center for Public Integrity filed a Freedom of Information request to get a copy of the Foreign Agent Registration database, which includes information on activities by registered lobbyists on behalf on foreign governments.

The Justice Department said that it couldn't provide a copy of the entire database because doing so could destroy the database.

Meanwhile, you can go to the appropriate office in Washington DC and pay fifty cents a page to make copies of documents. The information is available in (expensive) page-by-page drips, but not as a whole.

I am curious to learn about the quantum database software in use that could subject the data to changes by reading it. Or perhaps the 8 inch floppies that the data is stored on would get too hot and melt if they had to spin so fast to copy entire files?

It's hard to imagine what's behind this. Terminal incompetence? Cussed desire to undermine FOIA? Halliburton provided the equipment?

Or could it be a Rovian fear that someone will cross-index the database with, say, the lists of donors to the Bush campaign?

Unsubstantiated Hearsay About Cheney's Vocabulary

The Vice President is going around saying things like he's not sure if he really swore at a Senator, but he felt better afterwards (huh?), and Yes, that's not the kind of language I ordinarily use.

Consider the following to be totally unsupported hearsay: Yesterday I received an email from a reader of this blog who said he used to be in and out of Cheney's office before he was the Veep (the email was specific, I'm being vague), and that Cheney regularly used language that was not just salty but downright radioactive.

Not that swearing matters much in my book, but lying does.

If said reader wishes to say more s/he knows how to do so, although I can understand why one view of professional obligations might counsel against it.

Pop Quiz

Guess what really prompted this: CNN.com - Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism. (The curse was what kids call the 'F-word'.)

A) Cheney has seen latest GOP tracking polls and things look bleak. (Maybe like this)

B) Ill health.

C) Plame investigation heats up is about to result indictments of Cheney aide or aides.

D) Aides in Plame investigation not as loyal as hoped.

E) Boss is auditioning a replacement after impending resignation for ill health.

F) Senator Leahy is on to something.

G) Cheney always talks like that, but in the undisclosed location there's no one to tell the press.

Update: There were so many typos in this one, it reminded me why I don't offer bounties

If Only Gore Had Campaigned Like This

Joho at Hyperorg has the full text of Al Gore's latest speech. It's a wow.

Govern from Strength if You Can

Mark Schmitt, the Decembrist (a blog I like a lot) has advice for John Kerry about Negotiating With the Republicans, which amounts to, 'be a centrist, divide the Republican party'.

Brad DeLong, thinking like a smart White House staffer, thinks it is Good Advice. I beg to differ: it may be good January 2005 advice but it is rotten June 2004 advice.

I suspect that Brad's political reflexes were fixed by his service in the Clinton administration. Clinton never governed like he had a mandate (arguably, because he didn't have much of one the first time). He triangulated. He fogged about. He appointed Republicans as judges, and many Democrats who might as well have been Republicans. But that's a rotten way to govern if you have a choice when the other side uses a different play book. And Presidents early in their terms often do have a choice—even if they don't have a majority in either or both houses—so long as they can persuade Congress that they have a mandate, or create political conditions such that Congresspeople are unwilling to cross the President (think about why so many Democrats voted for Bush tax cuts).

Clinton exposed the mushiness of his political spine and his inability to use what political capital he had in the first days of his Presidency when he backed down on gay rights in the military. The signal to Congress was clear—if the guys who have a legal duty to salute and obey their commander in chief could roll the guy, there was no reason at all to give him an inch. He reaped the reward in the health care debate (OK, there were other good reasons [can you say “IRA”?] why it died, too). Clinton rarely if ever punished his enemies in Congress. He wasn't good enough at rewarding his friends, either. But that doesn't have to be the script for Kerry.

Suppose Kerry wins by a landslide — it could happen. Suppose he runs a campaign which is about restoring honor and decency to the White House, about repudiation of torture, sleaze, special interests, and, say, his limited health care plan. There's no reason to compromise on whatever he makes his signature issues. Certainly there's no reason to surrender preemptively now, before the votes are counted. Plenty of time for compromises later.

That said, if there issues where Kerry genuinely has a wedge in the Republican party, such as deficit reduction, by all means campaign on it and use it. But don't give up stuff we care about—until January at the earliest.

Lying By Reflex

More depressing evidence that this administration's first response to anything that looks bad is to lie about it.

• The New York Times > International > Army Now Says G.I. Was Beaten in Role

• Tampa Bay Tribune—TIA now verifies flight of Saudis

• Administration Misled US About Number of Terrorist Attacks in 2003 [Washington Post story]

Medals Update

not only is the administration trying to lump the Afghanistan and Iraq wars under a single global ‘war against terrorism’ rubric for the purpose of campaign medals — a break with tradition — but that it also wants the backroom armchair warriors in that ‘war’ to be able to get the same medal as people who got shot at.

Looks like half of this is getting fixed: there will be separate campaign medals for Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't bet on the other half, though.

Losing the Sports Illustrated Voter

Tompaine.com was one of the early truth-squad, good-government sites, a trailblazer, which may be why it seems a little dowdy already. But they keep delivering.

Today it's A Cronkite Moment? in which Jonathan Tasini suggests that SI might be a bellweather today a bit like Walter Cronkite was 46 years ago.

In the May 3 issue of SI, Reilly, in his regular back-page column “The Life of Reilly,” wrote a piece under the headline “The Hero and the Unknown Soldier.” The hero in Reilly's column was Pat Tillman, the former star football player who was killed in Afghanistan. After 9/11, Tillman had given up a multimillion-dollar contract to volunteer for the Army Rangers. He was lionized throughout the country for his sacrifice.

The Unknown Soldier was Todd Bates. Bates drowned in Iraq. His death went virtually unnoticed except to his family and friends. The man who raised Bates, Charles Jones, refused to go to the funeral, refused to eat or relate to others; he died just four weeks after the funeral. “He died of a broken heart,” Bates' grandmother, Shirley, who also raised him, told Reilly. “There was no reason for my boy to die. There is no reason for this war. All we have now is a Vietnam. My Toddie's life was wasted over there. All this war is a waste. Look at all these boys going home in coffins. What's the good in it?” Reilly, in barely controlled rage, concludes his piece about Tillman and Bates:

“Both did their duty for their country, but I wonder if their country did its duty for them. Tillman died in Afghanistan, a war with no end in sight and not enough troops to finish the job. Bates died in Iraq, a war that began with no just cause and continues with no just reason.

Be proud that sports produce men like this.

But I, for one, am furious that these wars keep taking them.”

Reilly, in his eloquence, was expressing opinions already delivered in places like The Nation and op-ed pages around the country. But that's the point. With all due respect, The Nation,—of which I am a subscriber and supporter—and its ilk will not change the course of history because they speak to the already converted.

What's important here is that Reilly's audience is not the typical Nation reader.

Unfortunate Metaphor

My brother's White House Briefing today includes this zinger:

“I appreciate the grassroots people who are here. Listen, you've got to work hard to turn out the vote, and that's what we call grassroots. I want to thank you. I'm here to fertilize the grassroots today. I'm here to ask you to grow. (Applause.)”

Disney Blocks Anti-Bush Movie...Allegedly Because It Fears Retaliation from Bush Family

One of the signs that you live in a banana republic is that the people disappear off the streets and are held indefinitely without trial (think Padilla). Another is that shadowy people who aren’t officially there and who everyone says are not subject to ordinary authority beat up detainees (think ‘other agency’ operatives and contractors in Iraq’s prisons). Another is that the nation’s Treasury is looted to give favors to cronies of the junta. Check.

But has it come to the point where even the big fish live in fear? Apparently so. Disney is refusing to let its Mirimax subsidiary distribute a polemical anti-Bush film by Michael Moore. I have no brief for Moore, but the New York Times reports that Mirimax at least believes that Disney’s actions are not justified by its contracts with it.

Be that as it may, the shocking part is not corporate political censorship — we lost that virginity long before the first Bush — but one alleged reason for Disney’s unwillingness to have anything to do with the film: a fear of retaliation from the ruling family!

Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush: Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

“Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him,” Mr. Emanuel said. “He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved.”

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company has the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deems their distribution to be against the interests of the company. Mr. Moore's film, the executive said, is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film could alienate many.

