Details, details
What the Washington Post noted about data that's encouraging suddenly-optimistic Republicans:
GOP Senate offices circulated the results of a Gallup poll released this week that showed 54 percent of those surveyed think Petraeus's plan for removing troops is the right pace, or even too quick. One-third of those surveyed viewed the withdrawal as moving too slowly.
What the same article neglected to mention:
As it happens, the very same poll that Murray allows these GOPers to cherry pick from has a bunch of other numbers in it, too. It finds that 59% want a timetable for withdrawal and that barely one-third think the surge is having a positive effect. Indeed, the pollsters themselves conclude that most of the public's opinions on Iraq "run contrary to the message delivered by Petraeus to Congress last week."
And then, of course, there are the other recent polls, which should be even less encouraging to the stay-the-course crowd.
But what I find really odd is that GOP lawmakers are circulating polls about Iraq at all. How many more surveys do Republicans really need to see before they realize that the country rejected the Bush policy quite a while ago? Their political expectations regarding U.S. public opinion appear to be about as realistic as their expectations for Iraq.
--Steve Benen
Picking a fight over kids' health
Apparently, the White House is a little concerned about the political fallout of Bush's opposition to a bipartisan expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). The president called a press conference this week, apparently for no other reason than to denounce Congress' work on making healthcare more accessible to millions of uninsured kids.
Today, Bush emphasized what he describes as a "philosophical" opposition to the bipartisan legislation -- the White House concedes this is about ideology, not results -- in his radio address, which ironically accused lawmakers of putting S-CHIP in jeopardy.
The claim-to-lie ratio was pretty close to 1:1. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities did some helpful fact-checking.
--Steve Benen
Must-see TV -- Fox News-style
Two weeks ago, after Gen. David Petraeus' highly-anticipated congressional testimony, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq offered one "news" outlet an exclusive: the Fox News Channel. Tonight, the network will apparently return the favor with an hour-long hagiography.
At 9 pm ET on Saturday, Fox News will air a one hour special about the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who recently argued in Congressional testimony that President Bush's "surge" in Iraq is working. The program, titled "American Commander: Gen. David Petraeus" and hosted by Jon Scott, will look at Petraeus' "life and times."
It's bound to be "fair and balanced," right?
--Steve Benen
Romney’s big plans
The religious right's support in the Republican presidential primaries is clearly up for grabs. Rudy Giuliani has the worst "family values" of any presidential candidate in recent memory .John McCain thinks the movement's leaders are "agents of intolerance." Fred Thompson was denounced by James Dobson earlier this week.
Mitt Romney has the disadvantage of being a Mormon, which the religious right disapproves of, but he may be the best suited of the GOP's top tier to win the movement's support.
And how does he plan to take advantage of the opportunity? By engaging in some of the most ridiculous pandering anyone has seen in years.
[H]e's going to move "In God We Trust" to the front of the new dollar coins instead of the side. [...]
[Romney added,] "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA."
I'm sure there have been more shameless campaign pitches by presidential candidates this year, but none come to mind.
--Steve Benen
Coming around on gay marriage
Andrew Sullivan linked today to a press conference from San Diego's Republican mayor, Jerry Sanders, who announced this week that he will now support gay marriage. The video clip is definitely worth watching.
Sanders' remarks were a pleasant surprise. In fact, he got elected after promising voters in 2005 that he would oppose same-sex marriage, and would use his veto power if the San Diego City Council took steps to go beyond civil unions.
With that in mind, when council members voted 5 to 3 recently on a resolution endorsing gay marriage, most expected the mayor to reject the measure. But then a funny thing happened -- Sanders decided he wanted his lesbian daughter to have the same marriage rights as everyone else.
A tearful Mayor Jerry Sanders made a dramatic shift yesterday, explaining that he can no longer oppose same-sex marriages because he does not want to deny justice to people like his daughter, who is a lesbian.
Joined at a late afternoon news conference by his wife, Rana Sampson, the San Diego mayor announced he will back a City Council decision to support same-sex marriage before the state Supreme Court, where California's ban on it awaits review.
"I decided to lead with my heart, which is probably obvious at the moment," said Sanders, moments before he revealed his daughter's sexual orientation.
I think there's a pattern here for conservatives and their social attitudes. They don't mind restrictions on free speech, until they have something provocative to say. They want to restrict reproductive rights, until someone close to them has an unwanted pregnancy. They want to break down the church-state wall, until they feel like their faith is in the minority. They want to treat embryos as people, until they suffer from an ailment that could benefit from stem-cell research.
