A recurring theme to the emails I have been receiving in response to today's posts on torture is that Americans, myself included, are naive to think that the U.S. has not engaged in torture, directly and indirectly, for decades prior to the Bush Administration.
This email from TPM Reader CH, a former interrogator himself, probably best captures that point of view:
We can talk all day about what training the military receives on Geneva Conventions, but at the heart of the matter is how people get around them. That is, in my experience, any set of rules that are established have loopholes and it ends up being the job of some to find those loopholes so that we can exploit them and still retain a level of plausible deniability as to whether or not certain actions are illegal. . . .It's not as if the US has never had a major role in the darkest circles of military actions knowing full well that these violations would be viewed as a violation of something idealists hold up as an example of 'human dignity', like the Geneva Conventions. In fact, I would argue that we've played in these circles all along and anyone thinking otherwise is only fooling themselves. Abu Ghraib and other events were not anomalies as much as they were unintended glimpses (due to private contractor mistakes) into these darker circles that were then broadcast to the world giving Americans and others a look at what 'we' do.
Essentially, this is a microcosm for what has arguably been going on for decades and for what the Bush Administration has used more 'openly' than their predecessors...but only 'openly' because people are finally coming around to the realism that often governs our geopolitical actions and are being exposed one way or another to certain dark truths. We may not like these truths, and we can act to change them if we want. However, so long as people continue to cite things like the Geneva Conventions and argue in ways that pretend as if we live in an ideal world and that 'we' are virtuous actors in said world, well, we are only going to help in perpetuating the bubble that so many of 'us' have been living in for so long. . . .
Americans are not trained to operate within that world and while naive idealists who want to hold Geneva up as something that is not ambiguous or even out-dated are trying to do good by holding people accountable for their morally ambiguous and/or illegal actions...they are only reinforcing the bubble as we know it. The bubble, with Bush's Administration, has been burst. Why do we want to crawl back inside?
--David Kurtz
Yesterday I asked for suggestions from readers for which historical figure Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), global warming denier and chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, most closely resembles.
I was looking for comparable historical figures who were not just oblivious in the face of facts but vigorously fought the facts and those who discovered the facts. But the way I phrased the question left some readers thinking I meant who does Inhofe most look like physically. I'll just say that those emails were especially unflattering to the Senator, and leave it at that.
Receiving the most nominations were those associated with the persecution of Galileo, in particular Pope Urban VIII and Caccini.
Tied for second were the Soviet genetics-rejectionist Trofim Lysenko and, my personal favorite, Baghdad Bob.
As your prize for playing, not only is Inhofe out as chairman come January, but word came today that he may not even survive as ranking member of the committee. Thank you for playing.
--David Kurtz
I've heard back from several readers intimately familiar with U.S. military protocols for training service members to survive capture by the enemy and who, therefore, are familiar with the techniques, like waterboarding, being used now by the U.S. on detainees in its custody. Their accounts and what the experience taught them is compelling.
TPM Reader MN was a Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape instructor:
Since a “voluntary” confession is the standard of the totalitarian regime for conviction and nullification of Geneva Convention rights, we wanted our people inoculated from this danger … hence SERE was created. Survivors like John McCain, Nick Roe and Admiral John Stockdale created and refined the material through their debriefs and visits. Our schools were designed to show how a totalitarian enemy, with a complete disregard for human rights runs a death/prison camp. Your job was to survive and Return with Honor. Torture, we revealed, was a useless and single pointed device which was wholly unreliable – torture was for sadism and the pleasure of the torturer. It had no intelligence value and the information would always be suspect.The horror of the recent revelations of the use of our school’s techniques in Iraq and Gitmo is disgusting. We are all horrified that we have destroyed the only tool we have to keep our soldiers safe … the disgust of world opinion. Waterboarding is a torture. Period. It is not a simulation, when applied you are, in fact, drowning at a controlled rate … we just determine how much and how long – you’ll break. Everyone breaks. I ran a waterboard team at SERE and administered dozens of students through the process as a tool to show what the worst looks like, short of death. This is why there is a doctor and a psychologist standing right next to the student … to do it safe and to help the student recover. Does it suck? Yes? Would I like to go through it again … never.
That America has gone to the depths of torture hurts my very soul. I know we have damaged our warrior spirit and placed a dark stain on the honor of our military. Not since Mai Lai have we been so dishonored as we have with Abu Ghraib. We have found, though September 11th, the blackest part of our American soul and have embraced in in a fit of false macho. John McCain should be ashamed of himself …
TPM Reader GS is a graduate of survival school:
I, like many of my fellow aviators, am a graduate of survival school, which is a mock-pow camp where we were subject to food, water and sleep deprivation, as well as mild beatings and waterboarding. Surprisingly, this was a very beneficial course, in that it taught us how to parse out information to minimize its relevancy, and recognize our own limitations and breaking points.Waterboarding is just as your reader described; you are strapped to a board, a washcloth or other article covers your face, and water is continuously poured, depriving you of air, and suffocating you until it is removed, and/or inducing you to ingest water. We were carefully monitored (although how they determined these limits is beyond me), but it was a most unpleasant experience, and its threat alone was sufficient to induce compliance, unless one was so deprived of water that it would be an unintentional means to nourishment.
The problem for us as citizens is we don't know to what limit or frequency the administration's agents are using this technique. In my view, what we experienced as service personnel was an introduction to what interrogators could do to us, in order to at least prepare us for the initial shock of captivity. What is done by professional interrogators whose mission it is to extract information is undoubtedly more unrelenting and severe, and most likely exacerbated by any act of resistance.
Since we consider it immoral when captured US personnel are treated in any manner not humane, there is no moral ground for making waterboarding an instrument of our policy against others. Admittedly this is a tough position for some, but I believe how we live and how we fight shapes the perception of us as a nation, and while we may not discourage actual terrorists, we can influence those whose understanding and support are necessary in this struggle.
--David Kurtz
As long as we're talking about torture . . .
Incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has asked the Justice Department to release two documents setting forth U.S. policy on how terrorism suspects are detained and interrogated. (h/t Laura Rozen)
--David Kurtz
I'm not inclined to give a whole lot of credence to the rumors that Karl Rove will leave the White House soon. Does it make sense on some levels? Sure. But part of the rumor involves Harriet Miers plunging a shiv into Rove's back, and I find that so hard to believe, it makes me skeptical that any of the rumor is true.
--David Kurtz
I want to post the lengthy reader email below because I think lost in the debate on torture is how much torture runs counter to decades of U.S. military training.
After Korea and especially Vietnam, and the torture endured by American servicemen in those conflicts, considerable time and effort went into training our troops in how to survive torture, both physically and, perhaps more importantly, psychologically.
Back in the 1980s, I heard navy officers, for example, talk about how soldiers and airmen captured in Vietnam carried psychological scars from having divulged more than simply their "name, rank, and serial number" and how training changed as a result so that our servicemen understood what was acceptable to divulge and what was not (operational details).
Imbued within this training during the Cold War was the sense that part of what set us apart from our communist adversaries was our adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and that the inhumane tactics used by those adversaries was part and parcel of the totalitarianism that we were combating. There was also the sense--a point of pride really--that we could and would prevail despite holding ourselves to a higher standard. It was, in fact, the higher standard that we were fighting for.
Now I don't mean to sugarcoat things. One name stands out as an example of our own terrible flaws: My Lai. And our involvement in Vietnam remains a sobering testament to the misguided conflating of nationalism and communism. But for millions of U.S. veterans, the debate on torture stands in stark contrast to the training they received and our shared understanding of what we were fighting for and against during the Cold War.
