This afternoon Steven Benen flagged this comment by NBC's Chip Reid in which Reid claimed the Democrats were the "big loser" in the demise of the immigration bill. Now there are a number of things to say about this -- 1) that Reid is parroting Republican talking points on this issue and 2) that no one seems to be raising the fact that, by the definition that prevailed only a year ago, Republicans are filibustering basically everything the comes up in the senate.
Yes to both. Both very important.
But you have to be far more than ordinarily clueless to believe that the Republicans aren't overwhelmingly the losers in this whole debacle. The whole episode is only a little short of a catastrophe for the GOP, indeed, twice over.
The fact that the episode has further revealed President Bush's political impotence is relatively unimportant, given his extreme unpopularity. More important is that the whole run-through has further divided Republicans in the lead up to the 2008 election. But even that isn't the really big deal.
The real fall-out is that this has dealt a massive and probably enduring blow to Republican efforts to at least compete for, if not win over, the growing hispanic electorate. The model here is then-Gov. Pete Wilson's (R) 1994 reelection campaign in California -- a set of events that played out somewhat more amorphously but to real effect across the country in the mid-1990s.
Briefly, Wilson successfully rode the anti-immigration issue to victory, in particular through his embrace of Prop. 187 -- a successful ballot initiative to deny social services to illegal immigrants and get local cops into the business of policing people's immigration status. It helped Wilson get reelected. But it also basically destroyed the California Republican party. Destroyed may be too strong a word. But it put the state's rapidly growing hispanic population firmly into the Democratic camp and played a big part in making California into the solidly Democratic state it is today. (People forget, it didn't used to be that way.)
The kicker here is that at least Pete Wilson won his election. Indeed, anti-immigrant politics, in California and elsewhere, helped fuel the Republican sweep in 1994. In this case, the Republicans didn't even get it together and get a win in the short run. They managed to damage themselves in the short run and deal themselves a massive long term blow. That's great work.
Now, some people might say that Democratic votes in addition to Republican votes helped to scuttle the bill in the senate. But this ignores the salient fact that Republican opposition to the immigration bill -- not just in the senate but across the board -- has been overwhelmingly nativist in character. Democratic opposition has tended to focus either on the guest worker provision or other details of the bill. It's really as simple as that, indeed so simple it barely requires saying.
This whole episode has branded the Republicans as the anti-immigrant party. And that's not good for a party that wants to compete for the votes of America's largest bloc of new immigrant voters.
--Josh Marshall
Glasgow
Even hours after the dramatic scenes at Glasgow's airport, details are still a little sketchy.
A Jeep Cherokee trailing a cascade of flames rammed into Glasgow's airport on Saturday, shattering glass doors just yards from passengers at the check-in counters. Police said they believed the attack was linked to two car bombs found in London the day before.
Britain raised its terror alert to "critical" -- the highest possible level -- and the Bush administration announced plans to increase security at airports and on mass transit.
One of the men in the car was in critical condition at a hospital with severe burns, while the other was in police custody, said Scottish Police Chief Constable Willie Rae. Five bystanders in Glasgow were wounded, although none seriously, police said.
Rae said a "suspect device" was found on the man at the hospital and it was taken to a safe location where it was being investigated. He would not say whether the device was a suicide belt, but British security officials said evidence pointed to the attack being a suicide mission. [...]
"I can confirm that we believe the incident at Glasgow airport is linked to the events in London yesterday," Rae said at a news conference. "There are clearly similarities and we can confirm that this is being treated as a terrorist incident."
That's not exactly an iron-clad connection between the events, but again, officials are still gathering information. And obviously, with the British terror alert now at "critical," the highest level possible, an aggressive investigation is underway. The latest reports indicate that two people were arrested in Cheshire, England, in connection with terrorist incidents in England and Scotland, bringing the total number of people in custody to four.
The BBC has put together an excellent Q&A on the information currently available.
--Steve Benen
HRC poll
I'm generally suspicious of these kinds of national polls, particularly at this stage of a presidential race, but the latest results from Mason-Dixon have received quite a bit of attention.
More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.
The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y.... Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.
The concern among Democrats over a poll like this is perfectly understandable. Obviously, it's tough for any candidate to win a general election if a majority of the country a) dislikes the candidate; and b) has already decided, more than a year in advance, not to vote for him or her.
But I think this Mason-Dixon data is getting a little too much play. A few days before these results were published, a national Newsweek poll showed Clinton (and other top-tier Dems) with healthy leads over all of the leading Republican presidential hopefuls. In each instance, her support topped 50%. (In a hypothetical match-up against Romney, she's at 55%.) There are other recent polls showing similar results.
Obviously, something is askew. Either a majority of Americans have ruled out backing Clinton under any circumstances, or a majority of Americans are prepared to support her against a GOP rival. It can't be both. And given that there are more polls for the latter than the prior, I'm not necessarily prepared to write her off as a viable general-election candidate quite yet.
Are concerns about Clinton's "electability" legitimate? Of course; it's probably her most important campaign hurdle to clear, and there are still quite a few Dems who still need convincing. But let's not take one Mason-Dixon poll too seriously.
--Steve Benen
Bush and Putin
In light of this weekend's historic get-together between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin...
Now, for less than 24 hours starting Sunday afternoon, the U.S. president is hosting his Russian counterpart at the Bush family's summer home on the craggy Maine coast. No other leader has received such a rarified invitation.
...Swopa passes along a classic anecdote.
One gem which the audience enjoyed was the retelling of Powell and President Bush's first encounters with Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Powell recalled it after the meeting he and Bush were reviewing events and comparing notes and seemingly they disagreed. At one point Bush looked at his Secretary of State and said (with a suitable Texas twang) "Powell, I looked into Putin's eyes and I saw his soul" to which Powell replied: "Mr. President, I looked into President Putin's eyes and I saw the KGB".
--Steve Benen
Obstructionism
Reporters covering the Hill really ought to know better than this.
On the June 29 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News congressional correspondent Chip Reid asserted that after the failure of a June 28 cloture motion on the Senate immigration bill, "[t]he Democratic Congress is a big loser because, more and more, Republicans are accusing them of being a do-nothing Congress."
Republicans may be accusing Dems of coming up short, but NBC viewers might benefit if they knew whether those accusations are accurate.
There's a context that goes missing from most reports about congressional progress, or lack thereof: Senate Republicans are blocking everything that moves.
For the last several years, Republicans, with a 55-seat majority, cried like young children if Dems even considered a procedural hurdle. They said voters would punish obstructionists. They said it was borderline unconstitutional. They said to stand in the way of majority rule was to undermine a basic principle of our democratic system.
And wouldn't you know it; the shameless hypocrites didn't mean a word of it. As Roll Call reported this week, 239 separate bills have passed the House, only to find Senate Republicans "objecting to just about every major piece of legislation" that Harry Reid has tried to bring to the floor, whether it enjoys bi-partisan support or not.
Indeed, Senate Republicans -- the ones accusing Dems of being a "do-nothing Congress" -- are proud of their efforts. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott boasted, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's working for us."
Voters are understandably frustrated about the lack of legislative achievements thus far, but the explanation is surprisingly straightforward: Republicans won't allow up-or-down votes on anything of significance.
Robert Borosage of the Campaign For America's Future is launching a campaign to challenge and bring more attention to Senate obstructionism. It's a worthwhile effort -- most Americans probably don't even know what a filibuster is. When they see headlines that say, "Congress comes up short again," they need to know who's responsible.
--Steve Benen
Deadliest quarter yet
As of yesterday, three years to the week after the president triumphantly proclaimed, "Let freedom reign," we are now seeing the end of the deadliest quarter for U.S. forces in Iraq since the war began.
As reader W.B. noted via email, using this data, we're also ending the deadliest four-month period and the deadliest five-month period. For all the talk from war supporters about "progress," the fatality rates are sobering.
That is, if you consider these rates important. Outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace said the other day that violence in Iraq is a "self-defeating approach to tracking results." He recommends a more sensitive approach.