And they balk at the idea of equal rights for gay people, until it's their daughter who is looking for equality.
The key to social change in this country seems fairly straightforward: wait for conservatives to have more life experience.
--Steve Benen
9/11, Giuliani, and gun control
Given his record, Rudy Giuliani's pitch to the National Rifle Association is a tough one. He's referred to the group's members as "extremists"; he's fought the group on the assault-weapons ban; and he filed a federal lawsuit as mayor against the nation's gun manufacturers for violent crimes involving firearms. Indeed, he's blasted the gun industry as one that "profits from the suffering of innocent people."
With that in mind, Giuliani spoke to a skeptical audience yesterday at the NRA's national convention. Would he Sister Souljah the nation's largest gun group? Of course not. Would he flip-flop his way into their good graces? Well, sort of.
Yesterday, Giuliani backed away from the lawsuit, saying he might not uphold it if he were a judge.
"That lawsuit has taken several turns and several twists that I don't agree with," he said, without going into specifics. "I also think that there are some major intervening events -- September 11, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment, doesn't change it fundamentally but perhaps highlights the necessity of it."
By any reasonable measure, this is a fairly silly thing to say. Giuliani couldn't even chalk it up to flubbing a question, since he was reading from a prepared text.* In other words, he meant to say that 9/11 helped change his mind on gun control.
Asked to explain the shift, a campaign spokesperson said Giuliani was "making a point that personal rights such as the 2nd Amendment are even more critical in a post-September 11th world."
It's hard to believe a serious presidential campaign could offer such a foolish rationale for obvious nonsense, and yet, here we are.
I'm generally not in the habit of offering advice to Republican presidential hopefuls, but I have an idea for the Giuliani campaign. As a way to save time at future appearances, perhaps one of his aides could give Giuliani a placard with the word "terrorism" on one side, and "9/11″ on the other. That way, whenever he's confronted with a challenge on any subject, he can simply point to the sign, instead of having to go to the trouble of coming up with an excuse to end up at the same point anyway.
* Update: An alert reader noted that Giuliani's answer was in response to a question from the audience, not the prepared text. My mistake.
--Steve Benen
Blackwater to face arms smuggling investigation
What could make this week worse for Blackwater? If shooting Iraqi civilians and facing deportation pressure from the Maliki government weren't quite enough, there's also the looming investigation into illicit arms smuggling.
Federal prosecutors are investigating allegations that employees of Blackwater -- the security firm accused of shooting dead up to 20 Iraqi civilians -- illegally smuggled weapons into Iraq, according to U.S. government sources. [...]
One U.S. government official said the U.S. attorney's office in Raleigh, North Carolina, is in the early stages of an investigation that so far focuses on individual Blackwater employees and not the company.
The AP report added that the alleged smuggled arms from Blackwater employees "may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization."
Blackwater's other problems, meanwhile, continue to worsen.
Iraq's Interior Ministry has expanded its investigation into incidents involving Blackwater USA security guards amid the furor following a shooting that claimed at least 11 lives, a ministry spokesman said Saturday.
Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said the Moyock, N.C.-based company has been implicated in six other incidents over the past seven months, including a Feb. 7 shooting outside Iraqi state television in Baghdad in which three building guards were fatally shot.
One wonders where all of this could go, or whether it's a moot point. After a few days of inactivity, Blackwater went back to work yesterday, and the "sovereign" Iraqi government grudgingly acknowledges that it can't kick Blackwater out of the country.
--Steve Benen
Oh, that Jena Six
By any reasonable measure, Fred Thompson, the actor-lobbyist-presidential candidate, is off to a rough start. Particularly on policy matters, Thompson has been confused and uninformed about everything from Social Security policy to drilling the Everglades for oil to the 2005 Schiavo controversy.
But this has to be my favorite.
NBC's "First Read' reports that when Thompson was asked Thursday about Louisiana's "Jena Six" protest of Old South racism on his way into a San Antonio fundraiser, he replied: "I don't know anything about it."
Bush fielded a question about it at his news conference the same day, saying the events in Louisiana had "saddened" him. Thompson's staff said he knew all about the issue but was unfamiliar with the expression "Jena Six."
Look, there are ways to try and spin a candidate's unfamiliarity with an issue, but this isn't one of them. If someone knows "all about" the racial injustices in Jena, La., then that person has to know about the "Jena Six." Those six young men are the point of the controversy.