Ironically, the film is called “Fahrenheit 911”, presumably an allusion to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, a book about censorship. Moore's project, apparently, is about the Bush-Saudi connection.

Update: Jack Balkin takes Disney at its word, and argues that this exposes a new danger of media concentration, which he dubs the soft censorship of Corporate Expectations:

The soft censorship of corporate expectations suggests a generally unremarked problem with media concentration: It is often argued that media concentration can actually help foster diversity, because a monopolist will have an economic incentive to produce a diverse menu of media goods in order to capture an increasingly large audience share. But this reasoning neglects the fact that as media become vertically and horizontally integrated, they may become held responsible by politicians and advertisers for everything that they do. That leads them, all other things being equal, to avoid the kinds of attacks and controversies that will get them in hot water with politicians. Thus, although media concentration may produce products that are increasingly diverse from one perspective, they may be increasingly shallow from another. Conversely, in a world in which there are a large number of different players, the chances become higher than one of them is willing to risk the wrath of the powers that be.

This is a real danger, although it's currently too late in the evening for me to figure out whether it's new, or a more elegant formulation of the old.

Sometimes Godwin's Law Does Not Apply

One of the things I'm fairly squeamish about is comparisons of contemporary figures to Hitler. I do not go as far as those who say that this genocide was unique and superlatively horrible; Cambodia, 'ethnic cleansing', Rwanda, the 20th century has examples of horrors, each different in meaningful ways, each horrible.

Nevertheless, I am highly predisposed to dislike and distrust a statement like this one: “ Rush Limbaugh is as mainstream in America as Hitler was mainstream in Germany, circa 1932.” Trouble is, Digby got evidence, drawn from Day One of David Brock's new site Media Matters for America​.

It ain't pretty.

If there is any decency around, then decent people are going to run away from Limbaugh, despite the TLC they may wish to give this slightly repentant drug abuser.

• Limbaugh suggests that feminists are into bestiality with dogs

• “What's good for terrorists is good for John Kerry”

• “if you want the terrorists running the show, then you will elect John Kerry”

• “[Speaking about Democrats] I don't know who they are, I don't know what they believe, but I can't relate. I can't possibly understand somebody who hates this country, who was born and raised here. I don't understand how you hate this Constitution. I don't understand how you hate freedom”

• “These people have become the mainstream thought — thinkers, generators of the Democratic Party. It's who they are. They hate this country. They hate the military of this country.”

(there's quite a bit more where that came from).

IQ (and 2000 Presidential Preference) By State

When I lived in Cambridge, back in the Thatcher era, my friends — especially David Howarth, now the LibDem Propective Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge — commonly called the Conservative Party (the Tories) the “stupid party”.

So what to make of this chart? (via Leiter)

At least Florida is only a tiny bit below average. I'm sure that when Jeb Bush gets done trashing our school system we will do worse here.

Yes, yes, I know, I know, IQ tests are a Really Lousy measure of what matters. Not only are the tests flawed, one-dimentional, and culturally biased (I recall being shocked by some of the questions on a test one of my kids took once, as it assumed things that were absolutely not part of our household) attempts to measure “intelligence”, but they don't even try to measure many things that do matter more — decency, honesty, kindness, for example.

Flowers In the Muck

Angry Bear and Brad DeLong are trying to compile a list of people who are going to get out of the Bush administration with their reputation intact. Being economists, they're naturally concentrating on those, which means mostly higher staffers and regulators, with a dash of policy and press people thrown in for good measure. It turns out that the set of people who will emerge with reputations unsullied is not empty, but by their reckoning it's pretty small.

Back in October I surveyed the Bush cabinet and found it to be a fairly sad lot. But I did find one name that I think should be added to their list. You may never have heard of him, but he's in the Cabinet.

Censorship American Style

David Farber writes to the Interesting People list,

I gather that there is a report that Sinclair Broadcast ordered its ABC affiliates to preempt tomorrow's broadcast of Nightline which will air the names and photos of U.S. military personnel who have died in combat in Iraq, saying the move is politically motivated designed to undermine the efforts of the US in Iraq.

Sinclair owns 62 US TV stations.

And so there is.

Is it legal? Probably — we impose only the loosest public interest requirements on the beneficiaries of the publicly created broadcast oligopoly, and what little I know of broadcast law this doesn't come close to violating it.

Is it in good taste? I think reasonable people might differ about the good taste involved in refusing to broadcast the show, especially if those people didn't see it as honoring the dead. (Not my view at all, but people differ.) I do think that accusing ABC (of all bodies!) of what amounts to treason (in effect the old accusing them of giving aid and comfort to the enemy) is not only not in good taste, but contemptible.

Are we not allowed to talk about the costs of this war project? Especially as the goals diminish from a free and democratic Middle East, to a free Iraq, to less violence, to getting out without humiliation?

Apparently not on Sinclair stations.

More On Civility in Politics (or its Absence)

It tends to be conservatives who push loudest for civility in public discourse. Given that uncivility is often part of a challenge to the status quo, and given that conservative politics tend to favor the interests of whoever is doing well out of the status quo, a strategy of cabining dissent to means that are less likely to disturb the status quo is a natural and sensible political strategy. (I happen to think civility is a good thing most of the time, but for other reasons; if that happens to dovetail with traditional conservativism, well, that's the breaks.) The strategy runs into some trouble when the conservative movement allies with have-not populists; and it founders when the leadership of the movement is taken over by corporatists and especially by nuts.

Witness the following elements of civil discourse:

• The Bush re-election campaign plans to begin running an advertisement on Friday that questions Senator John Kerry's commitment to American troops in Iraq.
• Senator Bill Frist, shielded from libel law by legislative immunity, accuses Richard Clarke of perjury, a charge now decisively rebutted by Sen. Pat Roberts, the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. (via Mark Kleiman, who is futilely waiting for a retraction.)
• Rush Limaugh suggests that the Clintons could assassinate Sen. Kerry if it he wins the Presidency on a ticket without Sen. Clinton.

Compare to this much more civil and effective use of ridicule.

Listening to Bush

Did I hear this wrong? If I heard right, at one point Bush says that he looks forward to the election because it will give him the chance to show the American people that he has a (secret? at least currently undefined…) plan to win the War on Terror.

UPDATE1: Here's the text of this part from the AP transcript: “I don't intend to lose my job. Because I'm going to tell the American people I have a plan to win the war on terror.”

Then a few minutes later, Bush notes that people sometimes ask if you can win the War on Terror, and says that of course it's not a war that has an end.

The two statements are of course completely consistent, but it's rare to have a politician speak so frankly about his plan to lie to the public.

I must have heard it wrong. Maybe the second one was that you can win? (Although in fact it is very very hard to win a 'war' against an 'ism'. It can be done — see e.g. 'Communism' — but it takes generations.)

Update2 I heard it wrong, although in context I also heard it right: “We are in a long war. The war on terror is not going to end immediately. This is a war against people who have no guilt in killing innocent people. That's what they're willing to do. They kill on a moment's notice, because they're trying to shake our will, they're trying to create fear, they're trying to affect people's behaviors. And we're simply not going to let them do that.

“And my fear, of course, is that this will go on for a while, and therefore, it's incumbent upon us to learn from lessons or mistakes, and leave behind a better foundation for presidents to deal with the threats we face. This is the war that other presidents will be facing as we head into the 21st century.

“One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course you can.”

So, the War on Terror will go on through multiple presidencies, but has an end somewhere.

One thing I know I heard right — no apologies, no suggestions that any mistakes were made. Colors nailed to mast.

To be updated as necessary once the transcript is fully online.

When Bad Taste Is Acceptable

When I was an undergraduate at Yale, more than twenty years ago, my main extracurricular activity was being a reporter for the Yale Daily News. In my second year on the news I got the coveted “Bart Beat” which made me the student responsible for covering Yale's President, A. Bartlett Giamatti, then early in his term at Yale, later Commissioner of Baseball, tragically dead far too young.