With that long-winded introduction, here is TPM Reader BL, responding to Ed Meese's comments in GQ:
I served in the Air Force from 1982 to 1988. I was an airborne linguist and, as such, was required to go through survival school at Fairchild Air Force Base near Spokane. This was a school that officers and enlisted men alike were required to attend...anyone who might end up in a hostile situation or behind enemy lines--or a POW. That was in January of 1984. Part of survival school was training in interrogation resistance and how to handle oneself in the event of capture by enemy forces.What does that have to do with Meese's remarks, you might ask? Simply this: Our trainers were careful to instruct us on the Geneva Conventions and which interrogation techniques were covered and which were illegal. I have a very clear memory of what they said about waterboarding. As I recall, water boarding was classified as torture and was a violation of the Geneva Conventions. They told us about the technique for the simple reason that the North Vietnamese used it on American Forces. They wanted us to know about that technique in case we were ever captured by "scumbags who didn't respect the Geneva Conventions." There were no demonstrations; it was considered too traumatic.
I'm not making this up. The military trainers at our Survival School had nothing but contempt for techniques like this, and we were taught that they were international criminal offenses. We were also warned that there were groups out there who did not respect international law and wouldn't hesitate to use techniques like these to get the information they wanted. (It also makes me wonder if some of the other torture techniques they told us about are being practiced by our oh-so-enlightened military today.)
My cousin, who was a diver for the Navy, also went through similar training at the same time I did, but in a difference school. We both wen't through survival training at the same time, and we met up on leave in Montana in February of 84 before I went off to my permanent duty station in Greece and he went to Hawaii. He told me they actually put them through the experience for a very short period of time (less than a minute each) so they could see how psychologically disturbing it was.
The procedure as he described it was as follows: You are strapped to a board or plank that is set at an incline angle so that your head is approximately a foot below the level of your feet. A wet cloth is placed over your face so that it covers your eyes, nose and mouth. Then water is dripped steadily onto the cloth over your nose and mouth.
It doesn't sound that bad in the abstract, does it? According to my cousin, it was a terrifying experience. And like me, he was taught that this practice was clearly torture and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Anyone who went through Survival School at the same time I did, in the mid-80's, would have been taught about water boarding and would also have been taught that it was a form of Torture. For the mouthpieces of the current administration to now pretend that waterboarding is somehow acceptable--or even somehow borderline--is a deliberate and methodical deception. I can't speak knowledgably about the interrogation resistance training of the US Military for the last 15 years, but if you were in the service in the 80's and you had any chance of being in a combat risk situation, you went through this training. And every last one of us who has completed this training knows that waterboarding is torture, pure and simple.
I'm a little baffled that I haven't seen any other ex-service people speaking up about it.
I would like to hear from more ex-service people about this. Shoot us an email.
--David Kurtz
In New Mexico's 1st Congressional District, Republican incumbent Heather Wilson eked out a victory over Democrat Patricia Madrid by a scant 879 votes, according to last night's final unofficial tally. Madrid has not conceded and is considering a recount.
--David Kurtz
NYT: James Baker has met several times with Syrian officials to discuss cooperation with the U.S.
--David Kurtz
I haven't had much to add to the mind-numbing story about the UCLA student who was tasered by university police while studying in the library Tuesday night. Frankly, until this morning I hadn't been able to force myself to watch past the first blood-curdling screams on the video.
Reading the LA Times today I see that the officers involved have not even been put on administrative leave pending completion of the internal and external reviews of the incident. Why not? It's not clear from the article.
But to hear UCLA's acting chancellor talk, it looks like the university is managing the perception of a problem rather than the problem itself: "Norman Abrams said he ordered the probe after the university received numerous calls and e-mails from parents and alumni raising concerns about the officers' actions during the videotaped Tuesday night arrest, which has been widely seen on TV news and the YouTube website."
The video itself apparently didn't prompt an outside review, but concerns from alum (i.e., donors) and parents did. Nice.
--David Kurtz
Former Attorney General Ed Meese is interviewed in the latest issue of GQ--and not for his sartorial splendor. This is as depressing a statement on American liberty and justice as anything I have read these last six years.
Here are some highlights from the Q&A:
Let's move to the Geneva Conventions. A lot of people are concerned that terrorism suspects don't have any kind of habeas corpus. In order to be covered by the Geneva Convention, you have to fulfill certain requirements. . . . So there are a number of criteria in the Geneva Convention that are not met by everyone on the battlefield. Then there's another category of people going back to the Revolutionary War—people who were in those days called spies. If they were not in uniform, they were subject to being summarily executed.You mean they were executed without even a military tribunal?
I think there were some. Also, a "tribunal" could be a military commander ordering the hanging. I think that's what happened to some of them.You're advocating summary execution.
Well, yeah, that happens in the military. Illegal combatants are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Summary executions? But wait, there's more:
Jefferson wrote, "All men are created equal," not "all Americans." He said that men are "endowed by their Creator" with these rights, not endowed by "the Constitution." But that doesn't have to do with enemy soldiers.
No surprise then that Meese is hard to nail down on whether waterboarding is torture.
It seems like some of these techniques, like waterboarding, are a long way from humane. Well, again, I have a great deal of confidence that the administration would not engage in torture.Would you call that torture?
I don't know. I don't know about waterboarding.It's putting a wet rag over someone's mouth and making them think that they're going to drown.
Yeah, I don't know. As I said, I don't know enough about it to give a firm determination.That doesn't necessarily sound like torture to you?
I don't know whether they're doing that.And if they are?
I don't know, because I don't know enough about it.I'm asking, if that is what they're doing, does that sound like torture?
Well, I'd have to find out how long they do it and whether it does create the impression of drowning. I've never heard of this using a washcloth in their mouth before.
Meese is not a has-been from the Reagan years. He has been a key advisor to the current White House on the nominations and confirmations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This is a man who is widely considered to be at the pinnacle of the powerful conservative legal movement. This is what we have come to.
Update: Meese is also a member of the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group, readers have reminded me.
--David Kurtz
In the wake of massive robocalling by the GOP and pro-GOP groups during the midterm elections, three more states have joined Missouri in considering legislation to ban robocalls to people on state Do Not Call lists.
--David Kurtz
I missed this yesterday, but it deserves mention. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), incoming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security is dead. "Don't waste our time," Baucus said. "It's off the table."
--David Kurtz
There are six House seats still undecided. We give you the rundown here.
And more on the fight for Katherine Harris' old seat, where Democrats are arguing that electronic voting machines might have thrown the race to the Republicans. There's just nothing like a Florida recount battle, is there?
--Paul Kiel
John McCain: the Bush administration is hiding important global warming data -- and breaking the law to do so.
--Justin Rood
Turns out Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) was tipped off to the "brainwashing" going at on the UN conference on global warming by his press flack, a former producer for Rush Limbaugh.
Lots of good nominees have come in for which historical figure most closely resembles the good Senator. More on that later.
--David Kurtz
I'm trying to think which historical figure Sen. Jame Inhofe (R-OK) is comparable to. Go take a look at this video of his appearance this morning on FOX, discussing global warming. Any suggestions?
--David Kurtz
Let me introduce you to my son, Sam. I just met him myself early Wednesday morning.
This is a picture of him two or three minutes after he was born but, as you can probably tell, before I told him that the Democrats had won the election.
His full name is Samuel Allon Marshall. We gave him the middle name Allon after my father, Alan, who died unexpectedly in August. The name means 'Oak' in Hebrew. And it was also the name of Yigal Allon, after whom he is also named, who was one of the founders of and later the commander of the Palmach, the elite commando unit of the Haganah, the predecessor of the IDF.
I introduced him to his mother, Millet.
And then I sat with him and told him about his grandfather while his mother finished up in surgery. He weighed in at an unexpectedly large 9 lbs. I remember hearing the nurse gasp when they first held him up.
He sleeps a lot. And eats.
To me he looks like a grumbly middle-aged man. But the doctors and nurses at the hospital keep saying how much he looks like me. So he's given me a lot to think about.
--Josh Marshall
From a statement this morning by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), on his election as House minority whip:
“For twelve years, the Democrats have gotten away without leading, without offering an agenda, and without saying what they’re actually for. Now they will be forced to govern.“Under this Republican leadership, the job of the Minority Whip will no longer be to go to the House floor every day and lose. Instead, each time we hold our team together and force the Democrats to vote like Democrats, we’ll be taking one more step toward recapturing our majority in 2008.