"What's most important is do the Iraqi people feel better about today than they did about yesterday, and do they think tomorrow's going to be better than today?
"If the answer to those two questions is yes, then we're on the right path. If the answer to those two questions is no, then we're not doing it right and we need to adjust our processes."
First, why Iraqis' sanguinity is a more reliable "metric" than U.S. fatalities is apparently only clear to Pace.
Second, even if we're playing by Pace's rules, Iraqis aren't feeling better today than yesterday: "The optimism that helped sustain Iraqis during the first few years of the war has dissolved into widespread fear, anger and distress amid unrelenting violence":
And third, we're measuring success in a war based on a population's feelings? Isn't that the kind of thing conservatives usually dismiss as namby-pamby liberalism?
--Steve Benen
Seeping out of Iraq
The New York Times report on the defused bombs in London included this disconcerting graf:
[T]he idea of a multiple attack using car bombs -- a departure from the backpack suicide attacks of the London bombings of July 2005 -- raised concerns among security experts that jihadist groups linked to Al Qaeda may have imported tactics more familiar in Iraq.
It is, unfortunately, immediately reminiscent of a Times report from a month ago.
The Iraq war, which for years has drawn militants from around the world, is beginning to export fighters and the tactics they have honed in the insurgency to neighboring countries and beyond, according to American, European and Middle Eastern government officials and interviews with militant leaders in Lebanon, Jordan and London.
Some of the fighters appear to be leaving as part of the waves of Iraqi refugees crossing borders that government officials acknowledge they struggle to control. But others are dispatched from Iraq for specific missions. In the Jordanian airport plot, the authorities said they believed that the bomb maker flew from Baghdad to prepare the explosives for Mr. Darsi.
Estimating the number of fighters leaving Iraq is at least as difficult as it has been to count foreign militants joining the insurgency. But early signs of an exodus are clear, and officials in the United States and the Middle East say the potential for veterans of the insurgency to spread far beyond Iraq is significant.
Insurgents are treating Iraq as some kind of Terrorism School, and are applying the lessons they've learned after graduation.
Here's a crazy idea: we could withdraw from Iraq, deny terrorists a "cause celebre" for jihadists, and stop making it harder to combat terrorism.
As Ryan Powers noted, the State Department has acknowledged the war in Iraq "has been used by terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity that has contributed to instability in neighboring countries." There's additional evidence of tactics from Iraq being exported to Europe.
The longer we stay, the worse it gets.
--Steve Benen
Election Central Saturday Roundup
Usually, for security purposes, VIP trips to Iraq are kept secret until the visit actually occurs. But that hasn't stopped John McCain from boasting about his upcoming excursion. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Steve Benen
Giuliani on school prayer
During his recent visit to TV preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University, Rudy Giuliani also sat down with Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network to discuss some of the issues on the minds of Christian conservatives.
CBN: How do you feel about some of these previous Supreme Court rulings, way back in the day, about school prayer in public schools and the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional?
GIULIANI: I thought some of them went too far in the direction of over-emphasizing separation of church and state, and underemphasizing the free exercise of religion.
I suppose that's about what we should expect from a GOP candidate trying desperately to appeal to a far-right base with which he agrees on very little. Pandering can be an ugly game.
But in this case, it's the kind of response that deserves a little follow-up -- in Giuliani's opinion, which Supreme Court rulings on school prayer went too far?
CBN, in asking the question, referred to school prayer cases from "way back in the day." There are two seminal cases on the issue: Engel v. Vitale in 1962 and Abington v. Schempp in 1963. In Engel, the Court said it was unconstitutional for a public school district to write its own official prayer for use in classrooms. Students could still pray on their own, but the state had to stay out of it.
In Abington, the Court said it was unconstitutional for a public school to mandate school-sponsored Bible readings in classrooms. Students could still read scripture on their own, but the state couldn't interfere.
Giuliani, an accomplished attorney, told Pat Robertson's television network that "some" of these rulings went "too far." Maybe some enterprising political reporter could ask the former mayor a simple question: which one?
--Steve Benen
CBS poll
If there's any good news for the White House or its allies in the latest CBS News poll, it's hiding well. (via Atrios)
More Americans than ever before, 77 percent, say the war is going badly, up from 66 percent just two months ago. Nearly half, 47 percent, say it's going very badly.
While the springtime surge in U.S. troops to Iraq is now complete, more Americans than ever are calling for U.S. forces to withdraw. Sixty-six percent say the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased, including 40 percent who want all U.S. troops removed. That's a 7-point increase since April.
Fewer than one in five thinks that the troop increase is helping to improve the situation in Iraq, while about half think the war is actually creating more terrorists.
The poll has bad news for President Bush, too. His job approval rating slipped to 27 percent, his lowest number ever in a CBS News poll -- 3 points less than last month and 1 point below his previous low of 28 percent in January. His disapproval rating is also at an all-time high of 65 percent.
A stunning 75 percent of respondents believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, while 19 percent think the U.S. is on the right track. It's the most lopsided response since CBS News first started asking the question in 1983.
The results, obviously, are awful news for Bush -- NYU's Paul Light said, "I think his presidency is essentially over" -- and it's just as bad for a field of Republican presidential hopefuls who are offering voters more of the same.
--Steve Benen
NYT on Siegelman
The editorial page of the New York Times picks up on the Siegelman story, and calls for congressional intervention.
The idea of federal prosecutors putting someone in jail for partisan gain is shocking. But the United States attorneys scandal has made clear that the Bush Justice Department acts in shocking ways. We hope that the appeals court that hears Mr. Siegelman's case will give it the same hard look that another appeals court recently gave the case of Georgia Thompson. Ms. Thompson, a low-level employee in a Democratic administration in Wisconsin, was found to have been wrongly convicted of corruption by another United States attorney.
Congress, though, should not wait. It should insist that Mr. Canary and everyone on the 2002 call, as well as Mrs. Canary and Mr. Rove, testify about the Siegelman prosecution. In standing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales throughout the attorneys scandal, the Bush administration has made clear that it does not care about the integrity of the Justice Department. By investigating Mr. Siegelman's case, Congress can show that it does.
It's a story with legs....
--Steve Benen
For your weekend enjoyment. One of Doug Feith's stovepipers holds out for the Iraq-al Qaida relationship in a new column for the Washington Post.
--Josh Marshall
Ouch.
McClatchy reports from NH ...
When Fred Thompson made his debut on the presidential stage here this week, he left some Republicans thinking he needs more work before his nascent campaign matches the media hype it's gotten in advance.The former Tennessee senator with the baritone drawl showed up Thursday in New Hampshire, the site of the first primary voting, and gave a speech that lasted only nine minutes, skipping over hot-button issues such as Iraq and immigration to invoke platitudes about freedom and strength.
Really, I can't say I'm surprised. It's not that I think Thompson is such a disaster. It's just that it's not at all clear why he should be more than a mid-tier GOP presidential contender, at best. It is only Republican desperation that has spun him into some sort of dream candidate.
Just ain't so.
--Josh Marshall
I shoulda figured there'd be another Friday DOJ resignation before I sent everyone home for the day.
Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy, is out.
Of course, pretty soon, virtually no one will be left from the Purge crew beside Alberto Gonzalez. But c'mon. That's the Bush system. Mistakes were made.
--Josh Marshall
Senator Jim Webb to ratchet up role against Iraq War. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Elizabeth Edwards explains to Wolf Blitzer as clearly as possible exactly what's wrong with Ann Coulter.
--Greg Sargent
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) cheerleads the Justice Department's investigation of... him.
--Paul Kiel
Everyone in Washington keeps telling us that the big drop-dead political moment on Iraq will come when General Petraeus gives us his report in September.
But Spencer Ackerman points to some compelling evidence suggesting that the far more significant Iraq assessment may come in an accompanying report from U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker -- whose report, Ackerman theorizes, may undercut Petraeus and help the antiwar cause.