President Giamatti was a wonderful, erudite, voluble man, always very quotable. I very much enjoyed talking with him. While he often said things I might not have agreed with, there was only one subject that really seemed to make him irrational, and that was protest movements. In his heart (scarred, I thought, by his experience as a non-protestor at Yale in the late 1960's, when he had been a graduate student and aspirant member of the establishment) I suspect that 'Bart' probably did not really approve of any organized protest against the power structure of which he was pleased to be a part. Intellectually, however, he certainly recognized the legitimacy and importance of both personal and even organized protest. Bart drew the line, however, at breaches of the public norms of civility that he held to be an essential part of the academic community. To hear him tell it, one of the greater crimes in the history of Yale was committed when students gathered during the Vietnam war era and shouted obscenities at Yale and national authorities. To scream, and especially to scream four letter words, was to trash all the ideals of civilized discourse that he held dear.

I felt then, and—perhaps demonstrating that I have learned nothing in twenty years—still feel now, that Bart's rule was too encompassing. It's a good rule most of the time, but there are extraordinary circumstances, like the Vietnam War, like today, when it is proper at times to break the norms of civility because the things against which one protests are themselves so evil or even obscene.

I thought of Bart this evening because Bart's rule would forbid my linking to this painful, ugly, and true remix of a portion of George Bush's recent speech at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, for it is not a very decorous form of dissent, and will doubtlessly offend many. But we live in special ugly times, and so I commend to you—with a warning—this quicktime movie.

[Movie found via Cory Doctorow's Boing Boing (“vicious, brilliant and true”), who got it via Dan Gilmore (“slightly unfair but powerful”), who got it via Wonkette(“Zany Laff Time…helpful”).]

Goverment Regulation Run Amok

USDA Rejects Meatpacker's Mad Cow Plan:

The Agriculture Department has rebuffed a meatpacker's plan to test every animal at its Kansas slaughterhouse for mad cow disease.

The facts are simple, and the politics raw. A super-premium meatpacker wishes to inspect 100% of his animals for mad cow in order to be allowed to export to the lucrative premium beef market Japan.

USDA won't allow it. Why? Two reasons, one ignoble, one comprehensible if mistaken.

First, because the USDA isn't about safe food, or indeed about consumers at all. Nor is it even about the interests of small agribusiness. It's about keeping the Big Farm companies' (read 'bigtime Republican bedfellows') costs down. And they don't want the precedent of 100% testing because that's expensive.

Second, and less evil, is the USDA's desire to avoid setting a precedent that might weaken its hand in upcoming trade negotiations. The administrations claims, and I'm prepared to believe (although with any science claim by this adminstration you have to wonder), that there's no scientific reason to require testing of 100% of healthy looking animals. I can understand that (providing it's true…), although you'd think that even so a real free market administration, if we had one, would allow a system where people who wanted to offer extra safety at a price could do so.

But that wouldn't be this administration: under George Bush you can't get a license to offer certified, tested, mad-cow-free beef even if you want to and think there's a market for it.

Cheney Revisionism

At Explananda Chris asks, Is Dick Cheney really so powerful?:

Up until a week ago it was an article of faith for me that Dick Cheney was a powerful figure in the Bush administration: fearless and tough. I have to confess that I've been feeling pretty foolish about that recently. I mean, if Dick Cheney is so powerful and tough, then why is he afraid to appear before the Sept. 11th Commission without George W. Bush? What - does he need the President to hold his hand or something?

Frankly, this is embarrassing for all of us who have spent the last few years trafficking recklessly in conspiracy theories about the man.

See also this Luckovich cartoon on joint POTUS-Veep appearances.

Tangled Web Is Now All @#$#!! Up

OK. Now I'm completely confused. The Washington Post reports — if reporting can be used to describe a story that LEAVES ALL THE BIG QUESTIONS UNASKED much less answered — Boy Yawns, CNN Bumbles, Letterman Yelps:

Did the White House find weapons of mass destruction at the Ed Sullivan Theatre, or did CNN mess up its report on a “Late Show With David Letterman” segment poking fun at President Bush?

Monday night Letterman debuted a new bit on his show, called “George W. Bush Invigorates America's Youth.” What followed was a series of very brief clips from a recent speech in Florida in which the president said things like “it will not happen on my watch” and “we stand for the fair treatment of faith-based groups who will receive federal support for their work” to a Norman Rockwellian group of average citizens. Among them was one apple-cheeked boy of about 12 in a red baseball cap, rugby shirt and chino shorts, who is caught on camera yawning uncontrollably, twisting his head from side to side, checking his watch and otherwise looking pretty thoroughly bored, while the other people serving as background ignored him.

The folks at CNN got a kick out of it and the next morning, during “CNN Live Today,” ran the clip, crediting Letterman. CNN host Daryn Kagan quipped, “What is funnier, the kid or that everybody around him — not a single person even reacts to those high jinks?”

Then CNN cut to commercial break. Right after the break, Kagan told viewers: “All right — had a good giggle before the break, that video was from David Letterman. We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting. So, that from the White House.”

That night, Letterman struck back. He showed Kagan telling viewers that the White House said the footage had been doctored.

“Now that, ladies and gentlemen, as sure as I'm sitting here, is an out-and-out, 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape.”

Two comedy bits later, Letterman read one of his trademark cards that he's always fiddling with, and started to laugh: “God almighty, my life just gets more and more complicated. You know, just a minute ago … I was ranting and raving about the White House. According to this, CNN has just phoned and, according to this information, the anchorwoman misspoke, they never got a comment from the White House. It was a CNN mistake.

“What good does that do me? … I've already now called them liars. I think from now on we're going to have to start looking into things,” Letterman said.

“Why start now?” his bandleader Paul Shaffer said.

“Because everything was fine, except now I've called the White House liars, and you know what that means — they're going to start looking into my taxes!”

A CNN spokeswoman told The TV Column yesterday that the network notified Letterman's show at 5 p.m. that CNN had been incorrect in attributing the suggestion of video-doctoring to the White House. Letterman's show is taped at 5:30 p.m.

“It was their choice to continue to air it,” the spokeswoman said, adding that the problem had arisen due to “a misunderstanding among staff,” but would not elaborate.

Rob Burnett, president and CEO of Letterman's Worldwide Pants production company, told The TV Column that he first received word of CNN's call during the show.

“We did not doctor the footage in any way,” Burnett said. “We don't need [special effects] to make our politicians look silly.” He also noted that CNN did not contact Worldwide Pants on Tuesday to ask whether the footage had been digitally altered.

“We're not a news show, and if we had doctored the footage for comedic effect, we would say so,” Burnett said.

Last night on his show, Letterman recapped the story and joked that he's hearing that maybe the White House did speak to CNN about “George W. Bush Invigorates America's Youth.”

OK. Deep breath. There are three families of possibilities here:

1. Letterman made it all up. Deeply unlikely.
2. CNN made it up. In which case, the Post should be asking how this happened. Putting out a libel on the air with no evidence is pretty serious. (And accusing Letterman of doctoring the tape is surely libel. Doing it with no evidence is 'reckless disregard for the truth.) Not to mention what it would prove about the ideological constraints on CNN. Calling this a staff mixup just won't do.
3. CNN did not make it up — the White House did call CNN, and now for some reason they are in Denial Mode (but why would CNN go along).

A real reporter would have called Daryn Kagan, the CNN anchor who originally repeated the film-doctoring story, and asked who on the staff wrote it. Then called that person, etc. The truth is out there — and surely it's worth someone's time to pursue? Who exactly at CNN had what sort of a “misunderstanding”? And how much will they pay Letterman in libel damages?

When We Practice To Deceive (Needs More Practice Dept.)

I suppose it is not news anymore that the White House has no shame, that its first reaction to any bad news it to tell the sort of lies you expect from a naughty six-year-old—“Did not.” Maybe I'm naive, but it's still a shock when the White House lies about trivialities, and especially when it does it so very, very badly.

Today's weirdness—the word barely does it justice—is about a video shown on the David Letterman show Monday evening. George W. Bush Invigorating America's Youth showed excerpts from a long fundraising stump speech with a boy standing in the front row behind the President, clearly bored out of his gourd while dad robotically cheers away next to the carefully posed front-row black people. It's really funny.