It's a bit like saying you know "all about" the arrest of Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, and others during the 1968 Democratic National Convention on charges of conspiracy and inciting to riot, and then arguing you've never heard of the "Chicago Seven." It just doesn't make any sense.
--Steve Benen
'Nutpicking' hits the big time
For quite a while, conservatives have embraced an annoying strategy -- trawl through liberal comments sections in the hopes of finding intemperate remarks. The right then takes these comments to "prove" that the left is made up of unhinged radicals.
The practice has always been rather self-defeating. In fact, about a year ago, Kevin Drum came up with a sensible maxim: "If you're forced to rely on random blog commenters to make a point about the prevalence of some form or another of disagreeable behavior, you've pretty much made exactly the opposite point." Eventually, the practice was even given a name: "Nutpicking."
Unfortunately, the practice seems to have spread. Instead of far-right blogs trolling through liberal comment sections for fodder, now Republican candidates for public office are doing it.
A Republican state legislator from Fairfax County has launched an attack ad on cable TV against his Democratic opponent that features unidentified, unverified quotes from a blog.
The ad by Del. Timothy D. Hugo points to a new form of negative campaigning in which information for an attack ad is sourced to comments posted on the Internet instead of more authoritative sources such as news reports or public records.
Hugo's ad highlights critical comments about his Democratic opponent, Rex Simmons, that someone with the screen name "Pitin" posted on the Democratic blog Raising Kaine.
This is obviously absurd. The TV ad claims to alert the public to what "others are saying" about Simmons, and quotes criticism of the Democrat's campaign from Raising Kaine, before concluding, "We just can't trust Rex Simmons."
Actually, we just can't trust campaign commercials that rely on pseudonymous criticism from a blog's comment section. In this case, there's obviously nothing to stop the Hugo campaign from going to Raising Kane, leaving derogatory comments about Simmons, and then using their own planted denigrations in their own campaign commercials.
Nutpicking was irritating enough when it was confined to conservative blogs. Taking it onto the air is not a positive development.
--Steve Benen
O'Reilly amazed by civility in Harlem restaurant
At a minimum, I can't help but think Bill O'Reilly needs to get out more. He explained the other day, on the air, that he and Al Sharpton had dinner together in Harlem, and O'Reilly was amazed by what he found. Regrettably, he wasn't talking about the food.
"[W]e went to Sylvia's, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.
"And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship."
On the same program, O'Reilly was describing his experience to NPR's Juan Williams. "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea,'" O'Reilly said, adding, "You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."
It might not have been quite so offensive if O'Reilly didn't sound so surprised.
--Steve Benen
Keeping track of carry-on reading materials
I try not to get too worked up over the hassles of airport security. Officials are well-intentioned and trying to provide a crucial public service. Fine.
But when federal officials maintain travel records on Americans that keep track of everything from destinations, to travel companions, to reading materials, one can't help but wonder if some reasonable lines are being crossed.
The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials.
The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years, as part of the Department of Homeland Security's effort to assess the security threat posed by all travelers entering the country. Officials say the records, which are analyzed by the department's Automated Targeting System, help border officials distinguish potential terrorists from innocent people entering the country.
The Automated Targeting System isn't exactly new; it's been used to screen passengers since the mid-1990s. Apparently, though, officials are monitoring personal travel habits in a way that hadn't been acknowledged before.
--Steve Benen
Money Where Your Mouth Is
I don't know about you. But as the election season starts to heat up I become sort of a junkie for the several political futures markets that exist on the web. If you're not familiar with them, they are (depending on how they're described) either betting sites or 'futures markets' in which you put down real money based on what you believe is the most likely outcome of this or that political race or outcome. Who's going to be the Democratic nominee? Which party will win the presidency in November 2008? Will this or that fading candidate bail out before the end of the year.
The key is that people are putting real money on the line. So as long as there are enough participants in the markets, they should give a decent read of conventional and/or informed opinion on the likely outcomes of the races.
In practice, they tend to function a lot like real world markets -- pretty decent predictors of outcomes, broadly speaking, but with a real tendency toward group-think and exaggerations of conventional wisdom.
One thing my extremely unsystematic observation of the markets over the last few years is that they seem to skew slightly Republican. And I've wondered whether this may be an example of some skew in the participants in the market toward GOP-leaning speculative investors -- or as Grover Norquist would put it, the 'investor class'.
One of the best known of these sites is the Iowa Electronic Markets, which is run by the faculty at the University of Iowa Tippie College of Business, as a research and teaching tool to learn about the function of markets and stuff like that. Other sites, like Intrade or Tradesports.com, are basically betting sites. But it's basically the same difference.