--Greg Sargent
Hillary and Bill unveil new plan to deliver personal video reports directly to your computer screen from the campaign trail in Iowa.
--Greg Sargent
Conyers and Leahy make the next move in the battle with the White House over the U.S. attorney firings.
Yesterday, the White House asserted a blanket claim of executive privilege for everything the House and Senate judiciary committees were seeking. Today, Conyers and Leahy have responded with a letter asking for a more specific response. If they don't get it, they say, then the fight goes to the next level.
--Paul Kiel
Uh, oh -- real trouble ahead for Mitt.
The worst story yet for the Romney campaign goes national.
--Greg Sargent
It's back to the Supreme Court again for the administration's detainee policy. This time, it might mean the closure of Gitmo as a preemptive measure. And you know how accomplished they are at preemption.
--Paul Kiel
Ely Ratner returns from a walk in Tiananmen Square to argue for a more empathetic and nuanced view of China in this week's Book Club.
--Andrew Golis
Yesterday David Broder wrote a column which one TPM Reader, more or less fairly, described as Broder's expression of shock, shock at just what Dick Cheney has been up to over the last six-plus years. And this is a good opportunity to say that the Post's 'Angler' series seems to be becoming the trigger for that transition moment where consensus establishment opinion goes from seeing the vice president as the powerful administration heavy with a sometimes creepy but largely comic penchant for secrecy to an altogether more nefarious force who has used his unprecedented power as vice president to advance an agenda of official secrecy, non-accountability, untrammeled executive power, legitmized torture and general degradation of the rule of law.
But this is far too easy. Because the simple fact is that we've known almost all of this for years.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the series, which is quite good. In journalism, details, the specifics are all. But the story in general has been out there for years, as well as a good number of the specifics, strewn over hundreds, probably thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, online and off.
In other words, when it comes to recognizing Cheney's profoundly damaging effect on American constitutionalism as well as his guiding role in essentially all of the administration's most disastrous policies, the train already left the station some time ago.
Sorry.
--Josh Marshall
The new Dem Congress -- does the public like it or hate it?
A new poll takes a stab at answering that question in a bit of detail.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: Bush is a lame duck president with nothing left to lose -- which makes him a formidable stonewaller.
--Paul Kiel
John Edwards uses last night's debate to rebut Times article alleging he started poverty nonprofit to advance his political career. That and other items in our Election Central Debate Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Former Gov. Siegelman (D-AL) sentenced to seven years and four months.
Here's our run-down on the case from this morning and Karl Rove's alleged involvement in spurring the prosecution ...
Here's our earlier coverage of the case at TPMmuckraker.com.
--Josh Marshall
That should go over well. (from the AP ...)
Hed: Bush cites Israel as model for IraqPresident Bush held up Israel as a model for defining success in Iraq, saying Thursday the U.S. goal there is not to eliminate attacks but to enable a democracy that can function despite violence.
With his Iraq policy under increasing criticism from the public and lawmakers in both parties, Bush went to the U.S. Naval War College to declare progress and plead for patience. At the same time, his top national security went to Capitol Hill to hear out Republican critics.
We'll have succeded in Iraq when it's like Israel.
Where do they come up with these guys? Which speech writer wrote that? Sometimes stupidity rises to the level of a high crime.
--Josh Marshall
Lieberman says surge has enemy "on the run." That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Fielding throws a change-up, makes deal with Waxman for security officials' testimony.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) on the White House's stonewalling: let's take what we can get, and then take another run at the wall if we don't like it.
--Paul Kiel
In case you missed it, the esteemed Dean Baker of The American Prospect's Beat the Press joined the Coffee House today.
His first contribution: Deflating the Housing Bubble.
--Andrew Golis
Bush sinks to record low in Fox News poll.
Late Update: The Fox poll also asked what may be the most insanely jingoistic question ever in a Fox survey -- and the answer was even more startling.
--Greg Sargent
Feds continue investigation of Rep. Tom Feeney's (R-FL) link to Jack Abramoff.
--Paul Kiel
Nathan Newman and M.J. Rosenberg respond to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down race-based assignment policies used to desegregate schools.
--Andrew Golis
Did Karl Rove sic the Justice Department on former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D)?
We look at the evidence in today's episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
Here's video of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) on the House floor today, offering an amendment to defund our branchless vice president.
--Paul Kiel
Taking heavy incoming fire from Elizabeth Edwards, Ann Coulter finally cracks up under pressure.
--Greg Sargent
Have you ever seen such a sad-sack president?
It's President Bush reacting to the second and presumably final death of his rotten immigration bill. And lecturing Congress on what it needs to prove to the American people. He almost looks and sounds like someone has literally knocked the wind out of him (take a look and tell me if you don't agree) ...
--Josh Marshall
He's not ready for prison; but prison's ready for him. Scooter Libby gets an inmate number.
--Paul Kiel
Michael Bérubé has the inside story of a Giuliani family road trip. Highlight: Judith Nathan attacked by ferrets.
--Andrew Golis
House Republicans denounce Democratic "stonewalling" of U.S. attorney investigation. Yeah, you read that right.
--Paul Kiel
And here's Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on the administration's "Nixonian stonewalling": "in America no one is above law."
--Paul Kiel
Two new polls find that GOP Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire is extremely vulnerable to a Dem challenge in 2008.
--Greg Sargent
Conyers responds to White House stonewall, says they'll press on "to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas."
Update: Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) adds: "It's tough to get lectured on the Constitution from the same Administration that said the Vice President is his own branch of government."
--Paul Kiel
OK, now it gets ugly. In response to a congressional subpoena for White House documents and testimony related to the U.S. attorney firings, the administration is invoking executive privilege. We'll have more soon.
Update: Here's the White House's letter invoking executive privilege.
--Paul Kiel
We'll probably have more on this at Election Central later today. But this is a very telling little nugget from the ARG poll about how the senate looks in 2008 and particularly the striking and on-going transformation of New Hampshire politics.
According to the just-released ARG poll, Jeanne Shaheen -- who I don't think is even an announced candidate yet -- is beating Sen. Sununu by 57% to 29%. Tellingly, Shaheen is pulling 30% of the self-identified Republican vote.
That would be a rematch of what I can personally testify was a heart-breaking race back in 2002 in which Sununu pulled it out in the end.
I mean, a sitting senator polling 29% against a named candidate. That's real bad.
--Josh Marshall
A new poll finds that roughly half of Republicans favor universal health care and gays in the military. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
If the Vice President thinks that there is no authority to which he reports, then he has committed a high crime against this nation and its democracy.
--Andrew Golis
Today's Must Read: an "insubordinate" U.S. attorney asks the attorney general to spend more than 5 to 10 minutes on the question of whether a man should be put to death. The nerve. No wonder he was fired.
--Paul Kiel
David Gregory: Strip away Coulter's inflammatory rhetoric to get to the underlying trenchant political analysis.
--Josh Marshall
Rockin' it in the Granite state!
Bush's approval rating in New Hampshire at healthy 14%.
--Josh Marshall
A new poll finds Al Gore leading in New Hampshire. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Rudy's dissembling on Bill Clinton's anti-terrorism record becomes so obvious that even Tucker Carlson calls him out on it.
--Greg Sargent
The head of the South Carolina NAACP blasts Rudy Giuliani in an interview for appointing Arthur "National Association of Retarded People" Ravenel as his campaign co-chair in the state.
Late Update: We've just unearthed another choice quote from Rudy's new South Carolina co-chair, this time on his love for the Confederate battle flag.
--Greg Sargent
Waxman, Conyers put the squeeze on Gonzales.
Six months ago, the National Archives asked the Justice Department for its opinion on Dick Cheney's "fourth branch" theory, which he invoked to escape oversight by the Information Security Oversight Office. They're still waiting. Waxman and Conyers want to know why.
--Paul Kiel
The clock hands continue to move closer to midnight for Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA).
Earlier this week, his former chief of staff revealed that he was turning over documents to federal investigators.