Then CNN picked it up, and the White House spun into Lie Mode, accusing Letterman of doctoring the tape. This made Dave mad (actually, less furious than it would make me). And making late-night comedians mad is not, one would think, an especially clever thing to do in an election year. (found via Atrios)

Update: Alternate links for original item and followup

Bruce Reed, Anthropologist

Bruce Reed — DLC honcho, former Clinton domestic policy guru, and once, very very long ago, the nice Presidential Scholar from Idaho whom I met on our joint trip to Washington, D.C. (as I lived in DC my 'trip' was on the Metro) — has written a lively, funny, account of the habits of two Washington tribes, the Wonks and the Hacks. In it he suggests that the currernt administration's major failing is that it has cast its lot with the hacks, and declared war on wonks.

It's a great piece and you should read it all, but here's the irrelevant throwaway line about one of my least favorite political operatives that made me glad I wasn't drinking coffee while I read it:

For all his faults, though, [Dick] Morris was often a useful spur to the bureaucracy, because he enabled the White House policy team to deploy our own Madman Theory: If the agencies wouldn't go along with our sensible proposals, we warned them that the president might just listen to Dick Morris. Agency productivity soared as a result.

Reality Bites Back

• Reality overwhelms worldview for a journeyman right-wing blogger.

• Facts are stubborn things, leading to a deer in the headlights moment for a Cabinet member.

• A purported al Qaeda statement says al Qaeda wants Bush to be re-elected (Well, of course they do, their entire game plan requires radicalizing the Middle East into anti-Americanism. Who better for this than GWB?)

Sen. Hatch Is Not a Gentleman

The descent of the Senate into a Hobbesian war of all against all, in which naked power is the only currency, took another large step this week. David Neiwert describes the The Hatch act that took things down yet another notch.

Update: However, not all Republicans are willing to turn their backs on the Senate's tradition of civility. Kudos to Senate Judiciary Committee members Lindsay Graham, Saxby Chambliss and Mike DeWine who signed this letter alongside of three Democrats.

Hackergate Report Released

Ed Felton has the links to Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Bill Pickle's report of his preliminary (and subpoena-free) investigation into the Senate file scandal: Part One and Part Two. I wish I had time to read these today.

Zogby's Electoral Vote Predictions

Zogby's electoral vote predicitons, found at The Big Picture: Projected Electoral College Vote, 2004, paint a surprisingly cheerful picture for Sen. Kerry.

Why Kerry Will NOT Appoint a 'Shadow Cabinet'

The blogs have been abuzz with the idea that Senator Kerry should appoint a shadow cabinet—a means of having spokespersons dog the administration on the major issues. Politically it makes sense (although it also multiplies the risk that one of them will gaffe in a way that swings the election). The idea has even crossed over to the op-ed page of the New York Times. But, as my friend John Berryhill points out in a private communication, it won't happen:

[S]hadow cabinets have not been used in the United States because Mr. Kerry would face up to two years in jail under 18 USC § 599:

“Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

I suppose if the 'shadows' were appointed by the DNC, without input from Kerry, that would avoid the legal problem…but it would blunt the political impact. And, to the extent that the appointments were really free from Sen. Kerry's influence, it creates the near-certainty of internecine disputes.

In Oil-and-Gas Speak, "Democracy" is the Dirtiest Word

Talk about arrogance and bigotry. The Mississippi Sun-Herald reports that Tempers flare over drilling legislation. Seems the oil and gas folks were angry that (1) Newspapers reported on their attempt to sneak through legislation easing drilling; (2) People — poor black people — got uppity about it.

A House vote on a bill that could result in natural gas drilling in the Mississippi Sound was postponed, and a hasty meeting to try to allay the fears and anger of some Coast lawmakers was held Thursday evening.

…

Prior to the meeting, oil and gas industry lobbyists chided the media for “stirring things up down there” by reporting about the legislation. Lawmakers over the last two days have fielded calls and messages from constituents and environmentalists concerned about drilling, an issue that has waxed and waned for years on the Coast.

“We quite frankly have not had opposition from anybody but tree huggers and Democrats,” said Marvin L. Oxley, an oil and gas geologist who's helping lobby for the law changes. “Don't use that, say, 'environmentalists.' By Democrats, I mean the blacks. Don't write blacks. Were you in the Judiciary hearing? That's most of who had questions about this.”

Tempers flared early in the Thursday night meeting, which was called by House Oil and Gas Committee Chairman John Reeves, R-Jackson, who sponsored the House legislation and pushed it through his committee earlier in the week.

Some lawmakers from Harrison, Hancock and Jackson counties had told the media they felt like they were left out of the loop on legislation “in their back yards,” which moved very quickly through committees in both the House and Senate.

Some complained that the bill's short title, which read, “Mineral Lease Commission; transfer authority to Mississippi Major Economic Impact Authority” was couched in deception.

“I read in The Sun Herald that a couple of you said this was on a fast track and you didn't know anything about it,” Reeves said at the meeting's opening. “I'm a stand-up chairman, and anything I do is in the wide open and I don't have to hide anything.”

He began to chide Coast lawmakers a little, but Rep. Michael Janus, R-Biloxi, interrupted Reeves: “That's bull-t,” Janus said. “If you want to use this meeting to waste our time, then we might as well leave. I'm free to make comments to the newspaper whenever I want to. Even the title of this bill is deceptive.”

Democracy, what a concept.

E-Voting and Trust in Democracy

Joho the Blog: Paperless democracy's test reads Ed Cone, and gets right to the meat of the one of the key issues:

Ed Cone writes about what conclusions to draw from the fact that Maryland's use of electronic voting machines on Tuesday seemed to go well: “'Election officials will think that this validates the system, that now we can all see that it works just fine - but that's not the case,' says Michael Wertheimer, a systems-security consultant…”

My favorite bit:

A sampling of voters at Lutherville, Md., on Super Tuesday showed that the systems worked well on the surface. “The machine was easy to use,” says Charlie Mitchell, 49. “The only thing I wondered about was what I had read about these machines - were the votes getting counted or not? I don't know.”

Oh, I see. Let me paraphrase: “The system worked perfectly and I was very happy with it, except for the gnawing fear that it disenfranchised me of my most basic right as a citizen.”

Of course the other key issue is that there really are serious reasons to doubt the machines are sufficiently hard to hack…

Family Ties

Family Ties. I don't even want to try to summarize this one.

Suffice it to say that as the Pentagon Inspector General's office is in the news for its investigation of possible criminal fraud by Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root (a name that resonates in US history — longtime crony capitalists, they bankrolled LBJ, and many other major Texas politicians), David Neiwert offers a glimpse into the, um, unconventional family background of the head of the IG's office.

How to Do Things With Smears

Chris Bertram of Crooked Timber has an intersting post on what speech act theory can teach us about smears:

Following the whole Max Cleland, Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn controversy the other day, I was struck by the fact that the defenders of the smearers thought it a sufficient reply to their critics to say that what was said was literally true. (Whether it was literally true is, of course, another matter.) For once, it seems to me, philosophy can be of some use in showing that such a reply is inadequate.

It's nice to see Austin's “How to Do Things With Words” applied so neatly to modern politics.

Laughter Is a Good Disinfectant

Karl Rove did a fundraiser in New York. Outside, the natives were restless.

Now in Previews, Political Theater in the Street: At one point, as hundreds of guests with invitations waited to pass through velvet barriers to enter the club, a small group of men in bowler hats and women in gowns marched up, chanting, “Four more wars” and “Re-elect Rove.”

As the group approached, a man who appeared to be a security agent of some type, was overheard whispering into a microphone: “We've got two groups. One for and one against.”

Actually, it was two against. The person was confused by a group that calls itself Billionaires for Bush, a collection of activists who use satire to make a political point. Indeed, members of the Sierra Club, who were protesting on the other side of the street were also confused and began shouting at what they thought was a pro-Bush contingent.

“We want the truth and we want it now!” the Sierra protesters shouted.

The billionaires shouted back, “Buy your own president!”

I hope we see lots more of this. Especially during the Republican convention.

Super Tuesday Comes Early

I love the idea of an Edwards-Kerry race, although the final results suggest it wasn't quite as close as some of the earlier partial results made it sound. Will everyone else drop out now, please?

Meanwhile, the Chandler result is even more exciting, because the defeated Republican, in a Republican seat, started out her campaign proclaiming she'd be a Bush robot. Then she got a bit scared and asked him not to come on down after all. The House Republican leadership came down instead and offered the district a bribe—serious pork if you elect the Republican, nada if you don't (this was a remarkably honest description of a national policy adopted in the last two years). And that failed too. Big time.

