Do we have a challenger for the Count?
According to the South Bend Tribune, Joe Donnelly is pretty much certain to make another run to unseat Rep. Chris Chocola (R) of Indiana's second district.
Donnelly ran against Chocola last year. And the Count expanded his margin from 2002. But Donnelly still made a race of it. The final tally was Count 54% and Donnelly 45%.
As is usually the case with challengers, Donnelly was short of funds. And apparently the DCCC didn't give him much support either. So money-wise he was pretty much on his own.
It would certainly be a shame to see that happen again, given all the nonsense Chocola has pulled so far this year.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader G flagged my attention to an article in today's LA Times about whether or not President Bush is a lame duck.
The piece includes quotes you'd expect from folks on both sides.
But then there's this line from the author of the piece, Janet Hook: "Many of the assets Bush brings to his second term distinguish him from other two-term presidents. Unlike President Reagan's broad-brush "Morning in America" campaign for reelection in 1984, for example, Bush ran in 2004 on a specific agenda of new issues, notably overhauling Social Security and the tax code. Some Bush allies say his recent troubles in Congress are a measure of how ambitious his aims are, not how much <$Ad$>leverage he has lost."
The idea that President Bush ran on a specific agenda that included privatizing Social Security strikes me as little more than preposterous. And I am surprised to see Hook accept it so uncritically.
Yes, he did mention it during the campaign -- just enough to allow his supporters to say now that he didn't spring it on the public without ever having mentioned it before. But when he did mention it, it was almost always in speeches to loyalists and just as a few toss-off lines intended for said loyalists' eager consumption.
But he didn't bring it up in ads, in the debates, in any prominent setting. And for good reason. His entire campaign was framed around two planks: strength against terrorism and the flaws of John Kerry. The first time it got any sort of significant emphasis from the president was a couple days after the election.
Indeed, I think we could make the whole point more specific. Since his election President Bush has laid out a very aggressive legislative agenda, one based on reforms that would fundamentally change how the country looks -- privatization, tax reform, etc. These just weren't the things he ran on. It may not have been 'Morning in America', more like 'Midnight in America'. He ran on toughness against terror. Then once he'd bagged reelection he shifted gears entirely to focus on political economy.
If he really had run hard on privatization and won, even narrowly, he'd be in a vastly stronger position on the issue now than he is. What this last six months has shown is the poverty of the idea that winning an election gives you a 'mandate' if you try to use it to push policies you'd never told voters you were going to push.
--Josh Marshall
Robert A. George, who perhaps in this context especially I should identify as being from the 'saving remnant' wing of the Republican party, has a post this morning in the Huffington Post about Mark Felt, Deep Throat and, of all people, Ken Duberstein. Take a look.
Among other things, he has a quote from Duberstein which puts the whole 'Felt should have told the president' nonsense in some proper context: "He couldn't go to the White House Chief of Staff (Haldeman or Ehrlichman); he couldn't go to the Justice Department (John Mitchell); he couldn't go to the White House Counsel (John Dean). He did something responsible. The congressional committees hadn't been formed yet. What do you do? Felt put America first."
--Josh Marshall
I suppose there may be more sensible <$NoAd$> things than to stand up in the middle of folks who are fixin' to have a duel. But that said, I wanted to post this letter my friend Sid Blumenthal sent me this morning that he sent earlier to John Hinderaker of the Powerline group blog ...
Dear John Hinderaker:I appreciate your attention to my column and the questions raised about President Bush's judicial nomination in the light of the treatment of President Clinton's nominations.
Rather than indulging in vituperative name-calling (Power Line: Close enough for Vicious Work), I would hope that you would bring to your interested readers' attention this statement by Senator Diane Feinstein of California on the subject, provide a link and publish lengthy relevant excerpts. The facts of the matter ought to be the basis for debate, not vilification.
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein - Judicial Nominations
Sincerely,
Sidney Blumenthal
Without going into the specifics of this exchange, it's always struck me as more a matter of humor than debate that Republicans actually try to argue that they didn't spend the better part of a decade doing to Clinton nominees what Democrats have now done, less successfully and less systemically, to Bush's.
Late Update: Here's a helpful tabular listing of Feinstein's speech, helping illustrate just how many nominees were blocked and how it was done.
--Josh Marshall
Chris Matthews and Henry Kissinger <$NoAd$> reminisce on Hardball ...
