Thompson's client, Part II
On the one side, we have six people and documented evidence that Fred Thompson lobbied for the pro-choice National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. On the other side we have the Thompson campaign, which insists the lobbying, for which Thompson was paid handsomely, never happened.
Any comment, senator?
Thompson gave an oblique response when asked about the matter, first reported by the Los Angeles Times.
"I'd just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing," said Thompson, who is considering running for president as a social conservative. He refused comment on whether he recalled doing the work.
That ought to clear things up.
--Steve Benen
Virginia is for lovers
As recently as 2000, Virginia was a reliably "red" state. Virginia had a Republican governor, a Republican lieutenant governor, a Republican attorney general, and two Republican U.S. senators. Of the state's 11-member delegation to the U.S. House, eight were Republicans. At the presidential level, George W. Bush had just cruised to an easy victory over Al Gore, the eighth consecutive victory for Republican presidential candidates in the Commonwealth.
By all indications, Virginia, like its southern brethren, was going to be increasingly uncompetitive for the foreseeable future. But a funny thing happened on the way to the Permanent Republican Majority.
Virginia, usually a reliably Republican state in presidential elections, may become a key battleground in the 2008 election as broadly negative views among independents of President Bush and the war in Iraq have altered the presidential race.
Mirroring the national mood, Virginians' approval of Bush and support for U.S. policies in Iraq have eroded as the war has dragged on. Bush is the worst of the past nine presidents, say Virginia's independent voters, who helped him win in 2004 but now say they are more likely to prefer that a Democrat rather than a Republican be the next president. [...]
[M]ore than a year before the general election, this poll shows that four in 10 voters prefer that a Democrat be elected to the White House in 2008, compared with 33 percent who said they favor a Republican.
The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard conducted a fairly extensive poll of Virginians and found a surprisingly competitive state. In fact, if anything, Virginia is suddenly leaning blue -- more than half of the state's residents have an unfavorable view of the national Republican Party, while more than half of Virginians have a favorable impression of national Democrats.
Like Yglesias, I think Mark Warner deserves quite a bit of the credit for making Virginia "bluer." Following Jim Gilmore's almost comically hopeless term as governor, the state was willing to take a chance on a Democrat. Warner won, governed very well, and enjoyed stunning popularity statewide (he left office with an approval rating over 70%).
But reading over the results of the Post poll, Bush really is the gift that keeps on giving. Warner may have made Democrats palatable to otherwise GOP-leaning Virginians, but the president sealed the deal.
Randall Austin, who lives in conservative southwestern Virginia, said, "I think most of the United States and the majority of people I talk to are kind of negative towards the Republican Party. With the war, the economy, with everything, including fuel pricing, I have a feeling everyone wants a change." Austin, of course, voted for Bush.
--Steve Benen
Taylor testimony
Nearly two weeks ago, in the midst of claiming executive privilege on documents relating to the U.S. Attorney purge, the Bush White House also told Congress that lawmakers would not be permitted to see documents relating to former political director Sara Taylor's work on the matter. It was obviously disappointing (though not unexpected), especially given the Bush gang's rhetoric about their willingness to cooperate.
But at least Taylor agreed to honor a subpoena and will testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee about what she knows of the scandal, right? Wrong. Her appearance, which was scheduled for Wednesday, is now off -- Taylor's lawyer doesn't think the White House is willing to let her talk the committee.
From the letter Taylor's attorney delivered to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy:
Ms. Taylor expects to receive a letter from [White House Counsel Fred] Fielding on behalf of the President directing her not to comply with the Senate’s subpoena. These contrary directions undoubtedly create a monumental clash between the executive and legislative branches of government. This clash may ultimately be resolved by the judicial branch. [...]
Absent the direction from the White House, Ms. Taylor would testify without hesitation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has participated in no wrongdoing. She will assert no personal privileges.
[Taylor] faces two untenable choices. She can follow the President’s direction and face the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate, with enforcement through the criminal courts, an action that regardless of the outcome, will follow her for life. Or, she can attempt to work out an accommodation with the Senate, which will put her at odds with the President, a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years.
Chairman Leahy responded, "The White House continues to try to have it both ways -- to block Congress from talking with witnesses and accessing documents and other evidence while saying nothing improper occurred."
If I didn't know better, I might get the impression that the White House has something to hide.
--Steve Benen
Impeachment polls
All of a sudden, pollsters think enough of the impeachment question to start putting the question in the field. The latest comes by way of Rasmussen Reports.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 49% disagree while 12% are not sure.
Those figures reflect a slight increase in support for impeachment over the past year-and-a-half. In December 2005, 32% believed that President George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Fifty-eight percent (58%) took the opposite view at that time.
A majority of Democrats (56%) now believe the President should be impeached.... Republicans, by an 80% to 16% margin, say that the President should not be impeached.... Among those not affiliated with either major party, 40% now favor impeachment while 45% are opposed.
This is the third poll I've seen on this in the last two months, and the results are similar enough to bolster their collective reliability. An American Research Group poll released this week showed that among all U.S. adults, 45% support the House initiating impeachment proceedings against Bush (the percentage was 54% in relation to Cheney impeachment). And an InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll taken in early May showed 39% of American favor impeachment.
First, for a "fringe" idea that "serious" people are supposed to reject out of hand, 40% of the electorate sounds like a fairly substantial number of people.
Second, more Americans support impeaching Bush now than supported impeaching Clinton when he was actually being impeached.
And third, I think Matt Yglesias is right about the larger political dialog: [I]nsofar as Bush appears determined to use his constitutionally granted authority to shield his subordinates from the consequences of breaking the law, I would say that removing him from the office which grants that authority is something that should be discussed."
Are there 67 votes in the Senate for removing Bush from office? Almost certainly not, a fact that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. For that matter, the prospect of a President Cheney is, shall we say, disconcerting.
But given the circumstances, there's no reason to dismiss the notion as some radical flight of fancy. Reasonable people, debating in good faith, can disagree about the utility, implications, and grounds for impeachment, but as Yglesias put it, the concept should probably "enter the mainstream conversation."
--Steve Benen
Graham on Iraq
The discord among Republicans on the Hill over Iraq may be palpable, but Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) just returned from Baghdad, and wouldn't you know it, he agrees wholeheartedly with Bush, Cheney, McCain, and Lieberman.
In contrast with the stalled political progress, Graham said, the surge -- the dispatch of 30,000 more U.S. troops that Bush began in January -- is yielding clear results.