Today, a second former aide says he's been contacted by investigators and will talk.
--Paul Kiel
Questions mount about the prosecution of Democratic former Alabama governor Don Siegelman (D).
--Paul Kiel
Here's more on those subpoenas -- what the committee wants, when they want it, and who they want to see testify.
--Paul Kiel
From the AP:
The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.
We'll have more soon.
--Paul Kiel
Former division commander in Iraq takes administration to task for attributing most violence in Iraq to al-Qaeda.
--Paul Kiel
This week's Book Club on China's Charm Offensive is going strong with 13 posts so far from a distinguished group of scholars.
For those looking to catch up on the debate so far, we've put together a quick summary here.
--Andrew Golis
Did you know that Dick Cheney is so hardcore about secrecy and security that he won't let the White House officials in charge of security into the West Wing? No that's not a Daily Show joke. It's actually true. Maybe that's why he's already had one (now convicted) spy caught working out of his office. And, no, I'm not talking about Scooter Libby.
We run through all the comically ridiculous details in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Late Update: For a transcript of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
GOP Senator Voinovich joins Lugar in call for military disengagement from Iraq. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: finally given an opportunity to expound on the "fourth branch" theory of the vice presidency, Cheney's lawyer backs down. Looks like Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) called his bluff.
--Paul Kiel
Hardball (from the Post ...)
Iraqi law enforcement officials stretched a dragnet over the Green Zone and other parts of the capital Tuesday, seeking to arrest the country's culture minister in connection with an attempted political assassination two years ago in which three people were killed, Iraqi officials said.Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said an arrest warrant had been issued for Culture Minister Asad Kamal al-Hashimi in the February 2005 attempted assassination of Mithal al-Alusi, a newly elected independent member of parliament who had been harshly criticized by many politicians here after he visited Israel in 2004. Alusi was not injured in the attack, but two sons, Ayman, 22, and Jamal, 30, were killed, as was a bodyguard.
--Josh Marshall
The front blurb on the new CNN Iraq poll is sufficiently to-the-point that I'm going to quote it in its entirety ...
Public support for the war in Iraq has fallen to a new low and Republican support is beginning to waver, a poll published Tuesday found. In the latest CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll, 69 percent of those polled believe things are going badly in Iraq, and anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased.
Dick Lugar's very public pulling of the plug on the president's policy is an indicator of the trend.
The number referenced toward the end is 38% -- the number of self-identified Republicans who say they oppose the war. (I wasn't able to find a partisan break-out of the numbers in the CNN data. So I'm not clear what the number jumped up from.)
This all puts in stark terms the intense anxiety now palpitating Republican hearts in Washington, DC. One number is 38%. Another number is 17, the number of months before the 2008 election.
President Bush gives every indication that he intends to keep troop deployments at their current level through January 2009. Sure, if everyone chills out in Iraq and finally throws him the parade the president is holding out for, he'll begin bringing the troops home. But on planet Earth it's stay through course through 1/09.
The president's ability to pull that off -- both in terms of raw votes and public sentiment -- rests almost entirely on a solid phalanx of support among congressional Republicans and 2008 Republican presidential aspirants. They don't have to be for the president's war or his conduct of it. But they need to stay resolutely opposed to Democratic efforts to end it.
As long as that's the case, as long as the vast majority of Republicans oppose Democratic attempts to end the war, that will keep Democrats (not saying it's right, just observing the dynamics) from really going to the mat over it. And as long as Democrats don't force a major confrontation that keeps it all sort of murky in the public mind who's for or against. But eventually -- maybe as soon as September -- public opposition will become so overwhelming that the Democrats may be willing to really force the matter and not worry about lacking any bipartisan cover. Or maybe by September enough Republicans will see the numbers and give in and give the Democrats their veto-proof majorities.
However it happens, whatever gives way first, the trend is unmistakable. And even if the Republicans can maintain unity and defy political gravity through 2008 they can see as well as anyone what will happen if they go into the 2008 election with sub-30% support on the defining issue of the day.
The key is -- for some liminal period over the next several months -- there's still a paradoxical safety in numbers for Republicans, sticking with the president. But no one wants to be the last one to the door. If you're a Republican congressman and you've been carrying the president's water on Iraq for years you don't want to be on the losing side when the Congress finally ends the war in spite of the president. At that point, even if you flip flop and start saying we've got to change course and try to get on the right side of public opinion, then you're probably just doubly screwed. And if it's mid-2008 at that point you're really not in a good place.
Someone better versed than I in the intricacies of game theory could suss out all the dynamics. But the key is that folks are getting nervous and they're quite right to do so.
The truth is that the president is playing a very high-stakes game of chicken with his fellow Republicans. He's driving a hundred miles an hour toward the cliff, way too fast to jump out of the car without risking serious injury. But as the cliff gets closer, they'll start to jump.
--Josh Marshall
Rudy again bashes Bill Clinton as soft on terrorism, even though nine months ago Rudy said that Bill...shouldn't be criticized as soft on terrorism. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Elizabeth Edwards just called in to Hardball and launched a surprise confrontation of guest Ann Coulter. Quite a showdown ensued.
Video soon.
Late Update: Here's some more on the political context at play here.
--Greg Sargent
Former #2 at the Interior Department Steven Griles sentenced to 10 months of jail time for lying to congressional investigators about his ties to Abramoff.
--Paul Kiel
As Josh wrote last night, Vice President Cheney's office has had some bad luck with safeguarding classified material.
And no wonder. According to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), White House officials have a bad habit of leaving classified documents unattended and then shutting down security officers when they seek to investigate. Things are so bad, officers from the White House Security Office have told Waxman, that over half of the staff from that office has resigned in the past year.
--Paul Kiel
So how does controversial Hillary master pollster Mark Penn gauge public attitudes towards Hillary and her Dem Presidential rivals?
We've just interviewed two people polled by Penn's firm, and they shed some light on Penn's approach -- including the negative messages he's testing on Obama's war stance and, surprisingly, on Edwards' $400 haircut.
--Greg Sargent
CNN picks up the story of Rudy's new South Carolina campaign co-chair's "racially charged" comments. More coming?
--Greg Sargent
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman went before a House subcommittee Monday to testify about the EPA's reports on the air quality of Lower Manhattan in the aftermath of 9/11, reports which have come under extreme criticism for apparent contradictions and questionable revisions by the White House. Our coverage of a related Senate subcommittee hearing in last Thursday's episode touched on the White House's role in shaping these reports. In today's episode of TPMtv, we show you Whitman resting contentedly on the reassurances she pushed at the time, seemingly willfully ignorant of the number of workers and residents who have grown sick and dying in the ensuing years ...
Late Update: Read all about the Mount Sinai Medical Center study, cited at one point during the hearing by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), here.
--Ben Craw
Another 'no comment', now from the White House, on Karl Rove's alleged role in targetting Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) for prosecution.
Cricket, cricket ...
--Josh Marshall
Hmmm. How aggressively did the FBI look into which unknown and inebriated American official tipped Ahmed Chalabi to the fact that the US had broken a crucial Iranian code -- a fact he reportedly then shared with the Iranians?
According to a November 7th 2005 article in the Journal by Scot Paltrow, the FBI never interviewed Chalabi for the probe when he made subsequent visits to the US. Never talked to the central player.
That's telling and it fits a pattern. Remember, the FBI -- notwithstanding a purported investigation into the Niger forgeries -- never interviewed him either when he made two trips to the United States in 2004.
From my own reporting I know the FBI 'probe' into the Niger forgeries was a sham. Guess maybe the Chalabi one could be the same.
--Josh Marshall
Onetime staunch Lieberman ally Katrina Swett continues her mad dash away from the Connecticut Senator.
--Greg Sargent
There's been a extremely pointed debate in the blogosphere -- based largely on the reporting of Greg Palast -- about whether Attorney Purge star Tim Griffin did so-called 'voter caging' back in 2004. Specifically, whether he targetted African-American voters in Florida for disqualification at polling places.