So tonight, I took a look at the futures on the nominations. And here's the one for the Dems ...
(You can click on the graph to go through to a larger and more legible image of the graph on Iowa Markets site.)
As you can see the big story is the chasm that has opened up between Hillary and Obama starting a bit more than six weeks ago. Hillary was the favorite through most of the Spring and Summer. But then it became something like a blow-out -- 70/20. I must say I don't quite get that spread. Maybe it's just wishful thinking that I don't want the race to be over before it starts. But I think those numbers are a bit out of whack.
Your thoughts?
Then there's the Republican spread.
As you can see it's pretty all over the place. Which seems basically accurate. The one thing that catches my eye is that the increasingly ridiculous Fred Thompson has managed to sneak barely ahead of Mitt Romney.
And finally, who wins in November 2008? The Dems or the GOP candidate?
Again, no big surprises here. I'd say that's a reasonably accurate take on what the next cycle portends.
Thoughts?
--Josh Marshall
Your Money at Work
Earlier this year, we ran a brief contribution/subscription drive to raise funds to beef up our DC muckraking capacity. So for those of you who contributed here's one example of your dollars at work.
We've been having a national conversation over the last several weeks about Gen. Petraeus's report and whether his claims were an accurate picture of what's happening on the ground in Iraq. (In some ways, that's what the on-going Moveon/'Betray Us' ridiculousness is all about.) Particularly, are civilian deaths up or down? And just how was Gen. Petraeus's command counting since his numbers of civilian deaths seemed so different from those media organizations were coming up with.
Gen. Petraeus himself wouldn't really discuss his command's methodology when he testified before Congress last week. But TPMmuckraker's Spencer Ackerman kept digging, as you've likely seen in his on-going reports. Two weeks ago Spencer filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the DOD and Gen. Petraeus's command in Baghdad. And today he got the information we were looking for.
Here's Spencer's report and here are the documents we received detailing how Petraeus came up with his numbers.
--Josh Marshall
Exclusive: Petraeus' Methodology for Counting Sectarian Deaths
In response to a FOIA request, Gen. Petraeus' command has released to our Spencer Ackerman its methodology for calculating sectarian deaths. Sectarian deaths were a metric that Petraeus highlighted during his congressional testimony but until now how sectarian deaths were defined and counted remained unknown. Spencer has the details.
--David Kurtz
How would John Edwards have voted on the resolution condemning the MoveOn ad were he still in the Senate? We have the answer.
--David Kurtz
Fired Seattle U.S. Attorney John McKay was given the Courageous Award by the Washington State Bar Association last night. (Thanks to TPM Reader DC for the link.)
--David Kurtz
Condi Rice promises a "review" of Blackwater following last weekend's incident, but the company is already back in business in Iraq.
--David Kurtz
M.J. Rosenberg: Why are Senate Dems afraid of a real filibuster but not afraid to condemn MoveOn?
--David Kurtz
Rudy: Jail Moveon Leaders
Okay, it's not quite that bad. But Rudy did say something today at the NRA hoedown that at least suggests that he thinks there should some sort of legal punishment for people who run ads like the Moveon "Betray Us" ad.
Rudy said the ad "passed a line that we should not allow American political organizations to pass."
What's that mean exactly?
Late Update: The Rudy camp won't say what he meant.--DK
--Josh Marshall
Rudy on Why He Flipflopped on gun control: 9/11 meant we needed more guns.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Pentagon: $6 billion worth of Iraq contracts are under criminal review.
--David Kurtz
Down on Coconut Road
As you've probably read here over the last few weeks, TPMmuckraker's Laura McGann has been tracking a strange earmark for a highway interchange project in Florida. And now she needs some help.
To get you up to speed, the Coconut Road project was funded (though not yet built) by a $10 million earmark from Rep. Don Young (R-AK). Now there are questions about why an Alaska congressman would take an interest in a highway project in faraway Florida and about the timing of campaign contributions to Young from the project's chief proponent. But the strangest thing about this earmark is how it made it into law in the first place.
The earmark was not in the final version of the bill that passed both the House and Senate. Got that? Somewhere after conference and after final passage by both chambers but before the President signed the bill, the earmark language was slipped into the text of the bill. It's pretty amazing and, from the experts we've talked to, pretty much unheard of for such a thing to happen.
So Laura set out to try to figure out how such a thing could happen. Literally, how it could happen. Where in the process could such tinkering occur? Which office? Which personnel? Which computer system? We wanted to understand the nuts and bolts of how Young or someone on Young's behalf or at his behest could make such a change and essentially have written into a law signed by the President language that Congress itself had not passed.