“One-hundred-forty-nine Democrats demonstrated yesterday that they are willing to buck Nancy Pelosi. We’ll work each day to give those Democrats a viable alternative to her liberal, San Francisco agenda."
Bring it on.
--David Kurtz
Uh-oh. There's more news out this morning on the alleged domestic violence incident involving Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY)--something about New York State Police creating a scrubbed version of the police report. TPMMuckraker has the details.
--David Kurtz
The House GOP is content to dance with the girls it brought.
House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has defeated Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) 168-27 for the post of minority leader, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) has won 137-57 over Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) for the post of minority whip, according to Roll Call.
Outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert declined to seek a leadership post after his party lost its majority.
--David Kurtz
Everyone welcome Bush's new chief of family planning -- the man who believes that giving women contraceptives is "demeaning." That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Take a walking tour down the 100 block of D Street SE in the District, with McClatchy's Matt Stearns, where you can see the rise and fall of the GOP first hand. Nice work.
--David Kurtz
Florida has opened a criminal investigation into former Rep. Mark Foley's emails to congressional pages.
--David Kurtz
New low for CNN:
On the November 14 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and asked Ellison if he could "have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table." After Ellison agreed, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
Media Matters has the transcript.
--David Kurtz
Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has another problem on her hands. In addition to the Blue Dog Democrats pressing her to name one of its own, Ranking Member Jane Harman (D-CA), as the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a development we first reported today, the Congressional Black Caucus has voted to support one of its own, Alcee Hastings (D-FL) for the post. A letter to Pelosi from the CBC is forthcoming, according to The Hill:
The dueling letters will likely raise the stakes for the Speaker-to-be. Coming on the heels of a divisive race for majority leader, her decision has the potential to alienate one of two powerful groups: the 44-member Blue Dog Coalition or the 43-member Black Caucus.
Harman has apparently alienated Pelosi with her aggressive lobbying for the post. Before being elected to Congress, Hastings was a federal judge, until he was impeached.
--David Kurtz
New York State Police have demoted a 28-year veteran detective following the pre-election leak of a police report involving one of our favorites, Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY):
The move comes following the explosive surfacing of a State Police report just a few days before this year's elections. The report contained information about State Police responding last December to the congressman's Clifton Park home. It stated that a 911 call from Sweeney's wife, Gayle, resulted in an observation at the home of scratches on Sweeney's face. The report said Gayle Sweeney had complained about being physically attacked by her husband.
According to the Albany Times Union, neither police officials nor the detective, Capt. Frank Pace, would comment on the circumstances of the demotion. But Sweeney's attorney told the paper there was "no question" Pace leaked the report. Pace had been the investigating officer of an earlier unrelated incident involving Sweeney's son, who was charged with assault.
Sweeney was defeated last week for re-election.
--David Kurtz
Tom Delay's successor claims his staff destroyed files in the congressional office, the AP reports:
Just three days after being sworn in, U.S. Rep. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs wants Congress to investigate the destruction of files in her office by former staff members of her predecessor, Tom DeLay.. . .
Sekula-Gibbs said in a statement Thursday that seven employees in her Washington office and the district office in Stafford, Texas, outside Houston, "deleted records and files without my knowledge or permission" before quitting.
. . .
Sekula-Gibbs, who is serving out the last seven weeks of DeLay's term, said the walkouts were "suspicious" in that the seven took the time to delete files before leaving without notice.
Sekula-Gibbs won the special election to finish out Delay's term, but she lost the general election for the full term beginning in January. She sure is making her seven-week tenure fun.
--David Kurtz
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) says a bill making harrassing robo calls a crime will be among the first 10 bills he introduces in the next Senate.
--Paul Kiel
Tom Delay's choice for Time's Man of the Year? Nancy Pelosi. Said Delay:
"She worked for years putting a strategy together, building a huge coalition. She held the Democrats together in the House like I have never seen before. She is going to change America!"
And, yes, Time actually had Delay on its selection panel.
Update: Delay was actually on a panel at a symposium hosted by Time on who should be selected Man of the Year.
--David Kurtz
Today, in international affairs:
A renowned black magic practitioner performed a voodoo ritual Thursday to jinx President George W. Bush and his entourage while he was on a brief visit to Indonesia.Ki Gendeng Pamungkas slit the throat of a goat, a small snake and stabbed a black crow in the chest, stirred their blood with spice and broccoli before drank the "potion" and smeared some on his face.
"I don't hate Americans, but I don't like Bush," said Pamungkas, who believed the ritual would succeed as, "the devil is with me today."
Great, now Bill Kristol will want to invade Indonesia.
--David Kurtz
Top-shelf political analysis from Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL):
Examining the 2006 midterms, Putnam blamed the GOP defeat on “the independent vote, the women vote, the suburban vote.” He said that “heck, even the white rednecks who go to church on Sunday didn't come out to vote for us.”
Between the segregationist wing of the GOP in the Senate and the white redneck wing in the House, there are those suggesting the GOP is now just a regional party of the South. That's not fair to the South, unless you mean the circa 1948 South.
--David Kurtz
Blue Dog Democrats buck Nancy Pelosi's choice for House Intelligence Chairman.
--Paul Kiel
Abstinence-pushing Department of Health and Human Services to government watchdog: How are we supposed to know what "scientifically accurate" means?
--Paul Kiel
ABC recently reported that convicted felon and former GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff was dishing to prosecutors on "six to eight" crooked Democratic senators. His former colleagues don't believe it.
--Justin Rood
Reuters: The outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, James Inhofe (R-OK), on Thursday dismissed a U.N. meeting on climate change as "a brainwashing session."
--David Kurtz
Justin Rood has the rap sheet on the some of Jack Abramoff's fellow inmates.
--David Kurtz
More on the looming threat of a regional war over Iraq--or "over its dead body."
--David Kurtz
Remember the actress who said, "Harold, Call Me!" in that infamous RNC "bimbo" ad targeting Dem Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr.?
For some reason, she's now worried that she's been typecast as an actress who plays blonde bimbos.
--Greg Sargent
Hoyer prevails, 149-86 . . .
It's done.
Steny Hoyer (D-MD) will be the new House majority leader, holding off an upset bid by John Murtha (D-PA), who had the backing of Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi.
The final tally was not far off from predictions. Hoyer had long been the favorite. Until Pelosi's active involvement on behalf of Murtha this week, there wasn't much doubt about the outcome. But Pelosi's last-minute aggressive advocacy for Murtha did throw the race into turmoil.
More here.
--David Kurtz
A lot of reporting is being devoted to trying to figure out what the U.S. strategy in Iraq will be going forward. We discussed at length yesterday the report in The Guardian about the President's "last big push."
In an op-ed today in the LA Times, Laura Rozen outlines an internal Administration debate over whether U.S. policy in Iraq should tilt in favor of the Shiite majority:
A U.S. tilt toward the Shiites is a risky strategy, one that could further alienate Iraq's Sunni neighbors and that could backfire by driving its Sunni population into common cause with foreign jihadists and Al Qaeda cells. But elements of the administration, including some members of the intelligence community, believe that such a tilt could lead to stability more quickly than the current policy of trying to police the ongoing sectarian conflict evenhandedly, with little success and at great cost.. . .
To do so would be a reversal of Washington's strategy over the last two years of trying to coax the Sunnis into the political process, an effort led by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. It also would discount some U.S. military commanders' concerns that the Al Mahdi army, a Shiite militia loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada Sadr, poses as great a threat to American interests as that presented by the Sunni insurgency centered in western Iraq's Al Anbar province.
So what's the logic behind the idea of "unleashing the Shiites"? It's the path of least resistance, according to its supporters, and it could help accelerate one side actually winning Iraq's sectarian conflict, thereby shortening the conflict, while reducing some of the critical security concerns driving Shiites to mobilize their own militias in the first place.
Laura has more at her blog.
There are other policy options on the table, but so far "the last big push" and "the tilt" are the two we've seen most publicly articulated.
Are the lame names for these strategies indicative of how poor the policy options are?
--David Kurtz
Election Central explores what the NYT means by Democratic "fingerpointing."