"The military part of the surge is working beyond my expectations," Graham said. "We literally have the enemy on the run. The Sunni part of Iraq has really rejected al Qaida all over the country. We're getting more information about al Qaida operations than we've ever received."
Of course, there's war supporters' reality, and then there's the reality for the rest of us.
Three months into the new U.S. military strategy that has sent tens of thousands of additional troops into Iraq, overall levels of violence in the country have not decreased, as attacks have shifted away from Baghdad and Anbar, where American forces are concentrated, only to rise in most other provinces, according to a Pentagon report released [three weeks ago]....
Iraq's government, for its part, has proven "uneven" in delivering on its commitments under the strategy, the report said, stating that public pledges by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have in many cases produced no concrete results. Iraqi leaders have made "little progress" on the overarching political goals that the stepped-up security operations are intended to help advance, the report said, calling reconciliation between Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni factions "a serious unfulfilled objective."
For that matter, a week ago marked the end of the deadliest quarter for U.S. troops in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. And July is proving to be no less discouraging.
A suicide truck bomber blasted a Shiite town north of Baghdad on Saturday, killing more than 100 people, police said, in a sign Sunni insurgents are pulling away from a U.S. offensive around the capital to attack where security is thinner.
The marketplace devastation underlined a hard reality in Iraq: There are not enough forces to protect everywhere. U.S. troops, already increased by 28,000 this year, are focused on bringing calm to Baghdad, while the Iraqi military and police remain overstretched and undertrained.
The U.S. military on Saturday also reported that eight American service members were killed in fighting in Baghdad and western Anbar province over two days, reflecting the increased U.S. casualties that have come with the new offensives.
But don't worry, Lindsey Graham sees progress. And since his track record on the war has been sterling to date, we should all take his word for it.
--Steve Benen
Bush's detached-from-reality radio address
The president decided to lambaste the Democratic congressional majority this morning in his weekly radio address, accusing lawmakers of failing to do their duty when it comes to annual spending bills.
"Democrats in Congress are also behind schedule passing the individual spending bills needed to keep the Federal government running. At their current pace, I will not see a single one of the 12 must-pass bills before Congress leaves Washington for the month-long August recess. The fiscal year ends September 30th. By failing to do the work necessary to pass these important bills by the end of the fiscal year, Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely.
This moment is a test... Democrats have a chance to prove they are for open and transparent government by working to complete each spending bill independently and on time."
Yes, it's outrageous when Congress fails to pass each spending bill on time, isn't it? Indeed, it seems like just last year that a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House were so dysfunctional, that they failed to pass hardly any of the necessary spending bills. Oh wait, that was just last year.
Republicans intend to conclude the 109th Congress this week and leave Democrats stuck with the tab in the form of unfinished spending bills as the days of Republican rule draw to a close on Capitol Hill.
Congressional leaders said election losses had sapped Republican enthusiasm for trying to finish nine spending measures that were due Oct. 1. Congress will instead pass a stopgap measure to keep the government running until mid-February, leaving the fiscal tangle for the new Democratic majority to sort out next year.
Following Bush's reasoning, Republicans failed in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely. I wonder why he didn't complain about this a year ago?
Post Script: The AP headline on the story on Bush's radio address reads, "Bush rips Democratic lawmakers' failures." Apparently, the AP was short on time, so the editors just let Karl Rove write the headline for them.
--Steve Benen
Election Central Saturday Roundup
Hillary Clinton isn't just ahead in the national polls; she's also solidifying her reputation as the establishment candidate by leading the Democratic field in congressional endorsements. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Steve Benen
Now that's Hardball.
A month ago, Fouad Ajami, a prominent neocon at Johns Hopkins, wrote a bizarre op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in Scooter Libby's defense. "In 'The Soldier's Creed,'" Ajami wrote, "there is a particularly compelling principle: 'I will never leave a fallen comrade.' ... [Libby] can't be left behind as a casualty of a war our country had once proudly claimed as its own."
Yesterday, David Shuster, guest hosting MSNBC's Hardball, took Ajami to task for comparing Libby to American troops.
Ideally, this should be routine. A marginal neocon appeared on MSNBC to talk about a column he wrote a month ago. A professional broadcaster, who knew what he was talking about, pointed out the guest's errors of fact and judgment for the benefit of the television audience. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, this is what TV shows are supposed to do.
But exchanges like the one between Shuster and Ajami are so rare, that some of us see them and can barely contain our excitement. What should be routine has become extraordinary. Digby said the segment made her "almost feel like the world is setting itself back on its axis -- at least for today."
I suspect that conservatives would find all of this rather odd. Far-right TV personalities spout off conservative ideas on the air every day; why would the left get so excited about one on-air smackdown?
It's because we're left with a media environment in which segments like Shuster's are the exception to the rule. The "no liberals on the teevee" directive is usually pretty unshakable.
--Steve Benen
Meme spreads some more
The hits just keep on coming.
The fourth example of the far-right Meme of the Week comes by way of the National Review's Iain Murray:
The socialization of medicine in the UK is responsible for a lot of problems. The importation of terrorists is just one of them.
For those keeping score at home, Fox News was first, followed by MSNBC, and then the New York Sun.
Update: Reader J.S. points out that the National Review's Stanley Kurtz started hinting at the connection on Tuesday morning.
--Steve Benen
Thompson's pro-choice client
Following up on Josh's item about Fred Thompson lobbying for pro-choice policies on behalf of a family-planning group, the story represents a double threat to the nascent presidential hopeful.
First, this is a major new challenge for Thompson, who has struggled a bit to prove his anti-abortion bona fides, to prove to the far-right GOP base that he's sufficiently right-wing.
Taking up the defense for Thompson, however, is John Hinderaker, who makes a passionate case that a lobbyist should not necessarily be judged by his or her clients. Lobbyists, like lawyers, may take on patrons with whom they disagree.
But the story here is not just that Thompson lobbied for a pro-choice cause, but that he's vociferously denying it now.
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said in an e-mail.
In a telephone interview, he added: "There's no documents to prove it, there's no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn't happen." In a separate interview, John H. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place.
The response is ... odd. The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. produced the minutes of a 1991 board meeting that say the group hired Thompson to lobby on the group's behalf. Judith DeSarno, who was president of the family planning association at the time, said Thompson lobbied for the group for several months, and noted the multiple meetings and conversations she had with Thompson about his progress in lobbying for her cause. What's more, the LA Times spoke to "three other people [who] recalled Thompson lobbying against the rule on behalf of the family planning association."
Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.), Thompson's former law-firm colleague, helped connect Thompson to the family-planning group in the first place, and said it was "absolutely bizarre" for Thompson to deny his lobbying work.