Given the advantages of incumbency and the way districts are drawn, it's hard to seriously believe the House will change hands in the next election, especially given the Texas redistricting. But I imagine that Bush will be visiting somewhat fewer Republican marginals.

Notes From the Middle Ground Between Complacency and Panic

This Administration seeks to achieve a panoply of organized and systematic changes in the civil order, a strengthening of the security apparatus at the expense of civil liberties. It is wrong, I think, to be at all complacent about these changes, which is one of the reasons I started this blog. (If you haven't read my early post about my grandmother's political advice, Rose Burawoy, Political Scientist, please do so.)

Looking around today, there are four interrelated sets of reasons to be concerned.

First, the Administration has advanced a series of legal claims that are inherently incompatible with justice. The invention or, if you prefer, extension of the category “enemy combatant” is one example. The administration claims that it can strip a US citizen of his Constitutional rights by attaching this designation to him, and it has done this on US soil, grabbing a citizen and then disappearing him into near-incommunicado detention in a military prison. The Justice Department claims that the courts' only role is to enquire if the administration really says someone is an enemy combatant. Once handed a conclusory declaration signed by an official, the Justice Department says the courts have no further role.

I am not in any way suggesting that this is the first administration to commit excesses in the name of security. The modern list is legion, from Cointelpro through Waco. What makes the current situation almost unique is that the large majority of those earlier incursions were either clandestine (because they were known to be illegal at the time), or later acknowledged (overtly or tacitly) to be errors. This Administration advances the current set of changes as either consistent with the existing legal order, or as so necessary for our security as to require changes in it. Some of these changes would systematically gut the ideas of Due Process, Speedy Trial, and Confrontation of Accusers enshrined in the Fifth¹ and Sixth² Amendments to the Constitution. That's new.

Second, this Administration seeks to set a wide range of legal precedents that allow law enforcement to operate in secret. From secret deportation hearings to Guantanamo Bay to increased use of a secret court for wiretaps that have a domestic angle, all these things together breed a culture in which, human nature and bureaucratic imperatives being what they are, it is inevitable that excess and injustice will flourish.

The intangible and attitudinal effects of the claim that substantial traditional elements of liberty must be sacrificed for the (eternal) duration of the “war” on terrorism may be as important as any change in the law. If the sole effect were an increase in law enforcement arrogance, we could cope. But if left unchecked, the combination of a government empowered to act fundamentally unjustly (whether it's to grab people off the street or just to burden the conduct of their lives by subjecting them to routine and regular questioning and, say, no-fly lists), and to do so in secret, will have corrosive consequences. In time the combination will provoke either a climate of self-censorship and fear, or a revolutionary fervor. Neither would serve democracy well.

The fourth area of concern has to do with armed intolerance. In the ivory tower where I live, one doesn't run into many death threats. However, David Neiwert, aka Orcinus, has written a number of eloquent essays suggesting that the drumbeat of increasingly violent, even eliminationist anti-liberal rhetoric on the airwaves and in other media have consequences felt in the daily lives of people living far from the ivory tower. I've explained before why I'm not persuaded that today's brownshirt-like political rhetoric is that much different than what we heard in the Nixon era, for example—“America, love it or leave it.” Even if I'm right about that, however, it's possible that with 24/7 media the rhetoric Neiwert writes about is more pervasive than before, or that contemporary conditions — economic insecurity combined with fear of terrorism — create a more fertile ground for something ugly or even violent. (And, in the event of a major economic shock …)

In looking around at today's politics, I worry about complacency, and I worry about panic. It is wrong to shout 'Nazi' at this administration. (Neo-Peronist would be closer to the truth, but doesn't quite fit either.) We do not face — and assuming the country reacts to the forthcoming Mel Gibson movie in a grownup way, are not likely to face — anything like the worst horrors of mid-20th-century Germany. While it is almost always wrong to shout 'Nazi', if 'eternal vigilance' means anything then it is never wrong to debate the ways in which some current policies and trends are and are not reminiscent of the sometimes unwitting precursors of the fascism or authoritarianism (or simple economic chaos) that have destroyed democracies elsewhere. And right now it is even less wrong than usual.

Notes

¹ Fifth Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

² Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

NYT Falls for Hoax Kerry-Fonda Photo

I think that Sheryl Gay Stolberg didn't do all her homework.

Conservatives Shine Spotlight on Kerry's Antiwar Record: And on Thursday, a new photograph of the senator and the actress began circulating via e-mail. Unlike the image Mr. Sampley bought, which shows Mr. Kerry seated several rows behind Ms. Fonda, this picture — its origins are unclear — shows them side by side, Ms. Fonda behind a microphone and Mr. Kerry, holding a notebook, to her right.

That wouldn't be this photo now would it?

Snopes.com: John Kerry

Claim: Photograph shows Senator John Kerry with Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally.

Status: False.

NYT Agrees: Long Primary Favors Democrats

You read it here first…

A hotly contested Democratic primary season that stretches to the wire — even to a brokered convention — could be either the best or the worst thing for the Democrats. It’s the best thing if a bunch of plausible and photogenic candidates suck up all the media’s time and attention bashing Bush; Bush’s negatives are already rising fast, and they’ll keep on going up as Democrats have the limelight and use it against him. Once a nominee is selected, the press attention will shift elsewhere for a while, and he’ll bounce back.

Seems the NYT agrees with me now:

Political Memo: For Kerry, More to Gain in Leading Than Winning: Conventional wisdom might hold that now is the time for Democrats to rally around Mr. Kerry, and thousands are. Yet so long as Mr. Kerry faces even nominal intramural opposition, President Bush's advisers worry that they will have a harder time getting equal attention for their political message, and Mr. Kerry's rivals seem to keep undercutting each other, not him.

…

So the prospect of continued combat with Mr. Edwards and former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont — while potentially annoying and distracting in terms of time, money and message — may be far from Mr. Kerry's worst nightmare. “Hopefully, we can do this every Tuesday,” one senior Kerry adviser said with a chuckle on Wednesday.

Another Example of Lack of Noticing That Bald-Faced Inaccuracy

Sigh. Here's Howard Kurtz of the Post, ignoring the obvious falsehood in the Bush interview:

Beat the Press: Bush “made no single mistake that could be replayed again and again with Janet Jackson-like fervor.”

I suppose that will be the press conventional wisdom. I wish this were amazing instead of predictable.

It's Not Big News When GW Bush Lies

Apparently, it's not big news when GW Bush goes on TV and makes a statement that is totally false. So false that it's not a question of opinion, but a matter of verifiable fact. And not on a trivial matter either. Nor one that could be called a accident. It's an error on a matter of sufficient importance to government that to get it wrong shows either a willingness to try the Big Lie, or a leader very serious out of touch with reality.

Bush on Meet The Press RUSSERT: But your base conservatives, and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.

BUSH: Well, they're wrong. If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.

Angry Bear has the facts: discretionary spending went waaaay up not steadily down every year of this Administration.

Now, if “gotcha” questions like the price of eggs or the capital of foreign countries were once big news, surely voluntarily mis-stating (or not knowing) a fairly basic fact about the trend line (forget knowing the dollar figure details, we're talking trends and gross effects here) about what one's own administrations budgets are like ought to be big news, shouldn't it?

Nope. The Miami Herald (running a Dana Milbank story from the Post) buried this in the last paragraphs of the story, and did it in a way that no one will understand that what Bush said wasn't true.

Bush said critics, including conservatives, are ''wrong'' to say he has not kept control of the federal budget. ''If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined,'' he said.

Federal discretionary spending has grown by more than 25 percent in the past two fiscal years, following average annual increases of 2.4 percent in discretionary spending in the 1990s, according to figures from congressional budget panels.

Note that without a lead-in like “In fact,” that second paragraph is going to be impenetrable to many readers…or at least won't jump out at them as a direct contradiction of the previous graph.

The error isn't mentioned at all in Elisabeth Bumiller's News Analysis of the speech, which is all about whether it was a good idea (isn't lying or demonstrating ignorance relevant to that?). Of course, that could be because she only read the New York Times article on the interview, in which Richard w. Stevenson doesn't mention this little detail at all.