The TPMmuckraker staff did an independent investigation of the evidence. And this is their report.
--Josh Marshall
There's a certain danger in parsing the recent legal arguments coming out of the administration, and that's crediting ridiculousness by engaging it. But anyway, follow us down the rabbit hole.
--Paul Kiel
Bill Richardson campaign claims internal polls show he's gaining in Iowa. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
In case you missed it, Todd Gitlin started rounding up a posse last night to support Rahm Emanuel's effort to cut off funds to Vice President Cheney unless he stops making absurd constitutional claims.
Get your hat and lasso and saddle up!
--Andrew Golis
Today's Must Read: The Washington Post's Dick Cheney, Part 3. Cheney finally finds an exertion of executive power he doesn't like.
--Paul Kiel
On the subject of safeguarding classified information, TPM Reader MF walks us down this memory lane ...
That encrypted cable, intercepted and read by the United States, tipped off U.S. officials to the fact that Chalabi had betrayed the code-breaking operation, the U.S. officials said.The U.S. sources said that, in the cable to Tehran, the Iranian official recounted how Chalabi had said that one of "them" – a reference to an American – had revealed the code-breaking operation, the officials said. The Iranian reported that Chalabi said the American had been drunk.
...
The account of Chalabi's actions has been confirmed by several senior U.S. officials, who said the leak contributed to the White House decision to break with him.
The FBI has opened an espionage investigation seeking to determine exactly what information Chalabi turned over to the Iranians as well as who told Chalabi that the Iranian code had been broken, government officials said.
The inquiry, still in an early phase, is focused on a very small number of people who were close to Chalabi and also had access to the highly restricted information about the Iran code.
--Josh Marshall
Via Andrew Sullivan's site, I looked at this new article at TNR about a recent turn on the National Review cruise. It's quite informative in as much as you may think you know how the hard redoubts of the American right have completely lost their collective mind. But, truly, you have no idea.
When we last checked in with ur-neocon Norman Podhoretz, he was suggesting that the British should have "bomb[ed] the Iranians to smithereens" for recently detaining that group of British sailors. It turns out that Podhoretz appears to be one of the growing number of 'wingers for whom deepening denial of reality must be compensated for, in equal measure, by escalating genocidal fantasy. Here we join Podhoretz locking horns with fellow conservative luminary Bill Buckley ...
He is a bristling gray ball of aggression, here to declare that the Iraq war has been "an amazing success." He waves his fist and declaims, "There were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria. ... This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better." He wants more wars, and fast. He is "certain" Bush will bomb Iran, and "thank God" for that....
"Aren't you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?" Buckley snaps at Podhoretz. He has just explained that he supported the war reluctantly, because Dick Cheney convinced him Saddam Hussein had WMD primed to be fired. "No," Podhoretz replies. "As I say, they were shipped to Syria. During Gulf war one, the entire Iraqi air force was hidden in the deserts in Iran." He says he is "heartbroken" by this "rise of defeatism on the right." He adds, apropos of nothing, "There was nobody better than Don Rumsfeld. This defeatist talk only contributes to the impression we are losing, when I think we're winning."
The audience cheers Podhoretz. The nuanced doubts of Bill Buckley leave them confused. Doesn't he sound like the liberal media? Later, over dinner, a tablemate from Denver calls Buckley "a coward." His wife nods and says, "Buckley's an old man," tapping her head with her finger to suggest dementia.
Nuanced?
It certainly was a hard blow when Rumsfeld left. No doubt about that. And I would probably be remiss if I didn't mention that some of the other National Review writers noted in the piece do seem roughly in touch with the reality of the situation in Iraq, if reluctantly so.
Coming next, how far will conservatives go in aping the rightists of inter-war Germany (1918-39) in their efforts to duck responsibility for Iraq?
--Josh Marshall
There's been a lot of discussion of late about Vice President Cheney's unwillingness to abide by the rules followed by the rest of the executive branch when it comes to safeguarding and handling classified material -- particularly his claim that his office is, all appearances to the contrary, not part of the executive branch. And many have noted that the Libby case shows that the VP's office has some serious deficiencies when it comes to handling classified data.
But this isn't the only case.
It seems now largely to have been forgotten. But let's not forget the case of Leandro Aragoncillo, the naturalized US citizen of Filipino descent who engaged in espionage on behalf of opposition leaders in his native country while working as a Marine security official in Vice President Cheney's office. To the best of my knowledge this is the only known case of espionage taking place within the White House. And it happened in Cheney's operation.
Perhaps even more revealing, Aragoncillo was originally tasked to the Veep's office in 1999 when Vice President Gore was still in office. But he apparently only began snatching classified documents after Cheney showed up.
In any case, two observations. The first is that this isn't a on-off affair. The Cheney OVP seems to have a serious issue safeguarding classified material -- one so serious it has led to two felony convictions. So Bill Kristol may think it's annoying to have government 'bureaucrats' checking on how classified material is being safeguarded. But the Cheney crew could really use the help.
Second, I think we see here a hint of a too-little noted pattern -- the connected and mutually-reinforcing bonds of authoritarianism and incompetence. The Libby case (and the Plame case generally) is somewhat separate in that it was the intentional breaching of national security secrets. But is it a coincidence that the most paranoically secrecy obsessed office in the executive branch is the one that actually managed to have a spy working in its midst?
--Josh Marshall
Sigh ... Not lookin' good for our old pal Rep. John Doolittle (R-Final Act)
From the AP ...
California GOP Rep. John Doolittle's former chief of staff is providing documents to federal prosecutors investigating Doolittle and his wife in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal, the aide's attorney told The Associated Press on Monday.The aide, David Lopez, who was Doolittle's longtime chief of staff until 2005 and continued to work for him as a campaign consultant for about a year after that, has turned over several hundred pages of campaign finance records to the Justice Department under subpoena, said his attorney, Bill Portanova.
--Josh Marshall
Corporate CEOs swoon for Hillary, Obama. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Uh oh. Rudy's new South Carolina campaign co-chair has a history of making, shall we say, "racially charged" remarks.
--Greg Sargent
Trying to parse out Vice President Dick Cheney's argument regarding exactly which branch of government his office falls under can be a taxing endeavor, even for a White House Press Secretary...
--Ben Craw
Since we're returning to the roots of the administration's sanction of torture in the aftermath of 9/11...
Here's a 2002 Justice Department court filing showing William Haynes, the Defense Department's general counsel, authorizing interrogators to "take the gloves off" when interrogating John Walker Lindh.
--Paul Kiel
Dad of accused coke trafficker takes over as Rudy's South Carolina campaign chair.
--Josh Marshall
Reasonable doubt or benefit of the doubt?
Romney wishes well to his staffer who allegedly impersonated state troopers.
--Josh Marshall
For those of you who are following the 'greedy Rudy' story, note that yesterday, just in passing, Tim Russert said that he'd spoken to several members of the Iraq Study Group (aka, Baker-Hamilton Commission). And they told him that nothing came up at the time from Rudy about his membership somehow conflicting with his presidential run. (Rudy has claimed, less than convincingly, that he bagged because he didn't want presidential politics to get enmeshed in the commission's work.) That never came up. It was all about showing up to meeting and Rudy's inability to do so because he had so many $100k speeches scheduled.
If you want to see it, it comes up at about 4:20 in in today's episode of TPMtv linked below.
--Josh Marshall
Cheney's "dumb explanation," Pat Buchanan's horde of immigrant criminals, Rudy's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week, and of course, a little Iraq talk. All that and more in today's Sunday Show Roundup edition of TPMtv ...
--Ben Craw
I mentioned earlier that we're working on lining up interviews with the presidential candidates for TPMtv. And we've gotten a lot of great questions that you've sent in over the last few days. But I was having coffee with a friend this morning who proposed another idea -- not to supplant the traditional sit-down interviews but as an addition, and one that might play more to the strengths of the medium. He suggested we come up with specific questions for the candidates, tape them, and then invite the candidates to answer.