"I talked to him while he was doing it, and I talked to [DeSarno] about the fact that she was very pleased with the work that he was doing for her organization," Barnes said. "I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact."
If Thompson wanted to make the Hinderaker-like argument that he took on a client with which he disagreed, he could try to make the case and hope the Dobson crowd bought it. But it's far more peculiar for Thompson to simply deny the work outright.
Getting away with lobbying for a pro-choice client is an awkward hurdle. Getting caught lying about it can dog a presidential campaign for quite a while.
--Steve Benen
Eleanor Clift points to the 'tell' that still hasn't gotten enough attention ...
Fitzgerald said he wasn’t able to uncover the conspiracy because of all the sand thrown in his eyes by Libby to obstruct the investigation. Looking back at the trial, it was as inevitable as night following day that President Bush would find a way to get Libby off the hook. The fix was in when Libby’s high-priced legal team mounted a curiously passive defense. After pointing to Vice President Cheney as an instigator in the Plame naming, hinting they might even call the veep to testify, they abruptly backed off, slow-walking Libby toward conviction with no alibi for his lies other than that he didn’t remember. As legal eagles, they didn’t impress, but they did preserve the pardon option.
There was a promise: you'll never do a day in jail.
And metaphorically at least, as the trial got underway, he got it in writing.
--Josh Marshall
Bye, Fred ...
(From the LAT ... )
Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.
His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the matter.
--Josh Marshall
The meme spreads! New York Sun picks up on the universal healthcare/terrorism link.
--Josh Marshall
Poll finds 45% of adults support initiating impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush, 54% support pursuing impeachment of Cheney.
--Paul Kiel
Beautiful. The nutball meme spreads.
Now from MSNBC: Terrorism one of the "unintended consequences of universal healthcare."
First heard on Fox yesterday.
Late Update: It's one of the features of our age that there's a very fine line separating ideas that are too silly to even take note of and ones that quickly began to have a real effect on the public policy debate. Here we have one that clearly should be in the former category but is more likely in the latter. So if you see this line of reasoning popping up on the web or on tv, please let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) offers the extremely rare criticism from a GOPer of Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence, calling it "unfortunate."
--Paul Kiel
There's a pretty high bar on posts that note dishonest links on Drudge's website. But TPM Reader DP correctly notes that the top headline "Hillary Clinton's Former Campaign Finance Director Indicted ..." is to a story that ran in 2005.
By the way: President Resigns!
--Josh Marshall
Conservative appeals judge dismisses the ACLU's suit based on the plaintiffs' ground to sue.
Update: We originally mistakenly attributed the dissenting opinion, which found the president's Terrorist Surveillance Program to be illegal, to the majority opinion.
--Paul Kiel
The McCain campaign continues to downsize. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: the White House bemoans its fate of being subject to Congressional oversight.
--Paul Kiel
Jim Sleeper offers a timely takedown of Time Magazine's "apologia-cum-hagiography on Rupert Murdoch."
--Andrew Golis
The Business: Rupert Murdoch succeeds in $5 billion bid for Dow Jones. Via The Guardian.
--Paul Kiel
Who's Jerry Bowyer?
Can anyone tell me more about Jerry Bowyer from National Review Online? He's the guy in the video below who went on Fox today and chatted with Neil Cavuto about how having a single payer health care system will make us more vulnerable to terrorism. Where do they find these guys? Did I just not watch Fox closely enough in the past?
Is he on these shows a lot? Has anyone heard this argument before?
Late Update: Hmmm. Seems someone's already done some digging.
--Josh Marshall
Andrew Sullivan's got a really quite hilarious post flagging the latest tripe from Marty Peretz about the Libby GOOJFC -- Get Out of Jail Free Card (TM). Peretz says from start to finish the case was politically motivated. And certainly he has plenty of company on the right with ridiculousness.
Says Peretz ...
the appointment of the special prosecutor, the prosecutor's own obsessions, the case itself with the doubtful and understandably doubtful but diverse memories of many witnesses, including the defendant, the especially harsh sentence pronounced by the judge, the refusal of the appellate court to continue Libby on bail - all of these were politically motivated.
This actually puts a finger on the key point in this whole drama. The case had profound political overtones. And certainly there are no end of people in the country who became deeply invested in this case who normally wouldn't get overly bent out of shape about a run-of-the-mill perjury and obstruction case -- which, at least narrowly speaking, this is.
But Libby never found his fate in one of those people's hands. Not once. There's just no getting around that point.
Go down the list.
1. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Decided a special prosecutor was needed and then recused himself from the decision because of his proximity to the probable targets of the investigation.
2. James Comey. Yes, he's the darling of the Dems now because he spilled the beans about the hospital stand-off. But Comey is, dare we say it, a REPUBLICAN. And not just any Republican but a pretty tough law-and-order type who only months earlier had been appointed Deputy Attorney General by President Bush. He had it in for Scooter? He let his partisanship get in the way?
3. Patrick Fitzgerald. Again, a darling of the Dems now for obvious reasons. But anyone who knows the guy's history knows that while this registered independent may not lean ideologically right (in the way movement whacks might recognize) he certainly doesn't lean to the left. It's no accident that his appointments have come under Republicans.
4. Judge Reggie Walton. Let's start with this: He was appointed by George W. Bush. And if that doesn't do it for you, he was appointed to previous judicial appointments by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
A mere calling of the roll like this puts into a razor-sharp relief just how silly these claims are. At every step in the process Libby's fate was in the hands of someone who was either himself a staunch Republican or had been repeatedly appointed by staunch Republicans. The only thing is that no one ever passed him off into the hands a Bush loyalist. And that's the key. Alberto Gonzales never got the hand-off. Whatever else you can claim about this case, it's about as clear as it can be that partisan politics played no role in Libby's fate.
Now, one other point on a somewhat related matter. In a strange sort of way Rich Lowry and I now appear to agree that President Bush's commutation is without any rationale whatsoever. Needless to say, he now says it should have been a full pardon. But we're on the same wavelength to the degree that we agree that the commutation makes no sense.
As I wrote just after the news broke, there would at least be a logic, though I think a very poor one, for a pardon. You just say, it's all about politics. The whole case is illegitimate. And I the president am exercising my constitutional power to wipe the judicial slate clean. Period. I think it's a bogus argument. But it is not an illogical argument.