Why isn't this issue more important than the fact that Bush re-stated many opinions we've heard before? Somehow, it's just not 'news”.

If this is the Big Lie, it's working. If this is a sign of a lack of contact with reality, this news coverage isn't going to bring reality any closer.

Return of the 'Washington Monument Ploy'

I am amazed that with all the realms of justified vitriol being poured on the Bush budget, no one has pointed out this budget revives the Washington Monument Ploy. Admittedly that's relatively traditional compared to:

• being formatted like a campaign document with promotional photos,
• cutting out projections for years 6-10 because they look so terrible,
• cooking the numbers (“the budget assumes slower economic growth than CBO for 2005, and faster growth thereafter. By pure coincidence, this has the effect of raising deficit estimates for 2005 and reducing them later on, making it easier “to cut the deficit in half by 2009”),
• projecting massive debt even in years 1-5, and leaving out masses of expenditure for Iraq and Afghanistan which are certainly capable of estimation.

The Washington Monument Ploy is an ancient device favored by executive branch budget makers. When required to meet some arduous budget number by producing cuts, the crafty bureaucrat proposes cuts to things that he knows Congress will never accept, such as closing the Washington Monument. Although this contributes nothing to good government, it does allow the executive branch to claim that the “budget-busting” comes from those irresponsible spenders in Congress.

How else to explain this?

Bush asks to cut decontamination research On the same day a poison-laced letter shuttered Senate offices, President Bush asked Congress to eliminate an $8.2 million research program on how to decontaminate buildings attacked by toxins.

Buried in documents justifying Bush's 2005 budget proposal released Monday is an Environmental Protection Agency acknowledgment that his proposed cut “represents complete elimination of homeland security building decontamination research.”

As far as I can tell, most of the stuff the Bush budget proposes to cut falls squarely in the Washington Monument category, except perhaps for the cuts that fall on the poorest Americans—there’s some chance that a Republican Congress might actually pass those.

Hackergate Claims Its First Scalp

The Senate Republicans will throw a senior aide to the wolves this week, in hopes of heading off inquiries into their personal complicity into Hackergate: Leak staffer ousted. Will it work? Much probably depends on what the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms reports when he concludes his investigation.

Wouldn't it be nicer to live in a world where the Senate's forms of civility were reflected in some reality?

What It Would Look Like if Sen. Daschle Found His Spine

If Sen Daschle, the vanishing Senate vanishing Minority Leader were to find his spine, it might look like this.

But of course instead we have to all sing along with this.

The AWOL Issue Is On the Agenda

My brother's White House Briefing column today reports that Questions About Bush's Guard Service have “become a mainstream issue.” If it wasn't before, it is after this column, and the Post's fairly tame article by Lois Romano (assisted by the notorious Ceci Connolly, traveling with Kerry—expect him to be Gore'd any day now!—and researchers Don Puhlman and Lucy Shackelford in Washington).

I think these five, count them five, Post staffers all left out one fairly central point: GW Bush could presumably clear up this entire controversy in one minute, simply by authorizing the full release of his military records—something every major party candidate who was a verteran has done for the last few decades. Every single one, except GW Bush.

Who of course has nothing to hide.

Incidentally, I'd also like to know who had access to the records over the years, in case any documents are, say, missing, or contain serial numbers suggesting they were inserted out of sequence, both of which are allegations that are floating around. I'm sure the Pentagon keeps that sort of access record.

New Flash: A Congressional Democrat Finds His Spine!

In Congressman Urges Vote-Buying Inquiry the Washington Post reports that,

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), the House majority whip, said the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct should open a probe into statements by Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) that GOP colleagues offered to funnel donations to his son's congressional campaign if Smith voted for the Medicare bill — and threatened to work against the son's bid if Smith voted against it

This is fairly nuclear, since,

His comments appear to undo an informal truce between Republicans and Democrats on ethics matters. Under a 1997 rule change, only members of Congress are allowed to make formal ethics complaints. On some occasions in recent years, the House ethics panel has acted only after criminal courts rendered judgments against members.

Of course, the Post really buried the leed, since the article contains the bombshell disclosure that the same government which can open a Breast Investigation in minutes, and promise to prosecute it quickly, can't find a Congressman to interview him even after six weeks have passed:

The Justice Department said in December that it was reviewing complaints filed by the Democratic National Committee and two independent groups about Smith's assertions. But Smith's chief of staff, Kurt Schmautz, said the congressman — who has promised to cooperate with any official inquiry — has not been interviewed by the Justice Department.

Lynn Nofziger Worries that GW Bush is Not 'One of Us'

Lynn Nofziger, retired Republican hardball political operator, sits at home and frets:

Like father, like son, maybe. Is George W. Bush following in the footsteps of George H. W. Bush and kicking away his chances of being re-elect? It sure is possible.

True, the times are different and the issues are different, but the Bushes themselves are very much alike in that both have taken substantial leads in the polls and by their own decisions and misjudgments whittled them down to nothing.

The senior Bush made three key misjudgments. He thought he could get away with a tax increase after having promised, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” He ran a terrible re-election campaign in which he terribly misjudged not only his own strength but also the strength of his opposition. And at the last minute he relied on a sulking James Baker to pull his irons out of the fire who just might have done it if he had come on the scene earlier and devoted his considerable talents to the job.

I think this president Bush is running a far better re-election campaign than did his father and perhaps that can be his salvation. Nevertheless, to counter this he is screwing up on not just one issue, but several.

He is the most profligate spender in the nation’s history even though his party is supposed to be the party that opposes deficit spending. And it isn’t just the major spending increases on medicare, education and agriculture that has his supporters irate; it’s the little spending, too, including increased spending for the hated National Endowment for the Arts, to say nothing of the pork barrel spending in nearly every one of the nation’s congressional districts.

Instead of clamping down on illegal immigration and tightening border security he is proposing what in effect is amnesty for the ten million-plus illegals, mostly Mexicans, already here.

He is badly mishandling the indications that he took this country to war in Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence from the CIA. Instead of admitting the gross errors and moving to correct them he is defending them. What he ought to do is fire the head of the CIA, George Tenet, who is a holdover from the Clinton administration and move to correct what is obviously a bad situation. As it is he is open to continued, and at least semi-justified attacks from the Democrats.

Finally, lurking in the background is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law which he promised to veto but signed.

It is doubtful that his appointment of conservative judges or even the fear that a Democrat president would name liberals to the Supreme Court, or his signing of the anti-partial birth abortion measure or his tax cut measures are enough to counter what most conservatives view either as mistakes in judgment or indications that at heart he is, like his father, not one of them.

One more sign that Bush is vulnerable.

[Update: for the avoidance of doubt, I'd better explain the 'one of us' reference in the headline is not to anything Nofziger said, but rather to the late Hugo Young's perfect pitch biography of Margret Thatcher.]

Today's News Quiz

Who said it today and about what:

“I have instructed the commission to open an immediate investigation into [the event]. Our investigation will be thorough and swift.”

A) G.W. Bush about allegations that people in his employ illegally exposed CIA Agent Valerie Plame.

B) G.W. Bush about allegations that people in his employ pressured the CIA to exaggerate the Iraq WMD story.

C) Richard Cheney about allegations of war profiteering by Halliburton.

D) John Ashcoft about allegations of psychological torture at Guantanamo Bay detention camps.

E) FCC Chairman Michael Powell about something shown on TV.

Answer (E): FCC to investigate Super Bowl breast-baring. It's good our government focuses on the important things, isn't it?

Being Funny is Hard Work

I think there is something wrong about these bonding rituals in which Presdients go to formal dinners and make off-the-record funny speeches to white house correspondents and others. It's not just the elitism, although that's part of it. It feeds the press's idea of its self-importance.

That said, who knew how much work it can take to get a President to be funny in the Washington-approved way.

Biting Satire: The GW Bush C.V.

This Bush Resume thing is really making the rounds of the Internet. In addition to getting it by email, a quick Google suggests that different versions are poppping up all over.

Update (2/3). Here's a version with hyperlinks to the sources.

George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Education

Graduated from Yale University, low C average. I was a cheerleader.

Family

After graduating college I lived with my parents. One night I drove home drunk, and upon arriving home I challenged my father (WWII hero, future director of CIA and US president) to settle things outside, “mano a mano.” He kicked my ass.