--David Kurtz
Karl Rove is still wondering what happened to his votes, according to this account from incoming freshman Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN):
On Monday, he attended a new-members reception at the White House, where he met President Bush and political adviser Karl Rove, who was convinced Walz would lose. "He said, 'we had the numbers on you, we thought we had enough, but where did you find the voters?'" Walz said.
(h/t A Bluestem Prairie)
--David Kurtz
Big news out of Georgia, where both Democratic congressmen in tight races have now prevailed (pending any recount challenges).
That also makes it official: The GOP did not pick up a single governorship or House or Senate seat in the midterms.
--David Kurtz
Dems unanimously nominate Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, according to Roll Call.
Update: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) was unanimously elected Democratic Caucus chair, Roll Call reports.
Late update: Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) also a unanimous choice, for Majority Whip, according to Roll Call.
Now comes the contested race between Murtha and Hoyer. Stay tuned.
--David Kurtz
Let's lighten the mood this morning. We should know soon whether Jack Murtha or Steny Hoyer is the next majority leader, but let's not forget how far we've come just to get to this point. Check out this reminder.
--David Kurtz
More allegations surface of torture at Gitmo. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Here's really the key part of The Guardian story:
"You've got to remember, whatever the Democrats say, it's Bush still calling the shots. He believes it's a matter of political will. That's what [Henry] Kissinger told him. And he's going to stick with it," a former senior administration official said. "He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq. Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he's got less than a year, maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal process to begin next fall."The "last push" strategy is also intended to give Mr Bush and the Republicans "political time and space" to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. "The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they'll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It's all about who's going to be in best shape to win the White House.
The official added: "Bush has said 'no' to withdrawal, so what else do you have? The Baker report will be a set of ideas, more realistic than in the past, that can be used as political tools. What they're going to say is: lower the goals, forget about the democracy crap, put more resources in, do it."
The President is still in denial, with Kissinger whispering in his ear. Are we really going through this again, three decades later?
--David Kurtz
Here are the four points of the President's "victory strategy," according to The Guardian:
· Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq· Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
· Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others
· Increased resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces
You might call it a four-word strategy: More of the same.
--David Kurtz
President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.
Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.
A last big push. Just what the electorate ordered.
--David Kurtz
Rep. John Murtha was on Hardball tonight and said his comment to Blue Dog Democrats that ethics reform is "total crap" was misconstrued in press reports. More here.
--David Kurtz
Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) snubs the President and goes to AFL-CIO event instead.
--David Kurtz
In the Daily Digest this morning I touched on the growing expectations that the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group, in combination with the installation of Bob Gates at the Pentagon, will save the day in Iraq.
It has become the consensus view, crosses party lines, and seems to be based in part on the assumption that anything is better than the current Iraq policy and its chief implementer, Don Rumsfeld.
But there are some other assumptions--some faulty, some overly optimistic--inflating those expectations:
(1) That the ISG recommendations will be substantive, well-founded, and more than mere political cover for a change of strategy yet to be unveiled. Perhaps they will be prudent recommendations, but I don't know why anyone would assume that yet.
(2) That the Administration will first embrace and then effectively implement the ISG recommendations. This assumption seems wildly at odds with this Administration's track record in both respects. Today's Washington Post reports that the Administration is doing its own policy review parallel to the ISG's, which does not suggest any kind of warm embrace:
The two reviews are not competitive, administration officials said, although the White House wants to complete the process before mid-December, about the time the Iraq Study Group's final report is expected.The White House's decision changes the dynamics of what happens next to U.S. policy deliberations. The administration will have its own working document as well as recommendations from an independent bipartisan commission to consider as it struggles to prevent further deterioration in Iraq.
I'm also not willing to buy all the pop psychology about the prodigal Bush 43 finally returning to the orbit of Bush 41, chastened by his experience in the international arena.
(3) That Bob Gates is going to make a dramatic difference over the next two years. First, I remember the last time we were promised wisdom, experience, and a steady hand from a member of Bush 41's old team. That was Dick Cheney. Second, the options available to the U.S. for proceeding in the Middle East range from very bad to horrendous. Neither Gates nor anyone else is going to be able to clean up this mess in the next two years.
(4) That things can't get any worse. Things can always get worse. We could see Turkey and Iran militarily staking claims to parts of Iraqi territory. We could have terrorist brigades from Iraq running missions into Saudi Arabia and Jordan to destabilze the regimes there. Iran could assert itself militarily in the Gulf. The Middle East is Murphy's Law squared.
(5) That the sooner we start implementing the ISG recommendations, the sooner our troops come home and the more American lives will be saved. First, see (1) through (4) above. Second, I still have a hard time envisioning a Republican Administration bringing home all the troops in short order and leaving oil-rich Iraq in chaos in the midst of a vital oil-producing region. We may very well witness a spike in the number of American troop casualities in the process of trying to extricate ourselves or in the process of trying to prevent a larger regional conflict.
If the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem, then we may be at that first step. Our long national denial may be over. But admitting you have a problem doesn't in and of itself solve the problem. And right now Iraq is a problem begging for solutions.
--David Kurtz
From Washington Wire:
After calling for bipartisanship, President Bush surprised Senate Democrats late Tuesday by renominating a controversial list of judges – some of whom may be unacceptable even to a few Republican senators. “It’s an unfortunate signal,” said one senior Democratic Senate aide.The likelihood of action is remote on any of the nominees before the Dec. 15 scheduled adjournment of the lame-duck session. The White House action is viewed largely as an effort to appease the party’s conservative base.
Empty gestures intended to placate an angry base. Another reminder of what a weakened White House looks like.
--David Kurtz
After you check out our post on Murtha's involvement in ABSCAM, give this one a read.
In a meeting with Democrats earlier this week, Murtha referred to the Democrats lobbying and ethics reform bill as "total crap."
--Paul Kiel
Good thing the voters have spoken loud and clear about corruption and graft in Washington. That way the President can't help but hear the message:
President Bush on Tuesday renominated the chairman of the agency that directs U.S. overseas broadcasts even though the nomination has been stalled in the Senate amid allegations of misconduct.Kenneth Y. Tomlinson was nominated again as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and for a term on the board expiring Aug. 13, 2007. . . .
A report by the State Department's inspector general, released Aug. 29, said Tomlinson misused government funds for two years as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Tomlinson disputed the allegations in the report.
Message returned. Undelivered.
--David Kurtz
Trent Lott (R-MS) won election to the Senate GOP leadership by one vote this morning. He defeated Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) for the post of minority whip.
More soon . . .
OK, so Lott is back.
Nice to see that the segregation wing of the Republican Party can still muster a majority of votes in the Senate GOP caucus. Or as Matt Ygelsias put it yesterday:
I'm confused. My recollection was that after Lott was exposed as a die-hard segregationist, the American conservative movement washed their hands of him andmade him a committee chairbanished him from the realm as a token of their commitment to the new rightwingery with twice the homophobia and half the racism. Now they're going back on all that? Didn't everyone love Michael Steele.
After running a race-baiting campaign against Harold Ford in Tennessee, the GOP bypasses the other senator from Tennessee to install a leader nostalgic for the Dixiecrats.
Hey, Ken Mehlman. How's that outreach to African-American voters going?
--David Kurtz
If you haven't already, go take a look at the internal Fox News memo obtained by the Huffington Post. It's a doozy.
--David Kurtz
Jack Abramoff behind bars this morning:
Abramoff arrived at about 6:30 a.m. EST at a relatively secluded prison facility in western Maryland and began to serve a nearly six-year prison sentence for a fraudulent deal to buy a fleet of casino ships in Florida.
Even with all we now know, part of me still shakes my head with wonderment that this is where Jack ended up.
--David Kurtz
It looks like Bush personally authorized the CIA's creation of "black" sites and its use of harsh torture methods. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
In CT-02, "Landslide Joe" Courtney wins by 91 votes, ousting Republican incumbent Rob Simmons.