But President Bush says the prosecution, the prosecutor, the judge and the juries verdict are all legitimate. He doesn't second guess any of them. He just thinks Libby shouldn't go to jail, even though that's the normal punishment for the crime. There's no way of understanding this other than to conclude either that the president simply likes Scooter Libby and -- as many of us would -- doesn't want to see him have to go to prison or that Libby could provide testimony incriminating people in the White House, including the president, and that that is a risk President Bush is not willing to take.
Wipe all the chatter away and there's only one argument for what happened here.
He's our guy; we've got the power; so go f--k yourself.
That's the argument.
--Josh Marshall
The indictment can't be far off: Doolittle wants US troops out of combat in Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh, I guess it was only a matter of time.
Fox News goofball Neil Cavuto explains why universal health care programs are a leading source of terrorism.
Private health care seems to be the right prescription for a secure homeland.
--Josh Marshall
I think Tony Snow and the president need some help. Snow is out there saying that President Clinton has chutzpah for criticizing President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby.
But this really isn't that complicated.
Setting aside whether Scooter Libby should spend 0 days in jail for what most people spend from 1 to 3 years in jail, the key here is that it's inappropriate for the president to pardon or commute a sentence in a case in which he (i.e., the president) is a party to the same underlying crime. Because it amounts to obstruction of justice.
It's really not that complicated.
--Josh Marshall
Giuliani spreads his campaign to more states. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Paul Kiel
John Solomon and WaPo's editors mislead their readers in order to portray interview with Edwards' hair stylist as "news."
--Greg Sargent
What are they actually going to do? Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) wants to know too.
--Paul Kiel
Domenici the latest to bail out on President Bush's Iraq policy.
Late Update: Atrios makes a good point on this. Like Lugar, Voinovich, et al., what's he actually going to do? This will come down to very polarized votes about forcing the president's hand. That's when we'll know how serious these folks are. For my part, I was expecting his new policy idea to be that he wanted to send David Iglesias there to see if he could work things out. But apparently he didn't propose that.
--Josh Marshall
Waxman ramps up congressional scrutiny of construction of U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
--Paul Kiel
As was no doubt intended, some of the conversation and controversy over the Libby commutation (perhaps it would be more euphonious to just say the Libby get-out-of-jail-free card) was overtaken by the July 4th celebrations. So for today's episode of TPMtv we went back and found some of the choicer moments of right-wing praise-the-lording over President Bush's decision to save Scooter from the slammer.
My favorite moment actually comes at about 50 seconds in where CNN's Candy Crowley explains that this was the president splitting the difference and how no one on either side was really satisfied with the decision.
I've been sworn to secrecy on this. But between us, among insiders it's well known that Crowley's on-air commentary is controlled by a subcutaneous implant which receives radio waves from a type script to brain wave conversion device located in Karl Rove's top left hand desk drawer.
--Josh Marshall
Great moments in the rule of law. From today's press briefing ...
Question: Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is he getting special treatment?Scott Stanzel: Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by equal justice under the law.
Ahhhh, that really does sum it up, don't it?
Update: More here from the briefing.
--Josh Marshall
When legal efforts are exhausted, reformers hit the streets. Mark Schmitt notes the promising shift towards "political reform with people in it."
--Andrew Golis
Another one? Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) to announce change in his Iraq policy.
--Paul Kiel
Tony Snow accuses Hillary Clinton of having a "gigantic case" of "chutzpah" for questioning Bush's commutation of Libby. Full transcript here.
--Paul Kiel
Details here on that House Judiciary Committee hearing planned for next week on Libby's commutation. Meanwhile, defense lawyers around the country get ready to argue that their client should get the same justice as Scooter Libby.
--Paul Kiel
Hmmmm. Nixon had his own Deep Throat. And it turns out it was none other than Fred Thompson, who was minority counsel on the Watergate investigations committee and it seems repeatedly gave Nixon's lawyers advance notice on the committee's actions.
No wonder the Bushies are so into him.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: Gov. Schwarzenegger erases the last doubt that he's a bona fide American politician by arranging for a nonprofit to pay for his luxurious travel.
--Paul Kiel
Fred Thompson's glorious past as mole for the Nixon White House on the Senate Watergate Committee. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Paul Kiel
Mitt Romney comes down from the mountaintop of his primordial phoneyhood to reveal himself as an abysmal hypocrite.
Romney says the Libby commutation was "reasonable" but ...
As governor, Romney twice rejected a pardon for Anthony Circosta, who at age 13 was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun - a shot that didn't break the skin. Circosta worked his way through college, joined the Army National Guard and led a platoon of 20 soldiers in Iraq's deadly Sunni triangle.In 2005, as he was serving in Iraq, he sought a pardon to fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer.
In his presidential bid, Romney often proudly points out that he was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office. He says he refused pardons because he didn't want to overturn a jury.
During the four years Romney was in office, 100 requests for commutations and 172 requests for pardons were filed in the state. All were denied.
--Josh Marshall
Election Central July 4th Roundup
John McCain's struggling presidential campaign may accept federal matching funds, but the attached strings may end up hurting his chances as much as they help. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central July 4th Roundup.
--Steve Benen
Happy Fourth of July from everyone at TPM!
Here's our special July 4th episode of TPMtv about the 4th, America, Iraq, WMD ... well, like the title says, the big picture ...
--Josh Marshall
Fun Article: It's now the time of the year when nutso Sturgeon unpredictably jump out of the water and injure recreational boaters and jet skiers on Florida's Suwannee River.
Sign ...
Be AwareBoaters have been seriously injured from impacts with these jumping fish.
Large sturgeon jump in the river during the summer and fall months.
Reduce Speed to Reduce Risk of Impact!
Sturgeon can grow to 8 feet and weigh up to 200 pounds. They are a protected species and cannot be harvested. To report sturgeon collisions call 1-888-404-FWCC (3922).
--Josh Marshall
CNN front page headline: "Giuliani tops '08 race fundraising."
Guess they missed the Obama and HRC numbers.
--Josh Marshall
Happy News: BBC journalist Alan Johnston, held hostage in Gaza since March 12, is released.
--Josh Marshall
Dennis Kucinich to keynote a convention of political cartoonists. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Andrew Golis
Today the Republican field's fundraising numbers are in for the quarter -- and Rudy Guiliani takes it with $17 million, up on Mitt Romney's $14 million.
--Paul Kiel
Ahhh, yesterday when we were young and Bush still wanted to get to the bottom of the CIA leak case, a little walk down (video) memory lane in today's episode of TPMtv. You'll want to see this one ...
--Josh Marshall
SecDef Bob Gates wants to trade with the Dem Congress: long-term presence in Iraq for a near-term troop drawdown.