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the whole Nixon—and I‘m sure you‘ve thought this over a zillion times in your life in your long career and all that you‘ve done. If you think about Nixon and break-ins, I know I have a tape -- I listened to it myself over at the archives—of Nixon saying, go break into Brookings after the Pentagon Papers were published.There was another tape I listened to where he said, let‘s go break into the Republican headquarters and make it look like the Democrats did it. What is with Nixon and break-ins?
KISSINGER: You have to understand that Nixon had a habit of making grandiloquent statements. This was his way of letting off steam to prove that he was macho.
And the people who really knew him would not act on these comments. When I learned about Watergate, I asked Bryce Harlow, who was a wise old man around Washington, I said , what do you think happened here, Bryce? And he said, some damn fool went into the Oval Office and did what he was told, because Nixon didn‘t mean these things to be carried out. And he didn‘t really order them. He would say these things rhetorically. Let‘s break into Brookings. And he...
Just misunderstood.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader JW.)
--Josh Marshall
Peggy Noonan on Mark Felt's crimes against humanity and history ...
The Washington Post said yesterday that Mr. Felt's information allowed them to continue their probe. That probe brought down a president. Ben Stein is angry but not incorrect: What Mr. Felt helped produce was a weakened president who was a serious president at a serious time. Nixon's ruin led to a cascade of catastrophic events--the crude and humiliating abandonment of Vietnam and the Vietnamese, the rise of a monster named Pol Pot, and millions--millions--killed in his genocide. America lost confidence; the Soviet Union gained brazenness. What a terrible time. Is it terrible when an American president lies and surrounds himself by dirty tricksters? Yes, it is. How about the butchering of children in the South China Sea. Is that worse? Yes. Infinitely, unforgettably and forever.
And who are the real heroes of Watergate?
Were there heroes of Watergate? Surely many unknown ones, those who did their best to be constructive and not destructive, those who didn't think it was all about their beautiful careers. I'll give you a candidate for great man of the era: Chuck Colson. Colson functioned in the Nixon White House as a genuinely bad man, went to prison and emerged a genuinely good man. He told the truth about himself in "Born Again," a book not fully appreciated as the great Washington classic it is, and has devoted his life to helping prisoners and their families. He paid the price, told the truth, blamed no one but himself, and turned his shame into something helpful. Children aren't dead because of him. There are children who are alive because of him.
Mark Felt, force of death; Chuck Colson, force of life.
Earlier in the piece, she has this choice sentence: "Mr. Felt simply leaked information gained from his position in government to damage those who were doing what he didn't want done."
The stuff truly takes <$NoAd$> your breath away.
I guess, though, we owe Peggy et al. thanks for stipulating for the record that they don't think anything of any consequence was done wrong in Watergate because that provides a helpful context for understanding why they keep carrying the water of this administration, knowing as they do that many of the same things are happening.
--Josh Marshall
Emerging right-wing talking points from TPM Reader MK ...
Josh,Has dumping on Chuck Colson become one of the many Liberal pastimes? I am guessing that no one on the left has ever read "Born Again." If they did they would realize that Chuck Colson waived his 5th Amendment rights after his conversion and went to prison for his principles.
And what was his crime? Admitting that he viewed a FBI report on a Nixon emeny.
If Colson was the pathological liar you and your ilk make him out to be he would never even seen one day of prison time.
Sincerely,
MK
I sent MK a note asking just what <$NoAd$> 'principles' Colson was going to prison for exactly.
As for dumping on Watergate crooks being a liberal pastime, I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag on that one, right?
--Josh Marshall
The National Women's Law Center has just launched a blog focused on the on-going judicial nomination battles.
--Josh Marshall
Oh the liberal bias of it all ...
In the Chicago Tribune, John Kass laments that Mark Felt is honored as a hero while Linda Tripp is still ridiculed.
--Josh Marshall
Maybe the Count isn't a real congressman after all?
Indiana United to Protect Social Security is sponsoring a Social Security townhall meeting downstairs at the St. Joseph County Public Library in South Bend at 6:30 PM next Tuesday, June 7th.
That's in phase-out man and notorious privatization flip-flopper Rep. Chris Chocola's (R) district. And, I guess not <$Ad$>surprisingly, he's refusing to show up.
A TPM Reader from the district tells me that the Count's excuse is that the sponsors of the event don't 'have a plan'. So there's nothing to talk about.
In any case, they're apparently going to have an empty chair on the stage for the absent congressman. So if you're from Indiana's 2nd district try to stop by.
And if you attend, and you take some pictures, let us know. We'd like to share them with the rest of our readers, especially Chocola's empty seat.
--Josh Marshall
I'm very pleased to let you know that guest-blogging at TPMCafe's Table For One the week after next (June 13th-17th) will be Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU.