--David Kurtz
I know we all should be eagerly awaiting the results of the Baker-Hamilton report, right? The press is giddy with the notion that this will be the cure for what ails us: an insolveable problem in Iraq, a way forward between the "stay the course" and "cut and run."Let's be serious here, cause it is war. We, including Democrats, are setting ourselves up for some closure that doesn't exist. As Jim Zogby has written, we're all "waiting for godot." Remember, he never arrives.
--David Kurtz
Profile in courage:
Denver Clerk and Recorder Wayne Vaden resigned today amid chaos in the Denver Election Commission which he oversees.Citing his belief "that accountability is the underpinning of honorable public service," Vaden said he was resigning from a "personal disappointment over my efforts" with the commission.
I don't know any of the backstory on this. But the election in Denver was a disaster, and I have long thought that the European model of falling on your sword when a disaster happens on your watch is noble, honorable, and should be emulated here in the States.
--David Kurtz
The New York Observer posted an interesting piece last night on Speaker-in-Waiting Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the leadership race between Jack Murtha (D-PA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD).
It raises some issues about how exactly the race for majority leader came down. So first, here's a sampling (but go read the whole thing), and then I want to place this in the larger context of what we've been hearing from up on the Hill:
If, as expected, Mr. Murtha does go down to defeat on Thursday, the press, and Ms. Pelosi’s political tormenters, will have all the ammunition they need to tell the world that she miscalculated and overreached—that the new House leader is in over her head and has a perilously weak hold on her flock.No matter what they say, though, the internal fallout will be minimal for Ms. Pelosi. She spotted Mr. Murtha’s bid for the lost cause it was and shied away from investing any real capital in it. And it’s not like her personal loyalty to Mr. Murtha—or her distrust of Mr. Hoyer—is a secret among House Democrats.
The big secret here—at least outside the Capitol—is what an adept inside player the incoming Speaker actually is. Indeed, few seem to appreciate the singular position of dominance within the Democratic caucus into which she has masterfully maneuvered herself.
This account fits with what we've been hearing from multiple sources. Instead of pulling out all the stops to get Murtha elected, Pelosi had been content to sit on the sidelines, figuring that it was well known within the caucus that she preferred Murtha to Hoyer.
Then, apparently in response to Murtha's request, Pelosi sent out her letter of support over the weekend to newly elected Democratic House members. That letter set off a firestorm of news coverage, pegging the majority leader's race as the first test of Pelosi's leadership, all of which apparently came as a big surprise to Pelosi.
With the dynamics of the race suddenly shifted from simply Hoyer v. Murtha to a larger question of Pelosi's political strength and capabilities, she shifted her support for Murtha into overdrive, starting to make phone calls and twist arms. The problem is that it was probably too little, too late. (Actually, there are indications, as the Observer article suggests, that Murtha's candidacy had been a lost cause from the very beginning.)
Did Pelosi make a misjudgment?
Did she assume that her personal preference for Murtha and her long-standing personal rivalry with Hoyer was such common knowledge within the Democratic caucus that her letter for Murtha was only stating the obvious?
Did she not realize that, to a new crop of Democratic House members and to a public and press still getting acquainted with her, her support for Murtha would take on greater significance?
Few outside the Democratic caucus know of its inner workings, so all the public and press sees is Pelosi backing a losing candidate in her first act as Speaker. It's not a fatal misstep, but it does suggest that Pelosi is having to figure out that the talent she has for maneuvering inside the caucus, which has served her well, is a different skill set than the one required to lead the national Democratic Party, which is the position she is in now.
Here's hoping she gets that figured out soon.
--David Kurtz
Justin Rood has a complete rundown on the Democratic leadership race at Election Central.
--David Kurtz
Michael Hirsh: "Sorry folks. Iraq is broken, and all the Jim Bakers and all the Bob Gateses can't put Humpty Dumpty together again."
--David Kurtz
Bitterness and recrimination at the Republican National Committee about the White House's choice of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) to chair the RNC, according to the Washington Times:
Some RNC members, already dismayed by last week's election that swept Republicans from control of Congress, expressed anger at the way Mr. Rove leaked his choice of Mr. Martinez immediately after a conference call in which the Florida senator's name was floated for the first time.
The Martinez selection also signals that the White House intends to make another run at immigration reform, the paper reported, with Martinez as the point person.
House Republicans are really going to love the White House pushing immigration reform through a Democratic Congress that it couldn't get from a Republican Congress. This is the first and perhaps best example of how the interests of the White House will not always be aligned with congressional Republicans over the next two years.
--David Kurtz
Oh how the mighty have fallen. DeLay selling off campaign furniture and office supplies to raise funds. (ed.note: see second-to-last paragraph in the linked page.)
--Josh Marshall
A split among readers on the question of whether the confirmation hearings for Bob Gates should be held in December by a GOP Senate or after the first of the year by a Democratic Senate.
From TPM Reader JW:
I don't see the logic of waiting two months to confirm Gates just to use the hearings as a platform to talk about Iraq. The Democrats can do that using budget hearings, intelligence hearings, hell, whatever committee meetings they wish to. They can call Gates over to the Congress later if they want.The fact is, they don't have anything on Gates that would prevent him from becoming Defense Secretary. It's pretty clear they're going to have to work with Gates; why make him the whipping boy from the outset? He hasn't done anything wrong yet and isn't likely to know very much more about Iraq right now than the senators do. I think it's better to take the high road with this nomination, since we all agree we want Rumsfeld out, let Gates get his feet, and ask him in January what he's come up with.
I think the "use nomination hearings as a bully pulpit" logic shows that the Democrats are still thinking like a minority party. They got the subpoena power, they got the committees, they can open any can of worms any they want to and don't have to snipe at the Administration from the bushes. Let the rabbits through now and hunt elephants in January.
If they really feel the need to fight a rearguard in the lame-duck Congress, try to keep Bolton out of the UN. That nomination is genuinely dangerous and distressing.
Then again, TPM Reader EC:
I have to agree with David, and I wanted to add something.It really is important to maintain that the problems with Iraq don't simply go away with Rumsfeld's departure. The administration OWNS this one, and whether Rumsfeld leaves immediately or lingers until a successor is confirmed should not matter. Beyond that, I think delaying the hearings can be a win for Democrats in another sense. Stress that Democrats simply want a full airing of Gates' qualifications and his plans for Iraq. After all, Iraq is one of the big reasons Democrats are now the Majority party. If there's a mandate in any of this, it's that the American people don't trust a Republican Congress to run things...and that should certainly include the relatively important decision of who replaces Rumsfeld. Democrats should support an extensive, reasonable examination of any nominee for any position; that can't and won't happen if they appear too timid to challenge the administration on the timing.
The Democrats won...and they'll be endlessly scrutinized by the not-so-liberal media. It's time to worry less about appearances and more about doing the right thing. It's by "doing the right thing" that Democrats will ultimately preserve and grow their majority. Not by kow-towing to a media that isn't and won't be on their side, ultimately lending weight to Republican claims of weakness.
--David Kurtz
The next front in the struggle for dignity and equality: demonization of global warming skeptics.
--Josh Marshall
Those Republicans are pretty tough. They lose both houses of Congress. And they still won't give Russert his testicles back.
I hear even Halperin is making a play for non-custodial visits.
--Josh Marshall
I sunk a lot of time three-plus years ago into reporting on Tom DeLay's corrupt, but ultimately successful mid-decade redistricting in Texas. So we shouldn't get too far past the 2006 election without noting that DeLay's work has turned out to be a pretty big disaster for his state of Texas.
The whole gambit was intended to solidify the GOP majority in the House. And it accounted for the meager Republican House pick-ups in the 2004 election. But now that the GOP House majority is no more, the 2003 redistricting plan has left Texas with virtually no one with much seniority in the new majority party.
As this piece in the Star-Telegram explained on Sunday, Texas would have been in line to have three committee chairman in the 110th Congress. Now it will probably have none.
--Josh Marshall
Whoopsie. U.S. Capitol Police fail to identify senator-elect Jon Tester. Luckily, no one gets punched:
The Capitol police weren't quite ready for Tester, a farmer with a throwback flat top haircut and fingers missing on his left hand from an old accident with a meat grinder. They asked him to empty his pockets for inspection.''Just like at the airport, you put it all through?'' Tester asked.