--Paul Kiel
There are just too many ways to pick apart the hollowness, the transparency of President Bush's fear-based commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. Thirty months was apparently 'excessive', despite the fact that this is what the federal sentencing guidelines recommend and numerous people are thus today sitting in prison under a similarly excessive term.
But, okay, let's say it's excessive. What would be appropriate? One year? Six months? A month? Can anyone really say that the prosecution was legitimate (which the president does) and that the verdict was legitimate (which the president does) and that probation with no jail time is the appropriate penalty?
Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby.
The whole thing is just too transparent. To borrow the Army phrase, President Bush wasn't willing to let Libby make first contact with the federal prison system. There's only one argument that makes sense of this decision: no jail time. That's the argument. Scooter's price. Otherwise, he might have been tempted to go the Fitzgerald route to reduce his sentence.
--Josh Marshall
Tony Snow explains Bush's Solomonic decision -- you "need to respect the jury system," you see. It's just judges, apparently, who don't require such respect.
--Paul Kiel
From this morning's press briefing, Tony Snow says that he won't "close the door" for a possible pardon for Libby somewhere down the road.
--Paul Kiel
TPM Reader AR ...
It seems pretty clear to me that Bush would not be taking nearly as much heat if he'd waited for Libby to do some time in prison. So why the hurry? Was the hurry because Bush wanted to take no chance that Libby would start talking? I think it is likely it was. And that is the approach the Dems should take in keeping this story in the news: What is Bush so determined to keep hidden? The Dems can sound compassionate and reasonable by suggesting a commutation after some time in prison would not have been unreasonable. That there must be some good reason why Bush is willing to take so much political heat.
--Josh Marshall
The administration floats an exit strategy for closing down Guantanamo Bay. The devil's in the details.
--Paul Kiel
Another point I'm obliged to make.
Here on the Times Oped page you'll see David Brooks column claiming that the information Joe Wilson brought before the public four years ago turned out to all be a crock, a bunch of lies. And we'll let Brooks' scribble be a stand-in for what you will hear universally today from the right -- namely, that just as Scooter Libby was charged with perjury and not the underlying crime of burning an American spy, the deeper underlying offense, the lie about uranium from Africa, didn't even exist -- that at the end of the day it was revealed that Wilson's claims, which started the whole train down the tracks, were discredited as lies.
You'll even hear softer versions of this claim from mainstream media outlets not normally considered part of the rump of American conservatism.
There aren't many subjects on which I claim expertise. But this is one of them. I think I know the details of this one -- both the underlying story of the forgeries and their provenance and the epi-story of Wilson and Plame -- as well as any journalist who's written about the story. The Fitzgerald investigation is probably the part of it I know the least about, comparatively. (It is also incumbent on me to say that in the course of reporting on this story over these years I've gotten to know Joe Wilson fairly well. And I consider him a friend.)
And with that knowledge, I have to say that the claim that Wilson's charges have been discredited, disproved or even meaningfully challenged is simply false. What he said on day one is all true. It's really as simple as that.
There's a tendency, even among too many people of good faith and good politics, to shy away from asserting and admitting this simple fact because Wilson has either gone on too many TV shows or preened too much in some photo shoot. But that is disreputable and shameful. The entire record of this story has been under a systematic, unfettered and, sadly, largely unresisted attack from the right for four years. Key facts have been buried under an avalanche of misinformation. The then-chairman of the senate intelligence committee made his committee an appendage of the White House and himself the president's bawd and issued a report built on intentional falsehood and misdirection.
No one is perfect. The key dividing line is who's telling the truth and who's lying. Wilson is on the former side, his critics the latter. Everything else is triviality.
From day one this story has been about official lies -- corrupt power buttressed by fraud. Along the way it became a story about the president's hireling commentators who lost their honor by becoming part of the fraud. What Wilson said was true. His attackers are all parties to the same lie. Don't forget that.
--Josh Marshall
Hillary campaigns with Bill in Iowa. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: the donors to Libby's defense trust ($5 million strong) rejoice!
--Paul Kiel
Many others will note this but I feel obliged to do so for the record. The real offense here is not so much or not simply that the president has spared Scooter Libby the punishment that anyone else would have gotten for this crime (for what it's worth, I actually find the commutation more outrageous than a full pardon). The deeper offense is that the president has used his pardon power to shortcircuit the investigation of a crime to which he himself was quite likely a party, and to which, his vice president, who controls him, certainly was.
The president's power to pardon is full and unchecked, one of the few such powers given the president in the constitution. Yet here the president has used it to further obstruct justice. In a sense, perhaps we should thank the president for bringing the matter full circle. Began with criminality, ends with it.
--Josh Marshall
Sheesh, even the right-wing Post oped page thinks the commutation was "not defensible." Talk about over-shooting your audience.
--Josh Marshall
Bummer for this dude (USAToday, June 21, 2007) ...
The Supreme Court made it harder Thursday for most defendants to challenge their federal prison sentences.Appeals courts that review prison terms imposed by trial judges may deem them reasonable if they fall within federal sentencing guidelines adopted in the mid-1980s, the high court said.
The justices upheld a 33-month sentence given to Victor Rita for perjury and making false statements. Rita is a 25-year military veteran and former civilian federal employee.
The prison term falls within the guidelines range and was upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, posing the question of whether sentences within the guidelines ordinarily will be considered reasonable.
From ABC: "Rita had sought a sentence lower than 33 months, based on his physical condition -- he has diabetes and other illnesses -- his likely vulnerability in prison and his military service in Vietnam and in Operation Desert Storm."
--Josh Marshall
I hate to rain on the all Libby all the time parade, but there's something else you should know about, something which might be no less important.
In various posts over the last couple years I've pointed to the as-yet-too-little-investigated Pentagon dimension of the Duke Cunningham 
scandal. In brief, the Cunningham case appears to tie directly to efforts by top ranking Pentagon appointees, around and including Stephen Cambone, to set up their own domestic surveillance and spying operations. Key contracts for the CIFA (Counterintelligence Field Activity) program went to Cunningham's bribers. And there is good reason to believe that politicals at the DOD choose to ignore Duke's crimes in exchange for help running their programs outside of the safeguards in place in the rest of the intelligence community, and quite likely well outside the bounds of American law. In short, a big part of the scam may have been that Duke and his crooked pals got big bucks in exchange for helping Bush-appointees at the DOD spy on American citizens.
Now, one of these DOD programs was something called TALON (Threat and Local Observation Notice), a program to collect information on Americans involved in anti-war protests. This evening I saw this post from Emptywheel which discusses the recently release Pentagon IG report on the program (released June 27th).