If you want them to answer the question, tell them. If they respond, we'll prominently broadcast their answer, unedited on TPMtv.
Sit-downs have a number of advantages -- follow-up being the most obvious, but also to gauge some of the candidates' ability to think on their feet, the ability to push them beyond the scripted and vetted answers. For these and other reasons we're still going to schedule these interviews. But there's something to be said too for putting a key question out there, giving them (and/or whoever else thinks on their behalf) time to come up with a considered answer and then go on the record. If it dodges the question or answers it only in platitudes I think that fact will speak for itself.
Tell us what you think and we'll try to refine the idea.
--Josh Marshall
ABC apes Fox ...
ABC News has apologized for mistakenly running a picture of former Washington Mayor Marion Barry when it was promoting a "World News" story about a man suing a dry cleaner for $54 million for losing his pants. Both Roy L. Pearson, who filed the lawsuit, and Barry are black. Barry's picture ran for East Coast feeds Tuesday when Pearson's story was "teased" at the beginning of the news. It was corrected for later editions, spokeswoman Natalie Raabe said.The mistake happened because both men happened to be in a Washington court that day and ABC got video of both, Raabe said. Barry was acquitted this week of drunken driving charges.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, gloves are off.
Edwards campaign blasts The New York Times over its Friday story alleging cynical motives behind his antipoverty nonprofit.
--Greg Sargent
Sigh. Farther they travel to get here, apparently, the harder they fall.
Yesterday, I discussed the case of Michael Kamburowski, COO of the California state Republican party, who in addition to being a foreign national is only a few steps ahead of the Department of Homeland Security which is trying to deport him for repeated immigration violations. Most recently they put him up at government expense at the Wackenhut Correctional Facility in Jamaica, New York. See yesterday's post for more details on this joker.
Seems he's decided to spend more time with his family and has left the job.
The guy who ran Arnold's reelection campaign, Steve Schmidt, calls Kamburowski's hiring "almost a parody of incompetence and malfeasance."
By which I assume he means the guy's a solid Republican.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader JK for the heads up.)
--Josh Marshall
Satisfied with the non-denial denial? When a reporter finally got a chance to ask Karl Rove about the claims he had a role in orchestrating the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (D) all he managed was a dodge: that he didn't know anything about the phone call in which his alleged role was revealed.
Well, obviously, that doesn't mean anything since no one is claiming he was a party on that call.
Folks are ignoring this one at their peril. With the track record of the US Attorney firings, when the president's top advisor is accused, credibly and specifically, of orchestrating the prosecution of a Democratic governor, he should be able to give a straightforward answer.
Apparently he can't.
Siegelman's sentencing is tomorrow.
--Josh Marshall
While America is bogged down in Iraq, China's been quietly winning friends and influencing people.
This week at TPMCafe's Book Club, we're discussing Josh Kurlantzick's Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World. Kurlantzick argues that "China savvily has amassed significant “soft power” around the world through aid, formal diplomacy, public diplomacy, investment, and other tools" and is going to start to use it. We ignore this geopolitical shift, according to Kurlantzick, at our own peril.
Debating China's quiet rise to power will be Naazneen Barma, Mauro De Lorenzo, Ely Ratner, Devin Stewart, John Feffer, Reed Hundt, and Daniel Drezner.
--Andrew Golis
A reporter finally gets a chance to ask Karl Rove whether he played any role in the Justice Department's prosecution of Don Siegelman, the Democratic former governor of Alabama.
--Paul Kiel
New York Times digs deep into Rupert Murdoch's sprawling media empire and political network. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: next up in The Washington Post's series on Cheney's vice presidency, how he and his allies made torture (sorry, "cruelty") the rule.
--Paul Kiel
Matthews' misogyny
It seemed as though Chris Matthews' election analysis hit rock bottom a couple of weeks ago when he expressed an inordinate interest in Fred Thompson's odor.
But it turns out, his reports can still manage to get a little more troubling.
On the June 24 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, during a discussion about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), host Chris Matthews asked Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, if "being surrounded by women" makes "a case for commander in chief -- or does it make a case against it?" [...]
Asked by Time managing editor Richard Stengel, "What are you suggesting by asking does this diminish her as a commander in chief by being surrounded by women?," Matthews replied: "No, the idea that it -- well, let me just get historic. We've never had a woman commander in chief."
As a follow-up to his question, Matthews said: "But isn't that a challenge, because when it comes down to that final decision to vote for president, a woman president, a woman commander in chief, will be an historic decision for people. Not just men, but women as well." Turning to New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, Matthews added: "Elisabeth, you're always thinking about these things." Bumiller referred to Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher -- women who were elected to lead Israel and the United Kingdom -- and said: "[W]e all remember these women.... I think we can get there." Matthews responded, "But we've got Patton and John Wayne on our side."
As Atrios put it, "It's one thing to project misogyny onto the public-at-large and question whether they're willing to support a woman for president, it's quite another to question whether the mere presence of women makes one unfit to be president."
--Steve Benen
Fredo
As pathological as Dick Cheney comes across in today's much-discussed Washington Post profile, our notorious Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, hardly comes across looking good. (Barton Gellman and Jo Becker confirm that the president calls his long-time friend "Fredo.")
For example, we've long believed that Gonzales was responsible for the infamous memo that dismissed the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," and characterized Colin Powell as a defender of "obsolete" rules. Today's piece explains that Gonzales didn't even write his own memo; Cheney general counsel David Addington did.
This graf seems to capture the internal White House dynamic.
Gonzales, a former Texas judge, had the seniority and the relationship with Bush. But Addington -- a man of imposing demeanor, intellect and experience -- dominated the group. Gonzales "was not a law-of-war expert and didn't have very developed views," [John] Yoo recalled, echoing blunter observations by the Texan's White House colleagues.
So, on top of everything we've already learned with regards to Gonzales' on-the-job performance, we now also learn that our AG was looked down upon by his White House colleagues, and was given a nickname belonging to the feeble, incompetent brother from The Godfather.
It inspires confidence in the nation's chief law-enforcement officer, doesn't it? Maybe he's been in the wrong job all along.
--Steve Benen
Russert on Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani's claim that he blew off his commitment to the Iraq Study Group to avoid politicizing the panel's work doesn't stand up well to scrutiny, but in case there was any doubt, even Tim Russert is helping debunk the bogus rationalization.
On Meet The Press this morning, host Tim Russert offered more evidence that politics was not an issue in Giuliani's decision to leave the ISG. "Several commission members have said to me that presidential politics never entered the discussion," said Russert. "It was all about Giuliani's schedule and commitments versus showing up for the Iraq Study Group." [...]
As PBS's Gwen Ifil pointed out, the important work of the Iraq Study Group should have come before any political considerations. "Even if it were his presidential ambitions," said Ifill. "Is that really a good answer that you were so political that you rather focus on politics than focus on the nation's security?"
Just another reason to believe this flap will stick to Giuliani like tar.
--Steve Benen
Takes one to know one
Bill O’Reilly was the featured speaker at the National Society of Newspaper Columnists (NSNC) conference on Friday, where he, I kid you not, complained about opinionated news dissemination.
O’Reilly contended that many newspapers are losing circulation because they’ve allowed the “liberal” ideology of their editorial pages to “bleed into news coverage” -- despite, he said, there being a greater number of “traditional conservatives” than liberals in the American population.
Yes, if there’s one thing O’Reilly and his network understand, it’s the importance of keeping a clear distinction between news reporting and opinion journalism.
--Steve Benen
So much for the Third Awakening
Ross Douthat has an interesting item on American religiosity in the Atlantic.
In the United States, the Bush era has summoned up -- arguably for the first time in this country’s history -- a mass secularism that looks to Europe and sees a model for America to follow. […]
America’s secular turn actually began in the 1990s, though it wasn’t until 2002 that two Berkeley sociologists first noticed it. In a paper in the American Sociological Review, Michael Hout and Claude S. Fischer announced the startling fact that the percentage of Americans who said they had “no religious preference” had doubled in less than 10 years, rising from 7 percent to 14 percent of the population.