The officer nodded, then recognized the newcomer and waved him through.
--Justin Rood
Did buggy electronic voting machines cost the Democrats a seat in Florida's 13th District? The battle continues.
--Paul Kiel
Perhaps this is something of an existential question. But do we really have to pretend that Rudy Giuliani has more than a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Republican presidential nomination? Or can we all just stipulate that a multiple adulterer, who supports gay civil rights and choice, has deep and on-going ties to mobbed-up and now-disgraced Police boss Bernie Kerik, has a largely unscrutinized (outside of New York) resume, and had the bright idea of locating the NYC disaster center in the already-once-bombed World Trade Center probably will have some rough sledding in Republican primaries?
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader BM responds:
I think you raise important points about hearings on Gates' nomination. I'm all in favor of such. However, I can see a relatively simple logic for the Democrats moving cautiously here. The real reasons are public perception and speed. Remember, Bush is still pretending to be contrite and bipartisan (despite pushing Bolton for UN Ambassador). The Dems would like to make Bush eat the cost of being the first one to go partisan (though I doubt they are likely to win that particular point in the media).More importantly, if the Republicans are saying the want Gates in and Rumsfeld out next week, how do the Dems respond? Should they say they want hearings delayed until they take over in January, then a month or more of hearings and a final vote in March? That is basically saying they want 5 more months of Rumsfeld. It's not a winning position. Further, it allows the Republicans to blame the next 400 American deaths on the Dems by pointing out they kept Rumsfeld in even after the "realist Republicans" wanted him out. I'm not sure if that is a good argument for avoiding important hearings or not, but it needs to be considered and the perceptual ramifications dealt with.
I agree that these are political considerations that need to be addressed. But they strike me as relatively easy to dispense with. Bush is responsible for the first six years of Rumsfeld's reign of terror at the Pentagon, and nothing says Rumsfeld has to remain until his successor is chosen. Ultimately, though, the focus should be on the President. Iraq is his policy, not Rumsfeld's. If he's worried about how long it will take to replace Rumsfeld, he shouldn't have waited until now to start the wheels in motion.
In his interview last night with Larry King, Jim Webb adriotly sidestepped the question of whether he thought Rumsfeld should have resigned. His point, which is a good one, was to avoid making Rumsfeld the issue when our policy in Iraq is the Administration's policy.
Update: Webb's appearance on Larry King Live was actually last week.
--David Kurtz
Senator-elect Jim Webb (D-VA) made it clear last night on Larry King Live that he wants the opportunity to vote on the confirmation of the new secretary of defense, rather than leaving it to the lame-duck GOP Senate.
Update: Webb's appearance on Larry King Live was last week.
--David Kurtz
There is another thing I would point out about the importance of a Democratic-led confirmation hearing on Bob Gates. The point of such a hearing would not be to torpedo his nomination, but rather to put down some markers on Iraq and attempt to define the parameters within which the Administration will operate going forward.
I'm talking about big picture items. What is victory? What is the strategic objective? Are we spread too thin militarily and how do we address that? What will troop rotations look like going forward? What should our force strength be? How much repair and replenishment of materiel is required and what will it cost? What resources do we need to commit in Afghanistan? What are the relative priorities?
I don't have much confidence that those questions will be addressed in GOP-led hearings. The thrust of Republican questioning will be, You're not Don Rumsfeld, right? End of story.
The temptation will be--already is--to dump the Iraq disaster in Rumsfeld's lap and be satisfied that just about anything and anyone will be better than Rumsfeld. First, that ignores the continuing role of the President and Vice President. Second, it seems to me that we are at a crossroads, with many options before us. Simply saying any road is better than the one we just came down is irresponsible. There are real choices to be made at this juncture.
After the 1968 elections, not many Americans would probably have guessed that we would be in Vietnam for another six and a half years. We're at a similarly decisive moment now.
--David Kurtz
In the post below I think TPM Reader CL and David both do a very good job of explaining why Joe Lieberman ain't goin anywhere. He's going to caucus with the Democrats and that's that. You don't have to rely on his promise to do so during the campaign or even just being a Dem as opposed to a Republican. Simple self-interest will keep Joe in the Democratic caucus for the next two years.
--Josh Marshall
From TPM Reader CL:
I used to think the major reason why the Dem response has been muted on Gates was because if they put up a fight over Gates, the administration would withdraw Gates, and put in Joe Lieberman. Then CT's Republican governor appoints an R and the Senate switches--until last night, however, when I finally got a look at the next round of 2008 Senate seats. Barring an orgy of retirings to run for President, there is a real liklihood that the Dems could hold their numbers . . . and pick up a number of R seats as well . . .I think Joe sees this and realizes sure, he could switch parties - but in two years, he'll be back in the minoity, and just like that - not only would he be completely irrelevant, but Meet the Press would stop calling.
He's got us by balls? Not at all. And I'm willing to bet he knows it more than we do.
Precisely.
Update: That certainly explains why Joe is unlikely to switch parties. It's less helpful in explaining why he would decline to be Secretary of Defense. But capping your public service career by presiding over the mess in Iraq, for which you are already in part blamed, seems very unappealing by any standard.
--David Kurtz
Let me return, briefly, to the post I did yesterday on Republican Michael Steele's effort to bamboozle Maryland voters into thinking he was the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate there.
A number of Maryland readers have rightly pointed out that way I wrote "Steele Democrat" in the post doesn't do it justice. On C-SPAN, Steele defended his campaign's use of the phrase "Steele Democrat" as a play on "Reagan Democrats."
The way the phrase appeared in the field was:
STEELE
DEMOCRAT
A couple of examples are here and here.
OK, carry on.
--David Kurtz
An update on our call for questions to pose in our interview with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). The interview, originally scheduled for this morning, has been postponed until tomorrow. So keep the questions coming. We hope also to interview Hoyer's opponent in the majority leader race, John Murtha (D-PA), so stay tuned.
--David Kurtz
The excruciating recount in the CT-02 should be finished later today. After multiple swings yesterday, Democrat Joe Courtney leads incumbent Rob Simmons by 82 votes.
--David Kurtz
Democrat Darcy Burner has conceded in her race for Congress in the Washington State 8th District. That seemed like a pretty likely outcome since election night, even though the tally was close.
Burner has nothing to hang her head about in that one. She ran a very good race, surprising a lot of people (including some national Democrats).
--David Kurtz
I guess being under federal investigation is a bigger deal when you're in the minority? Apparently: Republicans are likely to strip Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) of his powerful appropriations post just because the feds are sniffing around. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to begin hearings the week of December 4 on the nomination of Bob Gates for secretary of defense.
One reason the President may be trying to get the Gates nomination through the lame-duck Republican Senate before Democrats take control of the Senate in January is old animosity between Gates and Senator-elect Jim Webb (D-VA), according to Bob Novak:
During President Ronald Reagan's second term, Gates and Webb clashed as colleagues. Webb as secretary of the Navy objected to plans by Gates, then deputy national security adviser, for U.S. warships to protect oil platforms in the Persian Gulf. The hot-tempered Webb made clear his irritation with the soft-spoken Gates.
Whatever. In Novak's world, all politics is petty paybacks and trifling personal slights.
What I don't completely understand, quite frankly, is why Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), incoming chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and other Senate Democrats are not demanding full hearings on the Gates nomination after the first of the year. No one is eager for Rumsfeld to hold the post for a minute longer than necessary, but what better way for Democrats to begin to exert control over Iraq policy.
You want to do oversight on Iraq? Start there.
--David Kurtz
Not to quibble, but this sentence from The Hill piece on Trent Lott's bid for minority whip seems a bit off:
Lott was forced to step down as Senate majority leader in 2002 after comments he made at former Sen. Strom Thurmond’s (R-S.C.) birthday party touched off a racially charged controversy and the White House threw its backing to now-Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).That makes it sound like a bunch of folks were just whipping up trouble instead of Lott planting his foot squarely in the doo-doo. Wasn't it the comments that were "racially charged," as opposed to the controversy?