There's quite a lot of interest contained in the report. But emptywheel immediately fixes on the key finding, or rather impediment to findings. In the report's words, "all TALON reports were deleted from their database in June 2006 with no archives."
In other words, right about the time the Cunningham prosecutors started seriously looking into this dimension of the case, and around the time information was starting to come out about the DOD's domestic 'surveillance' operations, somehow the entire record of the TALON program, every report that had been collected, was scrubbed.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader PT notes what many others have also flagged ...
I havent seen this noted but i think the reason for the commutation is that a pardon would mean that Libby was no longer exposed to criminal sanctions and thus had no Fifth Amendment privilege. As it stands he has a fine and probation at stake during the pendency of the appeal which inulates him ( and Bush and Cheney) from havaing to answer questions before Congress.
--Josh Marshall
Here at TPM we're particularly interested to see Republican responses to the Libby commutation. If you're watching cable TV this evening and you see reactions from the right, particularly from elected officials, shoot us an email with time, channel and who gave the statement. We'll get the clip and put together a montage of all the choicest reactions.
--Josh Marshall
Hillary releases her statement on Libby ...
"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
--Josh Marshall
Via Byron York at the Corner, Patrick Fitzgerald's statement ...
We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.
Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.
--Josh Marshall
SurveyUSA has instant numbers out on public reactions to the commutation.
--Josh Marshall
From Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “The President’s muted words and deeds in the aftermath of this conviction pale in comparison to what he said before the investigation was launched."
--Paul Kiel
Just so it doesn't get lost in the Libby avalanche, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) hired Ollie North's former lawyer Brendan Sullivan to defend him in the Veco-Fishery-House-Renovation scandal.
--Josh Marshall
Here's our interview with Joe Wilson reacting to Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence.
From the interview:
"By commuting [Libby's] sentence, [President Bush] has brought himself and his office into reasonable suspicion of participation in an obstruction of justice. The commutation of (Libby's) sentence in and of itself is participation in obstruction of justice."
--Paul Kiel
Interesting. Joe DiGenova was just on CNN, carting out all the lies that DC's right-wing establishment has been peddling about Joe Wilson over the last four years. And, surprise, surprise, he enlisted the Washington Post on his behalf. And, why should we be surprised? They're part of that establishment. It's a good day for Fred Hiatt.
--Josh Marshall
Over at Election Central we'll be posting presidential candidates' reactions to the Libby commutation as they roll in. First up, ladies and gentlemen, it's Fred Thompson!
"I am very happy for Scooter Libby."
Update: Statement from Barack Obama.
Update: Statement from John Edwards.
--Ben Craw
DOJ manual on Commutations (emphasis added) ...
Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation PetitionsA commutation of sentence reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed. Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.
(ed.note: Special thanks to TPM Reader KC.)
--Josh Marshall
Join us in tracking the absurd right-wing "but Clinton pardoned!" defense.
--Andrew Golis
Matt Drudge alerts his millions of readers to the Libby commutation, or at least those readers with really good eyesight...
--Ben Craw
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) reacts to Bush's move as "inconsistent with the rule of law." And a staffer from his committee tells us that they're looking to have a hearing on this as soon as next week.
--Paul Kiel
As you've no doubt already heard shouted from near every rooftop, President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence. Specifically, the conviction stands -- the fine and probation stand. Libby just doesn't have to spend a day in prison.
Now, here's the key to this.
There is a conceivable argument --- a very poor one but a conceivable one --- for pardoning Scooter Libby, presumably on the argument that the entire prosecution was political and thus illegitimate. But what conceivable argument does the president have for micromanaging the sentence? To decide that the conviction is appropriate, that probation is appropriate, that a substantial fine is appropriate --- just no prison sentence.
This is being treated in the press as splitting the difference, an elegant compromise. But it is the least justifiable approach. The president has decided that the sentencing guidelines and the opinion of judge don't cut it.
The only basis for this decision is that Libby is the vice president's friend, the vice president rules the president and this was the minimum necessary to keep the man silent.
--Josh Marshall
AP: Bush commutes Libby prison sentence.
(i.e., Cheney pulled the lever.)
--Josh Marshall
In the Bush view, the world is a blockbuster movie where heroes strive to defeat shifty-eyed villains. 
This week at TPMCafe's Book Club, Glenn Greenwald joins us to discuss his new book A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency. In particular, Greenwald wants to focus on Iran, and how the "pure fiction" of the Administration's "cartoonish depiction of Iran" is exacerbating the threat and may push us to war.
Debating Greenwald's thesis, and its application to Iran, will be Ezra Klein, Seth Gitell, Danny Postel, and Chris Floyd.
--Andrew Golis
I'd call that a really, really generous headline (from NYT/AP): "Behind in Money Race, McCain Reshapes Staff"
--Josh Marshall
Is McCain going to make it to the early primaries? It seems he's got only $2 million on hand and may drop as many as 100 staffers, though they're suggesting the number will only be a bit over 50.
Considering that bad news is itself a major blow that will make money even harder to raise, is this Phil Gramm '96 redux? Only where the candidate can't raise any money?
Early campaign time is full of premature and retrospectively silly post-mortems. But you have to wonder in this case.
--Josh Marshall
Jared Bernstein lists 5 reasons economists still compete with weathermen for accuracy kudos.
--Andrew Golis
What if third parties could exist without third party candidates? Dan Cantor, the head of New York's Working Familes Party, sits down at TPMCafe's Table for One to make the case for fusion voting.
--Andrew Golis
Department of quotes with multiple meanings.
Coulter talking to O'Reilly: "I'm more of a man than any liberal."
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader JS checks in from Bangkok ...
Your link to Andrew Sullivan's blog and the media coverage of the Glasgow events prompted me to write again.I am in the last day of business meetings in Bangkok, and have been watching the media response with great interest. My hotel TV offers both CNN and BBC news coverage, and the difference between them is remarkable. When the Glasgow attack became known, CNN offered non-stop coverage which preempted all normal programming. The attackers were defined in no uncertain terms as Al-Quaeda members, despite any conclusive evidence of same. In stark contrast, BBC offered quite detailed coverage of the attack, but continued with normal programming covering weather, sports, international affairs, etc. BBC was quite careful not to ascribe any specific Al-Quaeda membership, and seemed to be more comfortable describing the attackers as "influenced by other Al-Quaeda types". CNN created the image of a major world crisis, while BBC presented an isolated but obviously troubling event.
I would respectfully posit that such coverage by most of our American Mainstream Media is why the Bush Administration has been able to so easily play with the fears and emotions of Americans.