He'll be discussing the renewal of the Patriot Act and other issues.
I'm really looking forward to it. I hope you can stop by and join us.
--Josh Marshall
Following up on the earlier post, can anyone send me some particularly rich and egregious examples of chat-meisters on the various shows getting crooks and felons like Colson, Liddy et al. to dump on Mark Felt without pressing them on their own crimes?
--Josh Marshall
Now TPM Reader RW gets into the act about Chuck Colson ...
Josh:Colson had the ^#$%* to say this in the Post’s article this morning:
"There were times when I should have blown the whistle, so I understand his feelings. But I cannot approve of his methods."
Blow the whistle on what? Himself? Colson tries to make it seem like he was tortured about blowing the whistle on others, while engaging in no real wrongdoing himself. What a liar. He’s never really lived up to his crimes, other than saying he “was involved in Watergate.” Time for us to press this fool to come clean.
RW
Makes me think of when the lion shall lie down with the <$NoAd$> lamb. Only in the DC version of the end time, which I guess we're now in, the whistle-blowers and truth-tellers will be forced to lay down with the crooks they turned in. And judged as equally worthy.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader LG chimes in on Mark Felt, et al.
Josh: Is there anything more despicable than allowing the likes of Chuck Colson and G. Gordon Liddy, and even Pat Buchanan (although he was never implicated in Watergate) to go on TV and call Mark Felt a bum and a disgrace. That Matthews and others have, with either little or no objection to Colson and Liddy’s slander, is outrageous. Mark Felt may or may not be a genuine hero, but what he did was honorable and took courage – and he is certainly not a bum like his accusers.
This hadn't occured to me. Or rather I hadn't realized it because I barely watch any political TV anymore. But if <$Ad$> this is the case, it really is outrageous.
Nixon was a crook, as were most of his cronies. And Felt was a law man who ended up getting that all busted. As I note below, Felt's motives may not be black and white. But it's hard for me to see where any of these jokers gets off passing judgment on him.
I thought Chuck Colson's whole redemption shtick made at least some pro forma nod toward conceding that his Watergate era criminality maybe wasn't such a great thing after all. I guess not.
As for Gordon Liddy, he has, I guess, been accepted back into polite society, of a sort, for a mix of his character (and I'd say I mean that in the descriptive rather than than evaluative sense), his sense of humor and the undeniable fact that he never tried to make excuses for what he did. Took his lumps, etc.
Having said that, he's a crook, a bit nutty, and rightly did time for his crimes not only of the ordinary sort but actually against the constitution itself.
I guess these points don't cut much with DC's chatterati.
--Josh Marshall
I'm not quite sure what to think <$NoAd$>of the fact that in its nostalgic flood-the-zone coverage the Deep Throat-Mark Felt story, the Washington Post has set up a special Deep Throat Revealed blog.
That said, I was fascinated to be reminded, in this post from last night, that even though Felt's identity remained secret for some three decades, H.R. Haldeman had Felt pegged from the start.
They republish this excerpt from one of the Nixon tapes ...
Haldeman: We know what's left, and we know who leaked it.Nixon: Somebody in the FBI?
Haldeman: Yes, sir. Mark Felt. You can't say anything about this because it will screw up our source and there's a real concern. Mitchell is the only one who knows about this and he feels strongly that we better not do anything...
As Tim Noah points out in Slate, Felt has long been the pick of choice for what Tim calls "the better class of Deep Throat sleuth—[the] discriminating, Campari-sipping sophisticates."
--Josh Marshall
Words of wisdom from TPM Reader RC ...
When pegging our Republican reps on their SS stances, perhaps insisting they give us their "Up or Down Vote" might be blissfully ironic?
I say, run with it.
--Josh Marshall
I got a note today reminding me how many Republican senators, up for reelection in 2006, have records of either supporting or actually voting for Social Security privatization.
Needless to say, in most cases, they're running for cover now, looking for various outs and mealymouthed responses to get them off the hook for taking any position at all -- some good examples include Sens. Burns (R) of Montana and Talent (R) of Missouri. And it applies even more to the some of Republicans running against incumbent Dems or for open seats.
Obviously, this makes sense politically for Democrats. It'll keep a number of these guys politically off-balance and complicate their public connections to the sitting president. Should they be reelected it will also help lock them into a good position, should they come out against privatization on the hustings this year or next.
But accountability and clarity on the big public issues of the day is always good on substance too. No apologies required. And it simply doesn't cut it for anyone on the ballot next year not to have a straightforward position on whether or not they support Social Security.