This unexpected spike wasn’t the result of growing atheism, Hout and Fischer argued; rather, more Americans were distancing themselves from organized religion as “a symbolic statement” against the religious right. If the association of religiosity with political conservatism continued to gain strength, the sociologists suggested, “then liberals’ alienation from organized religion [might] become, as it has in many other nations, institutionalized.” (emphasis added)
I haven’t reviewed the Hout/Fischer report in any real detail, but a large jump in the rates of those who claim no religious preference is rather unusual, particularly in light of claims, such as those from the president, that we’re in the midst of a “Third Awakening” of religious devotion in the United States.
I suspect there are a variety of explanations for the incremental increase. Perhaps it’s geo-political -- with America’s enemies overseas being religious extremists, maybe more people are becoming secular. Perhaps the increased openness on the part of non-believers (i.e., best-selling books from Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens) makes people more comfortable in acknowledging spiritual doubts.
But if the Hout/Fischer analysis is right, and more people are turning away from organized religion because they’re just so repulsed by the Dobson/Robertson crowd, well, that’s just hilarious.
--Steve Benen
Broder on immigration
On "Meet the Press" this morning, David Broder, who's been having a rough year, blamed Democrats for the failures of the immigration reform bill.
"Well, the Democrats have taken the position that they now will do with the nation's business. And if they're not doing that business, and clearly the immigration issue is very much on people's mind, I think they will suffer the same consequences that the Republicans suffered a year ago. People are fed up with seeing Washington bickering, fighting, infighting and never dealing with the issue."
This strikes me as wrong for two reasons. First is the obvious problem with the observation: blaming Senate Dems for failing to pass the immigration bill is kind of silly. Dems worked with the White House on a compromise, brought the bill to the floor, and about four-in-five Senate Dems voted to support it. In contrast, 85% of the Senate GOP caucus voted against it, and the president apparently couldn't move a single Republican vote. Broder finds Reid, Durbin, & Co. a convenient scapegoat, but if he's looking for a party to blame, he's got the wrong one.
Second is Broder's notion that Dems are failing to do "the nation's business" because the immigration bill died (or, at a minimum, is on life support). His analysis is over-simplified to the point of comedy: "people" want Congress to "deal with" immigration, and they're "fed up" with the "fighting." Broder's colleague, Dan Balz, recently offered a similar assessment.
Regrettably, this is congressional analysis at its most vapid. Broder, neither today nor in print, actually explained what he'd like Congress to do about immigration; he just thinks lawmakers should do "something."
But therein lies the rub: immigration policy is kind of complicated, and different people want it "fixed" in different ways. Broder's position seems to be, "Fix the problem by passing a new policy." But which policy? What's the "problem" that needs fixing? Does Broder blame Senate Dems because they didn't pass Bush's bill, or because they didn't embrace a more conservative approach to the issue?
Broder doesn't say, but he's "fed up" anyway.
A couple of weeks ago, E.J. Dionne had a column in which he explained, "There is the unspoken assumption that wisdom always lies in the political middle, no matter how unsavory the recipe served up by a given group of self-proclaimed centrists might be."
Broder might want to read it.
--Steve Benen
The not-so-innocent bystander
The article is not explicit, but an underlying theme of the Washington Post's profile on Dick Cheney is that his unprecedented power is only possible because Bush is anxious to get out of the way.
Waxing or waning, Cheney holds his purchase on an unrivaled portfolio across the executive branch. Bush works most naturally, close observers said, at the level of broad objectives, broadly declared. Cheney, they said, inhabits an operational world in which means are matched with ends and some of the most important choices are made. When particulars rise to presidential notice, Cheney often steers the preparation of options and sits with Bush, in side-by-side wing chairs, as he is briefed.
Before the president casts the only vote that counts, the final words of counsel nearly always come from Cheney.
"Side-by-side wing chairs"? I'm reminded of the embarrassing point in 2004 in which the President agreed to talk to the 9/11 Commission, but only if Cheney could sit with Bush, and help answer questions, during the discussion.
In 2000, when Bush, an inexperienced governor in a state where the governor has limited power, sought the presidency, his supporters insisted the nation need not worry -- Bush had assembled a team of capable "advisors" who would help guide his hand.
What the equation didn't consider is what happens when the advisors disagree and the President has to make a decision. As the Post's profile makes clear, Bush has spent the better part of the last six years simply going along with Cheney's demands. Dan Quayle characterized this as Cheney taking on the role of "surrogate chief of staff." The reality is more disconcerting -- Cheney has routinely been the "surrogate President," with Bush putting his signature on the VP's ideas (military commissions, domestic warrantless-searches) because the VP told him it was the right thing to do.
Indeed, when it came to ignoring the Geneva Conventions, Cheney made his decision before Bush did.
On Nov. 14, 2001, the day after Bush signed the commissions order, Cheney took the next big step. He told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that terrorists do not "deserve to be treated as prisoners of war."
The president had not yet made that decision. Ten weeks passed, and the Bush administration fought one of its fiercest internal brawls, before Bush ratified the policy that Cheney had declared: The Geneva Conventions would not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters captured on the battlefield.
Meet George W. Bush, the not-so-innocent bystander of his own presidency.
--Steve Benen
Newsweek poll
As part of its cover story on "what you need to know now," Newsweek conducted a broad poll on a variety of political and cultural affairs. There were plenty of interesting results, but one section was particularly noteworthy.
Even today, more than four years into the war in Iraq, as many as four in ten Americans (41 percent) still believe Saddam Hussein's regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11, even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection. A majority of Americans were similarly unable to pick Saudi Arabia in a multiple-choice question about the country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were born. Just 43 percent got it right -- and a full 20 percent thought most came from Iraq.
For that matter, one in five Americans (20%) believe that we did find chemical/biological weapons "hidden by Saddam Hussein's regime."
Perhaps most troubling, the number of people who are confused about Iraq's non-existent role in the 9/11 attacks has gone up in recent years. When Newsweek asked the same question in the fall of 2004, 36% said Saddam Hussein was "directly involved" with the attacks. Nearly three years later, that number is 41%.
Sure, Bush administration officials have been careless with their rhetoric, leading to some confusion. And sure, there were probably some Fox News viewers included in the poll, skewing the numbers.
But that still doesn't explain a result like this one.
--Steve Benen
Kristol on Cheney
William Kristol bills himself as a serious, credible person, and is routinely rewarded by the DC establishment. As Kevin Drum recently put it, "The Bill Kristol phenomenon is a stellar example of what a nice suit and a sober tone of voice can do for you."
But one need not look too far below the surface to find the shameless partisan hack.
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol defended Vice President Cheney's decision to exempt himself from an executive order designed to safeguard classified national security information.
Kristol said the exemptions for the president and vice president were "reasonable enough." He called it "a pain in the neck" to have "some bureaucrat" from the National Archives "come and inspect your safe to see whether you're locking it up properly each night."
He did not appear to be kidding.
Let's review: Dick Cheney was bound by a presidential executive order to safeguard classified materials. Cheney ignored the E.O., exempted himself from its instructions, and mishandled secret information. The federal agency responsible for oversight had a few questions about all of this, which Cheney ignored, insisting that he's not part of the executive branch of government. The Vice President then decided he'd like to resolve the questions by eliminating the oversight agency asking them.
Kristol believes this is "reasonable enough"? If Vice President Al Gore had conducted himself the same way, would Kristol come to the same conclusion? (As for some "bureaucrat" checking to see if the OVP properly locked up its safe, we're not just talking about oversight; this deals with the willful mishandling of classified secrets in a time of war. That Kristol takes a rather blase attitude about the whole thing speaks poorly to the right's credibility on national security.)
I've been curious about how the right's leading voices might respond to Cheney's bizarre and rather dangerous arguments. So far, we haven't heard much, except Kristol's ham-fisted nonsense this morning.