--Josh Marshall
"So incompetent as to be almost laughable." That's how former Scotland Yard detective John O'Connor described the botched UK bombings this morning on CNN. He also noted that it's probably wrong to refer to these guys as 'al Qaeda'. Check it out ...
Late Update: A reader at Andrew Sullivan's site has more thoughts on the way the Brits are handling this, as opposed to the way this is getting played in the US media.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT) explains how the surge is working miracles and the UK terror plots show we need more warrantless wiretapping in today's Sunday Show Roundup episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
John Edwards, a distant third in this quarter's primary fundraising, says he's right on track for his "four-state strategy." That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: The Washington Post explores the "tranquility" of George W. Bush.
--Paul Kiel
Giuliani and WSJ
About a week ago, TPMtv featured a revealing video montage of Rudy Giuliani going to almost comical lengths to duck the issue of Iraq. A leading presidential candidate, on the dominant issue of the day, simply doesn't want to talk about it -- and hasn't for the last year or so.
With that in mind, I was encouraged to see a transcript the Wall Street Journal published over the weekend of a Giuliani interview with the paper's editorial board. The WSJ's editors, to their credit, seemed intent on getting some sense of the former mayor's thoughts on the war. It's a shame they came up empty.
The transcript is worth reading, if for no other reason than to enjoy the constant use of the phrase "on offense." Giuliani demonstrated confusion about de-Baathification, repeatedly compared Iraq to New York City, and said national polls would show stronger support for the war if only pollsters would use the word "retreat" in the questions. All in all, the former mayor's responses lacked a certain, shall we say, sophistication.
Consider this exchange:
WSJ: [Y]ou would give Petraeus all the time he needs?
Giuliani: Sure, if I thought he was right. I had a similar, on a lesser scale, issue with the police department or the fire department or whatever.
Or perhaps this illuminating question and response:
WSJ: So six months out and you're on the campaign trail. The results of the surge are inconclusive, but Petraeus says "I can use more time" and you're taking a beating for it, what are you going to say?
Giuliani: If I believe that General Petraeus is right, then I take the beating and you try to explain it to people. I think the American people in November 2008 are going to select the person they think is strongest to defend America against Islamic terrorism. And it is not going to just focus on -- as some of the media wants it -- just Iraq.
Yes, it's that darned media's fault Americans want presidential candidates to talk about a tragic war and how they'd handle it. If only journalists would stop asking these pesky questions, Giuliani wouldn't have to go to such lengths to dodge them.
--Steve Benen
This could get ugly
This could get ugly.
The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House for information related to the U.S. Attorney purge scandal. The White House announced a few days ago that it would ignore the subpoenas. This morning on "Meet the Press," Tim Russert asked Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) what happens next.
RUSSERT: You have asked the White House and others to respond to your subpoenas. They are now invoking executive privilege, and you said this: "We will take the necessary steps to enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law so that Congress and the public can get to the truth behind this matter." What does that mean, full force of the law? Is -- are we headed to a constitutional crisis?
LEAHY: I would hope not. That's why I say, they -- they've chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation. The other administration -- in fact, I've been here with six administrations, Democratic and Republican, they've always found a way to, to work out and get the information Congress is entitled to. [...]
RUSSERT: Are you prepared to hold the Bush White House, the vice president, the attorney general and his office under contempt of Congress?
LEAHY: That is something that the whole Congress has to vote on. In our case, in the Senate, we'd have to vote on it; in the House, they would have to vote on it. I can't...
RUSSERT: Would you go that far?
LEAHY: If they don't cooperate, yes, I'd go that far. I mean, this is very important to the American people. If you're going to have -- for example, the, the bottom line on this, the U.S. attorneys investigation, is that we had people manipulation law enforcement. You -- law enforcement has, can't be partisan. Law enforcement can't decide, "Well, we'll arrest this person because they're a Democrat but not this person because they're Republican" or the other way around. And that is why I think you've found so many Republicans and Democrats who have been so critical and, and many of those, the most critical, are, like myself, former prosecutors.
If Congress passes a contempt-of-Congress measure, lawmakers would effectively be formally accusing the White House of a crime, which would then be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for consideration. Russert asked Leahy this morning, "Are you sure the U.S. Attorney would prosecute?" The chairman responded, "Well, I think it'd be very difficult for him not to." (Crooks & Liars has a video clip of the interview.)
Stay tuned.
--Steve Benen
Pat Rogers
In May, former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias explained that he met for several hours, shortly before the 2006 election, with Pat Rogers, a well-connected Republican lawyer in Albuquerque, who was after him to prosecute dubious allegations of voter fraud. Iglesias told Rogers the truth -- that he'd reviewed more than 100 complaints filed by New Mexico Republicans, but found no substantial evidence of a crime.
What Iglesias didn't know at the time was that Rogers had, before their pre-election meeting, already taken his concerns to Washington. With help from Monica Goodling, Rogers complained about Iglesias' reluctance on voter-fraud cases directly to top Justice Department officials, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), and Karl Rove. Rogers and another Republican attorney from New Mexico, Mickey Barnett, made clear that they wanted Iglesias fired. Not long after, he was.
Today, McClatchy moves the ball forward quite a bit more. (thanks to V.S. for the tip)
A New Mexico lawyer who pressed to oust U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was an officer of a nonprofit group that aided Republican candidates in 2006 by pressing for tougher voter identification laws.
Iglesias, who was one of nine U.S. attorneys the administration fired last year, said that Albuquerque lawyer Patrick Rogers pressured him several times to bring voter fraud prosecutions where little evidence existed. Iglesias believes that he was fired in part because he failed to pursue such cases.
He described Rogers, who declined to discuss the exchanges, as "obsessed ... convinced there was massive voter fraud going on in this state, and I needed to do something to stop it."
Iglesias said he only recently learned of Rogers' involvement as secretary of the non-profit American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund - an activist group that defended tighter voter identification requirements in court against charges that they were designed to hamper voting by poor minorities.
As Rick Hasen recently explained, that would be the "incredible, disappearing" American Center for Voting Rights.
McClatchy's report offers several helpful details about Rogers and the broader election strategy. Take a look.
--Steve Benen
Independents
There's a lengthy analysis of political independents in the Washington Post today, based on an extensive survey conducted by the Post in collaboration with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. The piece doesn't exactly break a lot of new ground, but it's interesting enough to check out. Matt Yglesias summarizes the piece's conclusions quite well: "Many independents are actually partisans. Many others just have no idea what they're talking about. A few really do pay attention and swing anyway."