My father later helped me become owner of the Texas Rangers, Governor of Texas, and President of the United States. My younger brother, Governor of Florida, helped.

Military

• I somehow got into the Texas Air National Guard after scoring in the lowest quarter on the pilot aptitude test. I joined the National Guard to avoid service in a war I supported.
• While enlisting I checked a box indicating my preference to stay in the United States during the Vietnam War. I believed this was the best way to keep the Viet Cong out of Texas.
• During my service no one remembers me showing up for duty for a year, 1972-1973.
• I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about past drug use.
• During my service the White House dispatched a flight to Washington so I could go on a date with Tricia Nixon.

Past Work Experience

• Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
• Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
• Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a deal that took land using taxpayer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

Accomplishments in Previous Positions

• Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
• Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.
• Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
• Set record for most executions by any governor in American history.
• Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments As President

• Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
• Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history…
• Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
• Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
• First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
• First president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
• First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history.
• After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
• Set the record for most campaign fundraising trips than any other president in U.S. history.
• In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
• Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in U.S. history.
• Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
• Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in U.S. history.
• Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
• Presided over the biggest energy crises in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
• Presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
• Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans (during wartime).
• Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
• Dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.
• Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history (the 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleezza Rice, has an Exxon oil tanker named after her).
• Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
• Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in U.S. history.
• First president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the human rights commission.
• First president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the elections monitoring board.
• Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
• Refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
• First president in U.S. history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. elections).
• All-time U.S. (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
• My biggest lifetime campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
• First president in U.S. history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community, predicated upon Iraqi links to Al Qaeda and presence of WMD. Neither has proven true.
• Took the biggest world sympathy for the U.S. after 9/11, and in less than a year made the U.S. the most resented country in the world.
• First U.S. president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
• Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
• Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive.'
• Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capital building.
• In the 18 months following the 9/11 attacks I have successfully prevented extended public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
• In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the U.S. has ever been since the Civil War.

Records and References

• At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
• All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been taken to my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
• All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed and unavailable for public view.
• All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed and unavailable for public view.
• Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed and unavailable for public review.

Compare and Contrast (Or, Another Reason Why the Bush Administration is Loathsome)

Compare

Administration Plan Would Alter Rules at Nuclear Sites (1/29):The Bush administration is moving to replace safety requirements at federal nuclear facilities with standards written by contractors, according to a draft regulation.

Critics contend that under the proposal government standards at more than two-dozen Energy Department nuclear weapons plants and research laboratories could become unenforceable. Department officials say the intent is to give contractors more flexibility without compromising safety.

The proposal comes in response to a directive by Congress to start fining contractors at the plants for safety violations. Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, who wrote the legislation, accused the administration this week of distorting Congress's intent with a plan that “will likely decrease worker protection.”

Assistant Secretary Beverly Cook said, “The department believes the proposed rule seeks to fully protect our workers.”

with

U.S.: Nuclear Plant Cheated During Drill ( 1/27): Security guards at the nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge stunned inspectors in June by successfully repelling four simulated terrorist attacks — a feat computer programs predicted wouldn't be done.

That apparent success was tarnished, according to the Energy Department: Employees of an outside security contractor were tipped off about the impending simulations, making the tests a costly waste of time.

A broader investigation uncovered more evidence of cheating during mock attacks at the plant over the past two decades, including barricades being set up before the test to alter the outcome and guards deviating from the established response plan to improve their performance.

I suppose if people will play politics with national security, there's no particluar reason to expect them not to play politics with workers safety at nuclear power plants…

More on Hackergate: One Staffer or Two?

A commentator[*] suggests that, contrary to my suggestion, Mr. Miranda is not a second staffer, but the first staffer in a new job. At first glance this seemed odd to me, since Sen. Hatch announced in late November that the staff member involved had been suspended, and the AP was reporting Sen. Frist's suspending Mr. Miranda as if it were new.

The AP article I linked to is silent on this question, but more research suggests that the “same staffer” theory turns out to be possible, albeit unlikely— although the it's-only-Miranda scenario has its own interesting aspects.

The New York Times suggests there were two staffers, i.e. that that Mr. Miranda had an accomplice:

Manuel C. Miranda, a former Republican Judiciary Committee staff member, whose name appeared as a recipient of one of the Democratic e-mail messages and who has been questioned by Mr. Pickle's investigators, said in an interview Thursday that he knew how the documents were obtained by Republicans. He said that a junior member on the staff of Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had discovered a flaw in the computer system that allowed him to read some of the Democratic computer traffic.

Mr. Miranda, who is now a senior staff aide to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, said that the junior aide was reading the Democratic documents from about May 2002 until the early fall of 2002. The aide, who has since left the Senate, passed some of those memorandums to Mr. Miranda and other Hatch staff members, Mr. Miranda said.

“Those documents that I did read were, in my view, not obtained in any way that was improper, unlawful or unethical,” he said. He described them as “inadvertent disclosures that came to me as a result of some negligence on the part of the Democrats' technology staff.” His only obligation, he said, was to see that the Democrats were told that the computer system had a flaw that allowed Republican aides to read some of their memorandums.

“I knew our people had told their people about it,” Mr. Miranda said. “Once I knew that, I had no further obligation.”

Suppose, however, there was just Mr. Miranda. Then even more interesting questions arise:

• Was he really suspended in November at all?
• If so, when did it end and why?
• And why is he re-suspended now?

• Whether Senator Frist hired Mr. Miranda knowing about the Hackergate incident?
• If so, was it as a reward?
• And, whether or not he knew then, does Senator Frist endorse Mr. Miranda's vision of Senate collegiality and comity as set out in the NYT article above?

[*] I deleted the comment which raised this issue because it violated rules one and two of my comments policy—fortunately something I only rarely need to do. Perhaps because there are so few comments….

What So-Called Liberal Media?

Spotted at Brian Leiter's blog.

Second Staffer Fingered In Senate Hackergate Probe

Yahoo! News - Memo-Leak Probe Expands to Frist's Office:

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been put on leave during an investigation into how Republicans gained access to Democratic memos concerning opposition to President Bush (news - web sites)'s judicial nominees.

Manuel Miranda, who works for the Tennessee Republican on judicial nominations, is on leave pending the outcome of the inquiry by the Senate sergeant-at-arms, Frist spokesman Nick Smith said Tuesday. In the matter under investigation, Democratic memos stored on a computer server shared by Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) members ended up in GOP hands.

Miranda told The Knoxville News-Sentinel that investigators were looking at work he performed for the Judiciary Committee before he joined Frist's office. “There was no stealing,” he said. “No systematic surveillance. I never forwarded these memos — period.”

I said previously that this wasn't a one-person show, that it went beyond the single staffer Hatch already suspended.

No way that goodies like this didn't get shared around.

They're Making Us Feel Sorry For Dr. Dean

I am not a Deaniac. I'm an ABB Democrat — anyone (serious) left in the race who can beat Bush is OK with me. I think Dean, like Kerry, Edwards and probably Clark (lack of political experience is a question mark), would make a at least a fine and perhaps a great President. Each candidate has an issue I am not totally comfortable with (for Dean it's trade). I explain this as background to the feeling that the media has been utterly unfair to Dean about his Iowa speech. It was obvious, even before he was forced to 'explain' it, that the speech was about rallying the troops after a disappointing result. And it did its job. That he should be pilloried for one yell of enthusiasm, that the same clip should be run time and again until it becomes surreal, is just nuts. [Update: Mark Kleiman seems to agree.]

Yes, the cheap shot works because it connects to something real—many folks, me included, wonder if Dean's biggest weakness isn't a tendency to shoot off his mouth. But that doesn't stop the 'Dean Goes Nuts' meme from being a cheap shot. (Or being funny sometimes (it's the “I have a scream” speech..), more's the pity.)

Which raises the question…Is this Bush vs. Dean homemade commercial a cheap shot, or fair commentary? I think it's mostly fair. Yes, the Bush behavior it points to was some time ago, but given that character is supposedly the guy's strong flight suit…

Brad DeLong Asks a Tough But Important Question

Cheney: Underbriefed, Insane, or Senile?.

We are reduced to a world in which the nicest possible answer has become “mendacious, contemptuous of democracy, and very, very cyncial.”