--David Kurtz
He's baaack.
Trent Lott is making a bid for Senate minority whip, according to The Hill.
I don't know about you, but that makes me nostalgic for those halcyon days of 1948.
--David Kurtz
With a final dyspeptic, pox-on-all-your-houses column, John Tierney leaves the NYT op-ed page and retreats to the safety of the laboratory.
--David Kurtz
TPM Reader PJ on Nancy's gambit: "What I really like about Pelosi's move is that it suggests that she intends to be an aggressive, kickass leader. My biggest fear is that we could have a "business-as-usual" Democratic Congress. Her out-front position on Murtha gives me reason to think that she means business and has big legislative ambitions."
--Josh Marshall
Here's the lead from a story out tonight from The Hill ...
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will ensure that Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) wins his race for majority leader, a key Murtha ally said Monday night.“She will ensure that they [the Murtha camp] win. This is hard-ball politics,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a longtime Murtha supporter. “We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it.”
Pelosi recently endorsed Murtha’s bid for majority leader against House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), but it was unclear whether she would use her clout as the first Democratic Speaker in 12 years to help Murtha win or whether her letter simply expressed a personal preference as a favor to Murtha.
Pelosi’s move was deliberate, Moran said, and she was already leaning on her colleagues to affect the outcome.
“Yes, she’s making calls to people. She is contacting people and letting them know that it’s an unequivocal letter,” Moran said.
Moran isn't known for being particularly diplomatic or careful with his words. So maybe there's an overlay of bombast here. But I have a hard time believing he's totally off the reservation. As Josephine Hearn, the author of the piece, goes on to write ...
If Moran’s claims are true, Pelosi is taking an enormous gamble only a week after the election propelled her into the Speakership. If she prevails, she will likely banish her onetime rival Hoyer to the back benches and send a clear signal to her colleagues that she intends to rule with an iron hand. If Hoyer wins, she loses substantial political capital and alerts the caucus that they can successfully oppose her.
I have to confess that I haven't myself done a lot of reporting on these emerging leadership battles. I've had a bunch of other stuff on my plate since the election. But I'm really stunned by this move. Not so much the move itself -- I know she and Hoyer are rivals and that she and Murtha are close allies. So certainly she'd prefer Murtha in the role. But she's doing a lot more than being quietly supportive of an ally. She's very publicly making everyone takes sides. And in a very specific, unique way. She's staked her authority and credibility on a Murtha victory. And since she represents the caucus, to a degree she's putting the caucus's authority and credibility on the line too, just after the Dems have taken power in the House for the first time in a dozen years. It's a really bold power-play on a number of levels.
Now, one other thing. Are you reading this post up there on the Hill? Especially on the House side? I want to hear from you. You're seeing what's going on up there and hearing what members and staffers are saying. I want to know more about this. So if you'd like to share some of what you're seeing and hearing, drop me a line.
--Josh Marshall
This is pretty funny. Remember how Texas Gov. Rick Perry hired lobbyists connected to then-Rep. Tom Delay to promote the state of Texas in Washington and how those lobbyists later made tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to various Republican committees?
The Austin newspaper has an editorial today pointing out that Texas is still paying $15,000 a month to those GOP lobbyists--even though Congress will be controlled by Democrats:
Using taxpayer money to pay private, partisan lobbyists was a dubious strategy to begin with. Now that the worm has turned in Washington, Perry's decision could be disastrous for Texas. These lobby firms ignored Democrats all year — and worse, worked to defeat them — and the Democrats won't forget it.
Even the mistakes are bigger in Texas.
--David Kurtz
Here's a topic I haven't seen sufficiently discussed yet: How many years did the GOP put itself back with the rising population of hispanic voters in this country by running pretty much their whole campaign on immigrant bashing?
The answer, I think, is a lot. And exit poll data suggests a big drop off for Republicans among hispanic voters. According to the CNN exit polls, the 2004 spread as 40% for Republicans, 53% for Democrats. This year it was 26% for the GOP and 73% for Democrats.
From a distance, it might not seem like the Republicans ran this race on immgration. And on the national level, they didn't. But if you watched how the campaign played out in competitive races across the country, it was huge. One of the big campaign gambits from Republican candidates was Democratic Candidate X is going to ruin Social Security by giving away money to illegal aliens (pan to pictures of Mexicans).
It's a pretty sad but also really familiar story. GOP spends years 'reaching out' to [insert minority group of your choice] until they find themselves losing an election and go hog wild with race-bating or whatever other nastiness looks like it will yield short-term political benefits.
--Josh Marshall
Rudy Giuliani creates exploratory committee for 2008 presidential run, CNN reports.
Late update: AP confirms it.
--David Kurtz
In the Washington-08, Democrat Darcy Burner trails Republican incumbent Dave Reichert by 3,518 votes, with as many as 20,000 absentee ballots still to count.
--David Kurtz
We've heard a lot about the kind of oversight priorities that committee Chairmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Conyers (D-MI) will have on the House side. We've heard on the Senate side, for example, about the plans that Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has for oversight from the Intelligence Committee.
But has anyone heard anything from Joe Lieberman ("ID"-CT) about his oversight plans as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee?
With a huge portfolio, Lieberman's committee is positioned to investigate a vast swath of the federal government. But Lieberman's plans remain remarkably vague. For instance, a UPI story today describes at length the oversight plans being made by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), who will become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, but it devotes just one paragraph to Lieberman, confirming that he will serve as committee chairman.
So what does Joe have in store for the Bush Administration that so aggressively backed his re-election?
--David Kurtz
Do you have a question for the next possible Majority Leader? We want to hear from you.
Tomorrow morning, we're planning to interview Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who's making a bid for the spot. (We're still trying to coordinate with Murtha's people.) If there's anything you'd like us to ask, send us an email with "Majority Leader Hoyer?" in the subject line. We'll take the best suggestions and put it to him.
--Paul Kiel
Less than a week after the election and two months before the Democrats actually take control of Congress, CNN has pegged the leadership races as "Democrats Divided."
--David Kurtz
So Mel Martinez as new RNC chair?
As the folks over at Public Campaign Action Fund put it, "Can't they pick someone without a connection to Jack Abramoff or a brewing campaign finance scandal?"
We have more on the Abramoff-Bob Ney-Martinez connection, from our Muckraker archives.
--David Kurtz
Today, the Washington Post has additional reporting on what transpired on Election Day in Maryland, where the GOP candidates for governor and U.S. Senate tried to mislead voters into thinking they were Democrats.
The Post story does not mention the comments made by defeated Senate candidate Michael Steele over the weekend on C-SPAN (h/t Thomas Nephew).
In an appearance with Democratic operative Donna Brazile (beginning at the 22:38 mark), Steele responded to criticism from a caller about campaign signs that read "Steele Democrat":
Let me just me cut you off because you are way, way off base, as usual. People seem to forget the phrase Reagan Democrats. . . . That's the same thing I did. You know, I had a number of Democrat friends . . . a host of Democrats from across the state support me and I call them Steele Democrats. I find it rather amusing that people get upset about that, acting as if that was some new invention or new term. It's based off of Reagan Democrats, the same concept. And I thought it was even more clever because not only were they "Steele Democrats" but they're "Still Democrats." So it was fun.
At that point, Brazile raised the issue of the misleading sample ballots that were distributed by the Steele campaign, to which Steele responded:
Again, I have to laugh at that because I find that that's somewhat amusing. That's the same tactic that the Democrats have used in previous campaigns against each other, and I borrowed from that . . .
When Brazile pointed out that many blacks were offended by the Steele campaign literature, Steele conceded that it may not have translated well.
--David Kurtz
CNN is reporting that Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) has accepted an offer to become chairman of the Republican National Committee. He will retain his Senate seat and wear both hats. More here.
--David Kurtz
From Election Central, your handy dandy guide to the Democratic leadership races on the Hill.