Small changes in taxes or benefits are one thing. But, do you support Social Security or do you want to replace some or all of it with private accounts? No one should slide through without giving voters a straight-up answer to that question.
If you have examples of this -- cases where someone on the ballot next year (House or Senate) say they have no definite position on this issue, but has previous votes or positions which say otherwise -- I'd appreciate it if you can mention them at the Elections 2006 discussion table over at TPMCafe. If you haven't visited yet, here's a brief note about how to do it.
--Josh Marshall
I wanted to write about this last week. And some folks from on the scene had actually sent me some photographs to post. But I was so busy with the site launch that I didn't manage to get around to it. But the folks down in Louisiana really know how to defend Social Security and have fun at the same time.
Reps. Alexander, Boustany and McCrery are all going along trying to avoid commenting, taking any clear position on, or even acknowledging the 800 pound gorilla in the political room: Social Security and President Bush's plans to privatize it.
So the Social Security partisans in the area have come up with, well, I guess it's not actually an 800 pound gorilla. But it is a 28 foot inflatable gorilla. (See a full-sized picture here.) And they're taking him to stand in front of each congressman's office to drive home the point of their conspicuous silence on the great issue of the day.
Here, for instance, is the lede from today's Baton Rouge Advocate (the article also has a cool picture of the Social Security gorilla ...
A 28-foot gorilla has begun stalking some of Louisiana's Republican congressman, starting Tuesday by menacing U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr.'s office in Lafayette's federal courthouse.While it wasn't granting interviews, the bright red inflated gorilla did carry a sign stating its demand: "Don't monkey around with my Social Security. Say no to $131,458 benefit cut."
We're going to try to find out just who came up with this idea. Because they definitely deserve one of our TPM Privatize This! T-Shirts.
Late Update: Here's another article on all the monkey business.
--Josh Marshall
The revelation of the identity of Deep Throat should throw in sharp relief again the simple truth that the most important stories almost always rely on sources who -- precisely because they are in a position to know key details -- cannot reveal their identity to the public.
Without anonymous sources, there would be little news, certainly no investigative journalism. And what passes as news would tend even more toward news shaped and packaged by powerful institutions and individuals.
The fact that we now know Deep Throat was Mark Felt, whose motivations were probably shaped as much by bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and the Nixon administration as they were by more high-minded goals, should serve to make another point. Most anonymous sources have mixed motives. Many of them have bad or at least petty motives -- backbiting, the desire to gossip or trade in information for advantage, revenge. It runs the gamut.
A good reporter, though, can take the fruit of that poison tree and make it sweet and nourishing by sifting through information to find what is valuable and newsworthy regardless of why it may have come to see the light of day.
--Josh Marshall
Steve Soto has an interesting new angle on the Bolton case and why the White House may be holding on so tightly to the NSA reports information.
--Josh Marshall
I've been a bit distracted with other things today. But over the course of the day and out of the corner of my eye, I started to realize that the Deep Throat mystery was officially over. It's not just been reported. Or reasoned out, or claimed or triangulated. Late this afternoon, the Post itself even officially reported it, with Woodward and Ben Bradlee confirming that Mark Felt, then #2 at the FBI, was Deep Throat.
It's hard to say what significance it all has historically at this point, though it does shed some new light or at least deepens our understanding of the role the Nixon administration's antagonism with the FBI had in bringing Nixon down.
Whatever it means for history, it's the end to an iconic mystery -- one that for better and sometimes worse was at the heart of what was once the glamor of late 20th century journalism.
--Josh Marshall
As I've been hyping TPMCafe in recent weeks, I've had readers sometimes ask if TPMCafe were replacing TPM or whether TPM is -- I almost shudder to use the phrase -- being phased out.
(And just in case you don't notice that big TPMCafe graphic right there, by all means forget about reading the rest of this post and head over to TPMCafe right now!)
In a word, no. In two words, absolutely not. The sites are and will remain separate. The relationship between the two is obvious, certainly. But TPM will always be where I blog. I'll also be a participant in The Coffee House, the main group blog at TPMCafe. But nothing here should change.
Many of you have noticed or pointed out that the pace of posts here has been somewhat paltry of late. But that's just because a lot of work went into building the thing and various planning and so forth.
And as long as I'm on the subject, when I say 'build', hopefully it goes without saying that I only built this site in the very general sense of participating in building it and setting the process in motion. There are five other people whose names I'd particularly like to mention.