There was, however, one piece of information from the report that struck me as odd.
While these independents swung substantially to the Democratic side in 2006, 77 percent of them say they would seriously consider voting for an independent if one were running.
Is it me, or is 77% a little low? Nearly one-in-four self-described independents wouldn't consider voting for an independent? Then why even consider yourself an independent?
Must be part of that no-idea-what-they're-talking-about bloc.
--Steve Benen
Election Central Sunday Roundup
Barack Obama appears to have broken the record for quarterly fundraising in a primary, pulling in a whopping $30 million over the last three months. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.
--Steve Benen
Lieberman's appearance on ABC
Hmm, what was the most disturbing part of Joe Lieberman's appearance on ABC's "This Week" this morning? It's a surprisingly tough call.
Was it Lieberman's reality-be-damned insistence that "the surge is working"? That was certainly disconcerting. Was it Lieberman's assertion that leading Democrats are weak because they reject a neocon vision of foreign policy? That wasn't much better.
But the real gem of the morning was Lieberman's bizarre argument that terrorism in Britain should mean more warrantless domestic surveillance here. (ThinkProgress has a clip.)
"I hope that these terrorist acts in London and England wake us up here in America to stop some of the petty, partisan fighting that's going on about...electronic surveillance, a lot of which could help stop terrorist attacks against the United States. Some of the fight is ideological. Some of it is just plan mistrust of the administration.
"I hope this week, based on what happened in the United Kingdom, President Bush, the bipartisan leadership of Congress will sit down and say, 'Hey, let's cut out the nonsense. We're fiddling while our enemies are getting ready to attack us. Let's figure out how to pass a law to modernize this electronic surveillance capacity which was critical.' [...]
"I'm talking about...the so-called FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that was adopted in the '70s. Technology has -- both that used by the enemy, the terrorists, and that used by us has improved dramatically. And right now, we're at a partisan gridlock over the question of whether the American government can listen into conversations or follow e-mail trails of non-American citizens."
There are more than a handful of errors of fact and judgment here, but let's stick to the two biggest.
First, Lieberman insists FISA is a generation too old. What he neglects to mention is that FISA has been updated many, many times. FISA may have been passed nearly three decades ago, but it's been amended repeatedly to adapt to evolving threats and circumstances.
Second, Lieberman seems woefully confused about the nature of the debate. The Bush administration has engaged in electronic surveillance of Americans without warrants or oversight. Congress has requested information about how the program operates, which the administration has refused to provide. To hear Lieberman tell it, there's a controversy about whether to spy on terrorist suspects. That's demonstrably false, and the senator surely knows better.
Lieberman wants to "cut out the nonsense." Good idea. The White House has apparently operated under the impression that FISA is inconvenient, and therefore irrelevant. As Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) noted way back in January 2006, "If [Bush] needs more authority, he just can't unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law. He needs to come back, work with us, work with the courts if he has to, and we will do what we need to do to protect the civil liberties of this country and the national security of this country."
When Lieberman tells a national television audience that the question is over "whether the American government can listen into conversations or follow e-mail trails of non-American citizens," he's either intentionally trying to deceive or he's embarrassingly confused about the issue at hand.
--Steve Benen
Thompson and Cuba
Following up on Josh's post from Friday night, Fred Thompson is not only failing to connect with GOP voters from the stump, he's also inadvertently alienating an important Republican constituency. At a campaign stop this week in South Carolina, for example, Thompson equated immigrants from Cuba with potential terrorists.
Noting that the United States had apprehended 1,000 people from Cuba in 2005, Thompson said, "I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb." Fidel Castro is Cuba's leader.
A video clip of Thompson's remark immediately circulated on YouTube and has drawn considerable attention in Florida, a key early primary state home to many Republican-leaning Cuban Americans.
As a Miami native, perhaps I'm slightly more attuned to the concerns of Cuban-Americans, but one need not be a Dolphins fan to know that Thompson's comments were surprisingly dumb. Immigrants from Cuba are fleeing Castro's dictatorship, not plotting to kill Americans. What's more, Cuban-Americans generally vote Republican and have always been considered a key GOP constituency by presidential candidates hoping to win Florida's 27 electoral votes.
You'd think Thompson would know all of this.
Just like you'd think Thompson would have a better sense of foreign policy towards Iran.
Nifty Campaign Idea of the Month award: June's winner is former senator and not-yet-candidate Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), who advocated a blockade against Iran before taking military action to stop its nuclear plans.
"A blockade would be a possibility if we get the international cooperation," Thompson said in a foreign policy speech in London, Bloomberg News reported. It was unclear whether this blockade -- which some, especially the Iranians, might consider an act of war -- would cover Iran's lengthy land borders with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan.
The phrase "not ready for primetime" keeps coming to mind.
--Steve Benen
Ouch.
I've just started reading Lynne Olson's new book Troublesome Young Men, which tells the story of the dissident Tory MPs who helped battled Stanley Baldwin's and then Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies and helped lay the ground for Winston Churchill's crisis rise to the premiership in the summer of 1940.
Today Olson has a piece in the Outlook section of the Post arguing that for all his self-comparisons, President Bush much more resembles Neville Chamberlain than Churchill. She's certainly on the mark in noting Chamberlain's mix of inexperience in foreign affairs and certainty that he, and only he, was the one who could manage the crisis of Hitlerism.
The Chamberlain analogy only goes so far. But she's quite good in noting the many ways that Bush is really nothing like Churchill.
--Josh Marshall
Coalition of the Leaving
Call in the Coalition of the Leaving.
Radar magazine recently ran a feature about the coalition of countries who offered support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, noting that there are still about 12,000 foreign troops on the ground in Iraq, even after most countries that were part of the original "Coalition of the Willing" have since withdrawn.
Radar described Australia's contribution to the war effort this way:
Australian troops were among the very first to invade Iraq, having been assigned with taking out Saddam's scud missiles a day before the initial U.S. bombing campaign began in March 2003. And while Australian Prime Minster John Howard has suffered politically for his outspoken support of the mission, he recently reaffirmed Australia's commitment to keeping troops there until the Iraqi government can defend itself.
Perhaps that reaffirmation was not as solid as the Bush administration would have liked.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard is secretly planning to begin withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq by February 2008, Australian media reported on Sunday.
The Sunday Telegraph, quoting an unnamed senior military source, described Howard's withdrawal plan as "one of the most closely guarded secrets in top levels of the bureaucracy."
The Sunday Telegraph said the drawdown of troops would focus on soldiers based in southern Iraq on security duty with Iraqi soldiers.
--Steve Benen