--David Kurtz
Add Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to the list of lawmakers who have sponsored earmarks for public works projects in the vicinity of real estate they already owned.
--David Kurtz
Election Central has an update on the 10 remaining undecided House races.
Update: A counting error has cost Democrat Joe Courtney 100 votes in his still undecided race against Republican incumbent Rep. Rob Simmons in the CT-02. That leaves Courtney ahead by a mere 65 votes.
Late Update: To clarify, the counting error favored Courtney, so the correction of the error reduced his vote tally.
--David Kurtz
We've got so much going on here at TPM that I almost neglected to mention that today, November 13th, is the sixth anniversary of TPM. Right here, you can see the first post I ever wrote at TPM, back on November 13th, 2000, in the thick of the Florida recount.
It amazes me that I've actually been doing this for six years. But from another perspective, it's hard for me to imagine not having this site and this audience as a sort of constant companion in the way I think about politics and news and I guess, candidly, where, if anywhere, I fit into any of it.
If you're a longtime reader of the site you know that we've been growing our operation incrementally over the last 18 months or so. And as I mentioned this weekend, we have major expansion plans that, if all goes according to plan, we'll be rolling out over the ten weeks or so.
We hope you'll like the new stuff.
--Josh Marshall
Conservative direct mail guru Richard Viguerie, on Tom Delay:
"When Tom and his bunch first ran, they campaigned against the cesspool in Washington. After a while they looked around and said, 'Hey, this isn't a cesspool, it's a hot tub.' "
--David Kurtz
Dems move to protect the U.S. special auditor in Iraq. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Americans aren't frustrated about Iraq, as the President says. They are appalled:
While no one knows how many Iraqis have died, daily tallies of violent deaths by The Associated Press average nearly 45 a day. About half of them are unidentified bodies discovered on city streets or floating in the Tigris River.The United Nations estimates about 100 violent deaths daily. The Iraqi health minister last week put civilian deaths over the entire 44 months since the U.S. invasion at about 150,000 -- close to the U.N. figure and about three times the previously accepted estimates of 45,000 to 50,000.
In morgues across Iraq where capacity stretches beyond thin, bodies are even being turned away.
"We have to reject them," Hadi al-Itabi of the morgue in Kut, southeast of Baghdad, said he told men who turned in the bodies of six slain border policeman last week. "We just don't have enough cold storage."
Iraq's bureaucracy of death is overwhelmed.
Like the President, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) thinks that Americans are just discouraged. McCain used the word "frustrated" or its variation seven times today in his appearance today on Meet the Press in talking about Iraq and the midterm elections.
The Republicans' attitude on this is the same now as it was before the elections: if Americans would just buck up, we could win this war.
--David Kurtz
I just want to take a moment to thank all the readers who have extended their welcomes to me, both in my earlier anonymous incarnation here at TPM and now that I am able to post under my own byline. As I am sure at least some of our attorney readers can understand, posting at TPM was not compatible with my law firm practice.
What changed? Pretty simple actually. I have left the private practice of law.
My own professional transition coincides with the some of the changes underway at TPM, including the expansion of the company, so the timing works well for me to pitch in around here more frequently in the short term.
Shortly after I started posting here on weekends, one reader emailed wanting to know more:
I get the sense however that DK is no ordinary reader, someone sitting around in Peoria who surfs the web and just happened to impress Josh with his/her trenchant insights. Can you give us a little bit of a clue -- is DK a journalist, a gov't insider (or former gov't insider), a academic, none of the above? I can understand if DK is unwilling to fully reveal him/herself but it would be nice to know a little bit more about them.
Expectations like that don't make coming out of the closet any easier. Sorry to say, but just an ordinary reader. Not an insider or an academic. A decade ago, before law school, I was a journalist and editor, but for a small alternative newsweekly in the South, far removed from any power centers. I actually live about 250 miles from Peoria, in Missouri, so that reader was closer to being on the mark than he knew.
But enough about me. The work we do here should speak for itself, and it's not work we could do without your tips, feedback, and trenchant insights. So my thanks to you for that as well.
--David Kurtz
Roll Call: Pelosi comes out for Murtha in Majority Leader's race.
All I can say is, that's bold. She's making a play to really rule the place.
Late Update: Pelosi's letter to Murtha
11/12/2006Dear Jack,
Thank you for your letter requesting my support for your candidacy for Majority Leader in the 110th Congress.
As you know so well, for the past 24 months I have done nothing but focus on winning the House, working weekends, morning, noon and night, traveling to dozens of states and cities on behalf of our candidates to assure we had the resources to implement the excellent plan Rahm Emanuel developed.
Working with all the groups in our Caucus over the past two years, we focused the national debate around issues that clearly differentiated Democrats from Republicans, and put us squarely on the side of the American people. We challenged President Bush on his unsound scheme to privatize Social Security, and we prevailed on behalf of America's seniors. We repudiated the Republican "culture of corruption" that has turned the People's House into an auction house for special interests. And of course, we challenged President Bush and the Republicans on the Iraq war.
With respect to Iraq in particular, I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election. It was surely a dark day for the Bush Administration when you spoke truth to power. Your leadership gave so many Americans, including respected military leaders, the encouragement to voice their own disapproval at a failed policy that weakens our military and makes stability in that region even more difficult to achieve. The enthusiastic response of Americans all across this nation gave an enormous lift to our Democratic efforts, and your unsurpassed personal solicitations produced millions of dollars which were new to the effort. Those resources made a huge difference and particularly for the candidates on whose behalf you campaigned..
Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues. For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for Majority Leader for the 110th Congress. As we move forward and work together on the urgent questions of Iraq, the war on terrorism, strengthening our military to meet 21st century challenges, improving our national security and rebuilding our international relations, and honoring our commitment to our veterans, your presence in the leadership of our party would add a knowledgeable and respected voice to our Democratic team.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Leader
Later Update: Hoyer responds ...
"Nancy told me some time ago that she would personally support Jack. I respect her decision as the two are very close."I am grateful for the support I have from my colleagues, and have the majority of the caucus supporting me. I look forward to working with Speaker Pelosi as Majority Leader."
--Josh Marshall
U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) was elected governor of Nevada last week despite the allegations of late-night carousing and sexual assault involving a cocktail waitress three decades his junior. A new round of subpoenas suggests police may be looking at whether obstruction of justice occurred in the case.
Local law enforcement investigating the allegations made by Chrissy Mazzeo has subpoenaed the phone records of all those in the Gibbons' party on that fateful Friday the 13th of October, according to the Las Vegas Sun:
Metro Police have subpoenaed telephone records of Republican Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons, political strategist Sig Rogich and other witnesses in the investigation into allegations that Gibbons assaulted a woman and tried to force himself on her sexually.Home and cell phone records of everyone who was drinking with Gibbons and Rogich at McCormick & Schmick's restaurant before the Oct. 13 alleged assault on Chrissy Mazzeo were among the records subpoenaed, sources close to the investigation told the Sun.
It's not clear whether the phone records were subpoened as part of the investigation of Mazzeo's underlying assault claim or her later claim that she was pressured into keeping silent about the incident. Another possible area of interest for law enforcement is the security video from the parking garage where the incident is alleged to have happened, which went missing for several days before being turned over to police.
Police plan another round of witness interviews, including of the governor-elect himself, according to the Sun.
--David Kurtz
From the Boston Globe:
Democrats made huge gains in the mid term elections for a variety of factors -- an unpopular war in Iraq, congressional scandals, frustration with Bush's style of leadership.But the victory had its roots in that early and successful battle against Social Security reform, which gave Democrats crucial unity and momentum at a time when many pundits were predicting a permanent Republican majority, according to party strategists and veteran Democratic lawmakers.
Longtime TPM readers might get a chuckle out of seeing what once was a much-debated Democratic strategy deemed risky now portrayed as stroke of brilliance because, of course, you heard that strategy extolled here at TPM very early and very often.
For those readers who have discovered TPM since the Social Security battle of early 2005 and have never heard of the Fainthearted Faction, you missed some good times, but better late than never.
Welcome aboard.
--David Kurtz