Hunting Where the Ducks Are

Nice to see that a couple of US Senators know how to go hunting where the ducks are. Via my brother's White House Briefing I lern that Leahy And Lieberman Query High Court On Ethics Of Scalia Vacation With Cheney. And well they should.

In a letter dated January 22, 2004, the two ranking committee members inquired about Supreme Court “canons, procedures and rules” on whether justices should recuse themselves from cases in which “their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

“When a sitting judge, poised to hear a case involving a particular litigant, goes on vacation with that litigant, reasonable people will question whether that judge can be a fair and impartial adjudicator of that man’s case or his opponent’s claims,” the Senators wrote.

According to news reports, Scalia joined Cheney on a hunting trip for several days earlier this month just three weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to grant a petition of certiorari in a case involving the secrecy of the Vice President's energy task force and the formulation of Administration energy policy.

Senate Republicans==Dishonorable People, Possibly Thieves

Senate courtliness and comity? Bipartisanship? Nah. Try dirty tricks, dishonor and thieving. And don't think for one minute that some Senators didn't know what was going on. If only Senate Democrats had the guts to take scalps.

Infiltration of files seen as extensive. Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe.

From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight — and with what tactics.

The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website last November.

With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the US Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and seized more than half a dozen computers — including four Judiciary servers, one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.

Don't let anyone tell you this is business as usual. Hacking into federal computers is usually a serious crime. Here, however, the criminal law issue is slightly murky.

Whether the memos are ultimately deemed to be official business will be a central issue in any criminal case that could result. Unauthorized access of such material could be punishable by up to a year in prison — or, at the least, sanction under a Senate non-disclosure rule.

The computer glitch dates to 2001, when Democrats took control of the Senate after the defection from the GOP of Senator Jim Jeffords, Independent of Vermont.

A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties — even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.

The Growing National Security State In the News

It's just amazing how much of the important domestic news these days is either about economic troubles (defict, declining dollar, jobless recovery) or about conflicts over the role of the national security apparatus. Here's today's first haul of the national security related news:

• Military Lawyer Blasts Tribunal Rules—more very justified complaining about the rules of engagement before the military tribunal at Guantanamo
• Easing of Internet Regulations Challenges Surveillance Efforts: the spooks are at it again. Their campaign to retain their total access to all of our communications is in danger of being frustrated by…cable modems. So they're pulling out all the stops to make them as transparent to FBI (and NSA?) intercepts as ordinary telephones.
• Meanwhile, Congress has a small case of heartburn over the renewal of certain sections of the Patriot Act. The fix to renew may be in, but Lawmakers Not Rushing to Take Up Terrorism Act…certainly not going to happen until safely after the election. Who knows, it's so unpopular that there might even be hearings to discuss the effects of the statute before Congress votes on it….
• And, Ex-C.I.A. Aides Ask Inquiry by Congress Over Leak of Name. That darn Palme case just won't go away, and the CIA won't let go of the issue. Now they are pressuring Congress in order to create pressure on the Justice department. (While I completely agree with the CIA view here, and think this is the sort of issue they have a right to go to Congress about, I always get nervous when the secret services get involved in politics….)

At least it's still newsworthy (and legal to publish).

Matthew Yglesias Does Counterfactual History

Matthew Yglesias exercises his counterfactual imagination, and it's a doozy in which he speculates about

what if Nixon had won in 1960 and had to deal with the pressures of the Civil Rights movement. At the time, the allegiances of African-American voters were roughly split. The GOP in the aggregate was more supportive of civil rights than were the Democrats, but the leading civil rights advocates in the government were northern liberal Democrats. There's a fair chance that the circumstances would have forced Nixon to become a civil rights champion (as they forced Kennedy and LBJ), no Goldwater campaign, and no southern re-alignment. You might have seen northern liberals move into the GOP which then would have become something like a European liberal party dominated by Olympia Snowe types while the Democrats became a vehicle for white class politics.

On auspicious occassions African-American Republican politicians would speak proudly of their membership in “the party of Lincoln, the party of Nixon.”

I think it must help to have been too young to be a Watergate Wallower (like I was) to come up with something so…weird and transgressive.

Second Take on Caucuses: A Chance to Dominate the Airwaves

A hotly contested Democratic primary season that stretches to the wire — even to a brokered convention — could be either the best or the worst thing for the Democrats. It's the best thing if a bunch of plausible and photogenic candidates suck up all the media's time and attention bashing Bush; Bush's negatives are already rising fast, and they'll keep on going up as Democrats have the limelight and use it against him. Once a nominee is selected, the press attention will shift elsewhere for a while, and he'll bounce back.

Of course, a hotly contested Democratic primary season that stretches to the wire — even to a brokered convention — could also be a disaster if the candidates spend all the time beating up on each other. And while one can spin Iowa to say that non-negative explains Edwards, it could also be argued that negative is what stopped Dean cold…

First Take on the Caucuses: Democratic Party Wins In Iowa

OK. Looks like Kerry, Edwards (!), Dean, Gep, Other.

Gep will drop out, removing the Democrats' least viable major candidate, as the GOP would not even had to caricature him to call him a protectionist in the pockets of the special interests (unions). I don't have a good sense of the man, who seems generally decent and honorable, so I can't predict if he'll endorse anyone. The sensible thing would be to hold off, but at moments like this personal feelings can swing it.

Kerry and Edwards get a boost to New Hampshire. Kerry can now survive a (small) loss in his back yard. Edwards gets Big Mo and a huge increase in news coverage. Dean is wounded but not fatally. Coming in anything worse than a close second in New Hampshire would be major trauma time.

The biggest loser is the GOP. Not only are they deprived of a great target, but they have to spend more on opposition research for longer as there are so many targets.

The biggest question mark is whether the non-Edwards candidates will decide that Iowa is different from the rest of the USA, or if they will read Edwards's strength as a strong lesson that it does NOT pay to go negative against other Democrats. Here's hoping.

Update: See also my second take.

Dave Barry Sinks His Teeth Into the Primaries

Dave Barry, Miami's answer to either Will Rogers or what happens when you cross a journalist with a basoon, is reporting from Iowa. Most of the article is about meat and vegtables, especially the ambulatory carrot, but some of it has Barry's inimitable political summaries. Often, after all, comedians have a better grasp on reality than pundits. (Especially if they're the Miami Herald's pundits….)

But the biggest applause came when Howard Dean, the feisty little Surgemeister himself, surged into the room and fired up the crowd by biting the head off a live puppy.

Not really! I'm making a little joke about Dean's reputation for having a temper. In fact, it was a squirrel.

NO KIND WORDS

Ha ha! But seriously, Dean did express anger at George W. Bush, as well as Washington insiders and special interest groups. In covering five national campaigns, I have yet to hear a presidential contender say a single kind word about Washington insiders or special interest groups. Every last contender swears he's going to stomp these people like ants. Yet, incredibly, Washington remains infested with them.

By the way, did I say “basoon”? I meant “baboon”. Or maybe I meant “clown”. Or something.

And then there's what has to be the worst pun of the campaign:

The big news was that John Edwards, who had been stagnant, was surging, while at the same time John Kerry — who had faltered early in the race, then surged, then re-faltered — was now surging AGAIN.

THE SURGE-IMPAIRED

This bodes badly for Howard Dean, who used to be the Lone Surger out here, as well as traditional Iowa-caucus winner Dick Gephardt, who has, frankly, been unable to surge. He is surge-impaired, and he badly needs surgification in Iowa if he is to survive New Hampshire, where, word has it, Wesley Clark, who had been faltering, is now surging like a madman. He's the Surgin' General.

'A Uniter Not A Divider' or Rather, Just A Liar

Bush Bypasses Senate On Judge. A sign that things will get worse, and worse, as the junta pulls out every stop to consolidate its power.

Jack Balkin weighs in. And even a Volokh conspirator isn't proud of this one.

Nofziger Says Bush Guest Worker Plan Will Enrage His Base

Lynn Nofziger, blogger, opines that George Bush's electorally timed guest worker plan will backfire politically.

Yes, Nofziger is nuts. But he's canny. And he knows the Republican base from the inside, because he's one of them.

Musings. The president apparently has no problem with illegal immigration or immigrants. He comes close to favoring open borders.

And he has conservatives madder than they’ve been since his father signed the infamous tax increase legislat