First, my wife, Millet, who in addition to being a wonderful wife and the love of my life, has been involved in every step of this project and whose help has been invaluable.
Second, our good friend Kate Cambor. On an interim basis, she's been doing a lot of the work the associate editor of the new site will do when I finally hire one, which should be in the pretty near future. And in addition to doing all sorts of invaluable work, her assistance has gone a long way to preserving my sanity, such as it is, over the last few weeks.
Next, Matt Ipcar did great graphic design work, which I couldn't be more pleased with, on the site. He designed our new TPMCafe logo, which you see there up at the top of the site.
And finally, two people who in a nuts-and-bolts sense are the two who actually 'built' most of the site, Colin Hill and James Bennett.
To each of them, a very, very sincere thanks.
So I just wanted to clear up any confusion on the first point and thank these people on the other. Now, head on over to TPMCafe and I'll try to get cracking on some more posts here.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, enough already. We've been chattering on about it for a couple months now. And with the help of a team of seven, almost three dozen contributors and more than 1500 TPM Readers who helped fund the project, TPMCafe is finally ready to open its doors.
TPMCafe is very much a work in progress. And we wouldn't want it any other way. We've put a lot of time into creating a public meeting place to read about and discuss politics, culture and public life in the United States, a site with both blogs and public discussion areas. But we want your feedback. Let us know what you like and don't like, what's clear and unclear. Join us in shaping what this site becomes.
And this week, as we announced earlier, special guest-blogger, John Edwards.
--Josh Marshall
I was beginning to think the coming and going of the November election had heralded not only the end of episodic national terror alerts but also the monthly ritual of Iraqi up-is-downism from Vice President Cheney.
Last night on Larry King Live Vice President Cheney said that the Iraqi insurgency was "in its last throes." In this he seemed to be picking up on President Bush's recent claims that the huge upsurge of violence and bombings of late was a sign that the insurgents were on the ropes.
Then, though, Cheney went on to say something ... well, I'm not sure whether to call it 'curious' or almost candid or what. But he went on to predict that the insurgency would end before the president leaves office, or in other words before January 2009, or in yet other words that the US will be fighting a counter-insurgency in Iraq for no more than six years.
And if that means it's in its 'last throes', well ...
--Josh Marshall
How not to get annual performance awards (from the Baltimore Sun)...
John Riggs spent 39 years in the Army, earning a Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery during the Vietnam War and working his way up to become a three-star general entrusted with creating a high-tech Army for the 21st century.But on a spring day last year, Riggs was told by senior Army officials that he would be retired at a reduced rank, losing one of his stars because of infractions considered so minor that they were not placed in his official record.
...
His Pentagon superiors said he allowed outside contractors to perform work they were not supposed to do, creating "an adverse command climate."
But some of the general's supporters believe the motivation behind his demotion was politics. Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.
"They all went bat s- - when that happened," recalled retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, a one-time Pentagon adviser who ran reconstruction efforts in Iraq in the spring of 2003. "The military part of [the defense secretary's office] has been politicized. If [officers] disagree, they are ostracized and their reputations are ruined."
...
Garner and 40 other Riggs supporters - including an unusually candid group of retired generals - are trying to help restore his rank.
But even his most ardent supporters concede that his appeal has little chance of succeeding and that an act of Congress might be required.
Reality-based<$NoAd$>.
(ed.note: Note of thanks to TPM Reader DH.)
--Josh Marshall
This from <$NoAd$> tomorrow's Post ...
The Bush administration has launched a high-level internal review of its efforts to battle international terrorism, aimed at moving away from a policy that has stressed efforts to capture and kill al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11, 2001, and toward what a senior official called a broader "strategy against violent extremism."...
Much of the discussion has focused on how to deal with the rise of a new generation of terrorists, schooled in Iraq over the past couple years. Top government officials are increasingly turning their attention to anticipate what one called "the bleed out" of hundreds or thousands of Iraq-trained jihadists back to their home countries throughout the Middle East and Western Europe. "It's a new piece of a new equation," a former senior Bush administration official said. "If you don't know who they are in Iraq, how are you going to locate them in Istanbul or London?"
Much of what we call al Qaida -- not just al Qaida proper which is at least a somewhat specific entity or association of radical Islamist groups, but the broader movement of violent and extremist jihadism across much of the globe -- was the spawn of the cockpit of brutality and extremism that was the Afghan jihad of the 1980s.
What will this lead to? What will these guys do?
Would take your breath away if you had any left to take.
(ed.note: Note of thanks to TPM Reader BKS.)
--Josh Marshall
){kind=link}