The White House's allies will have to do better than this.
--Steve Benen
The New York Times responds to our criticism of the paper's Friday front-page slam of John Edwards.
--Greg Sargent
Report: Dem Presidential candidates tiptoeing around gay rights issues. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
I knew the GOP was hard up. But I had no idea it was this bad.
According to this quite hilarious article in the San Francisco Chronicle, the California GOP has hired as its chief operating officer, an Australian national who the Department of Homeland Security has been trying to deport for repeated immigration violations. As recently as Februrary, Michael Kamburowski, was working, rather haplessly, as a real estate agent in the Domincan Republic until he "ran away without mentioning anything to us," according to his one-time boss, Rico Pester, the owner of Re/Max Island Realty, in the resort town of Punta Cana. (Said his Re/Max bio: "With his attention to detail, laid-back yet professional approach, and sense of humor, Michael will smoothen the road to your dream property in Punta Cana.")
Perhaps it is somehow implicitly redundant to note that in the second half of the 1990s Kamburowski was working for Grover Norquist on immigration policy, tort reform and 'paycheck protection' before becoming the executive director of Norquist's Reagan Legacy Project.
Along the way there were a couple of hasty marriages leading shortly to his new brides submitting "Petition for Alien Relative" forms to get him citizenship, various stints as an "aspiring actor" and even a stay at the Wackenhut Correctional Facility in Jamaica, New York courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security.
In addition to his work running the California Republican party he is also suing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency for "significant financial hardship" and "severe emotional stress and embarrassment" for trying to have him deported.
Apparently, this wasn't the last of the CA GOP's overseas outreach.
Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring, who hired the afore-mocked Kamburowski, claimed he was not able to find a qualified political director for the California party among the three-hundred-odd million citizens of the United States. Nehring used a H1B visa (the type commonly used by high-tech companies when say they need to hire a foreigner with a skill not possessed by any American) to Christopher Matthews, a Canadian citizen, with no experience in California politics.
--Josh Marshall
Ever the enabler of criminals and dangerous men, Alberto Gonzales has apparently been helping VP Cheney sustain his claim that he's not part of the executive branch.
--Josh Marshall
On Friday I published an email by TPM Reader SM which noted how the most major media outlets now appear to be referring to nearly everyone fighting US troops in Iraq as 'al Qaeda'. I want to point your attention to a follow-up to that post by Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald provides a nice detailed analysis of recent reporting on Iraq that strongly points to what most of us probably assumed: namely, that there's no reason to believe that the folks now dubbed 'al Qaeda' are any other than the folks formerly called 'insurgents'. Particularly look at the second half of Glenn's post, including the update, where he notes how reporters with a good track record of not being bamboozled by administration claptrap appear to be resisting the rhetorical al Qaidization of the Iraqi insurgency.
Now there is one more detail I'd like to add to this discussion. On Saturday morning, TPM Reader AK sent in an email calling attention to this passage in an article in the Times, whose Michael Gordon appears to be one of the top Qaedization offenders ...
Jalal Jaff, a Sunni Kurd, who lives just behind the street where the bomb exploded and raced to the scene to pull people from burning cars, turned his head away on Tuesday as he passed the parking lot with more than a dozen destroyed cars, only their charred frames left, the rubber completely burned off their tires.“He is a paid terrorist, not a human being,” he said. “The families will never know which body belongs to their relatives. They were mutilated. They had no faces.”
Like most of the people in the neighborhood, Mr. Jaff blamed Al Qaeda, a term used by Iraqis to refer generally to terrorists. The group operating in Iraq known as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia includes many Iraqis but has some foreign leadership.
It's an interesting passage in that it essentially confirms the point made above -- that the only change here is one of labels, that the 'Sunni insurgents' and 'Baathist dead-enders' are now 'al Qaeda' merely by dint of blowing things up. But it also suggests that the change of labels isn't simply a matter of the US military and American journalists but also appears to be the norm among ordinary Iraqis themselves.
I'm skeptical of that claim. But it is also worth noting that it has long been claimed that the Iraqi government, like the US government, has systematically overstated the role of 'foreign fighters' and 'al Qaeda' since they too do not wish to see the insurgency as Iraqi and either inter-sectarian or anti-occupation in nature.
Keep watching the press reports on this. Tell us what you find.
--Josh Marshall
This case may bear more attention. The apparently highly-qualified chief counsel of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, the successor agency to the INS) in El Paso, a Mexican-American woman named Guadalupe Gonzalez was repeatedly passed over for an immigration judgeship in favor of white men who were her subordinates. She's suing Alberto Gonzales for employment discrimination.
--Josh Marshall
Secretive
That Dick Cheney is secretive is hardly news, but seeing just how secretive is striking.
Stealth is among Cheney's most effective tools. Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president. Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped "Treated As: Top Secret/SCI." Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes to "sensitive compartmented information," the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words "treated as," they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause "exceptionally grave damage to national security."
Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance.
Stick it in a time capsule; future generations won't believe it.
--Steve Benen
Cheney
In 2001, shortly after his inauguration, Dick Cheney met with Dan Quayle, who had of course served in the same position eight years earlier. Quayle wanted to offer some advice, one vice president to another.
"Dick, you know, you're going to be doing a lot of this international traveling, you're going to be doing all this political fundraising ... you'll be going to the funerals," Quayle said. "We've all done it."
Recalling the conversation, Quayle said Cheney "got that little smile," before replying, "I have a different understanding with the president."
The first of a four-part series in the Washington Post today on Cheney's White House role, written by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker, helps demonstrate just how true those comments were. Today's profile helps document the scope and breadth of a Vice President with unprecedented (and largely unchecked) authority. Cheney wanted a "mandate that gave him access to 'every table and every meeting,' making his voice heard in 'whatever area the vice president feels he wants to be active in,'" and, naturally, Bush gave his VP what he requested.
It's hard to know which of the many jaw-dropping anecdotes to highlight, but Cheney's work in establishing military commissions for detainees stood out for capturing all the characteristics of Cheney's hyper-secretive, ruthless, legally-dubious style.
At the White House, Bellinger sent Rice a blunt -- and, he thought, private -- legal warning. The Cheney-Rumsfeld position would place the president indisputably in breach of international law and would undermine cooperation from allied governments. Faxes had been pouring in at the State Department since the order for military commissions was signed, with even British authorities warning that they could not hand over suspects if the U.S. government withdrew from accepted legal norms.
One lawyer in his office said that Bellinger was chagrined to learn, indirectly, that Cheney had read the confidential memo and "was concerned" about his advice. Thus Bellinger discovered an unannounced standing order: Documents prepared for the national security adviser, another White House official said, were "routed outside the formal process" to Cheney, too. The reverse did not apply.
Powell asked for a meeting with Bush. The same day, Jan. 25, 2002, Cheney's office struck a preemptive blow. It appeared to come from Gonzales, a longtime Bush confidant whom the president nicknamed "Fredo." Hours after Powell made his request, Gonzales signed his name to a memo that anticipated and undermined the State Department's talking points. The true author has long been a subject of speculation, for reasons including its unorthodox format and a subtly mocking tone that is not a Gonzales hallmark.
A White House lawyer with direct knowledge said Cheney's lawyer, Addington, wrote the memo. Flanigan passed it to Gonzales, and Gonzales sent it as "my judgment" to Bush. If Bush consulted Cheney after that, the vice president became a sounding board for advice he originated himself.
Cheney and his small team had, by design, excluded the Justice Department, the NSA, and the State Department to create the entire policy, which would also circumvent the federal judiciary.
Occasionally, through a combination of hype and fear, certain public figures are exaggerated into scary, powerful caricatures.
And sometimes, the caricatures understate the case.
The Cheney profile has enough tidbits for a week's worth of blog posts, but in the meantime, this is obviously a must-read piece. If you're reading it with Sunday-morning breakfast, keep a bottle of Maalox handy.
--Steve Benen