But as Laura went about her reporting she was stonewalled at every step: calls not returned, bounced from office to office and person to person. She has chronicled her efforts in this post.
Part of the trouble is that the earmark was slipped in back in 2005, when the GOP still controlled the House. The House clerk at the time is now long gone and there is probably some legitimate loss of institutional memory. But some of the memory loss may just be convenient.
Laura is going to keep plugging away at this. Maybe the House clerk will eventually return her calls. But if any of our readers on the Hill or elsewhere are familiar with the inner workings of the House and how such an earmark could be slipped in before the President puts his pen to the paper, Laura would love to hear from you.
--David Kurtz
Amen
From a reader ...
Last night, news broke that the FBI had been taping phone calls placed to the senior Republican in the United States Senate as part of a bribery investigation stretching back more than a year. In fact, the man alleged to have bribed the senator is cooperating with investigators, and the calls recorded included some he placed at the FBI's behest.The Washington Post, always eager to cover political stories of national import, ran the news on page A10. Most papers gave it similar prominence, if they ran the item it at all.
Contrast that to the (admittedly luried) tale of Norman Hsu, fronted by papers around the nation. That was a case of a major donor to Democratic figures who turned out (unbeknownst to the politicians to whom he donated) to be a crook and a fraud. That's big news. But when a businessman who is a major donor to Republican politicians turns out to be a crook and a fraud, and some of the nation's senior legislators are revealed to have knowingly accepted his bribes and funneled him earmarks in return, it's hardly worth mentioning.
Where's the outrage?
--Josh Marshall
More on the Ahmadinejad Flap
It turns out that the Ahmadinejad quote, that he was "amazed" that his visit to Ground Zero would be insulting, was actually a misquotation. CBS has now published this correction ...
An earlier version of this story stated that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "amazed" that most Americans view his visiting ground zero as insulting. Ahmadinejad's quote was in fact in reference to the reporter's point of view as a member of the media. CBS News regrets the error.
Not of any great importance in the context of the whole brouhaha. But interesting nonetheless.
But I'd like to return to my earlier post on Ahmadinejad's attempt to visit Ground Zero and some of the responses to it. The most common argument advanced as to why we shouldn't allow Ahmadinejad at Ground Zero was, 'How could we allow him such a huge propaganda victory?' Either vis a vis his own people or on the world stage.
Many readers put this argument forward in good faith. So I don't want to disrespect that. But when did we become such moral weaklings? And how brittle do we think our national reputation is that it's going to be damaged by Ahmadinejad going down to Ground Zero and at worst spouting off about whatever he wants to spout off about. To put it succinctly, who cares? Why should we care what he says? If there are any propaganda victories to be had I think the spectacle of our national overreaction has provided him with quite a nice one. But again, who cares? Am I alone in thinking that our national greatness and stature is best displayed by our indifference to these things? Especially when free speech and letting even the obnoxious have their say are supposedly central to who we are? But again, indifference. Who cares what he says?
--Josh Marshall
FBI Stings Stevens
Breaking: Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) taped by FBI in sting, CNN says, citing AP.
More shortly . . .
Here's the clip from CNN:
And from the AP:
The FBI, working with an Alaska oil contractor, secretly taped telephone calls with Sen. Ted Stevens as part of a public corruption sting, according to people close to the investigation. . . .The recorded calls between Stevens and businessman Bill Allen were confirmed by two people close to the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way. They declined to say how many calls were recorded or what was said.
To be clear, the oil contractor referred to above is Veco, which has been at the center of the wide-ranging Alaska public corruption investigation. Allen has pleaded guilty to corruption charges and last week testified in trial in a related case that Veco had given unreported gifts to Stevens in the form of renovations on Stevens' home.
--David Kurtz
Readers Respond
More than a few readers strenuously disagree with my assessment that making Senate Republicans actually go through with filibusters would be a pointless exercise for Democrats, in part because they lack 67 votes to override a veto.
TPM Reader JE:
I have to disagree here. It may be a pointless exercise in terms of passing legislation, but it is anything but pointless in terms of the making clear to the voters where the problem lies. . . .For that very reason, the Democrats should make them filibuster, and use the term "filibuster" whenever they describe what the Republicans have done, not idiotic characterizations like "we don't have the votes." The only way to counteract Republican falsely blaming the Democrats for being "do-nothing" is to make it abundantly clear that Republicans are being obstructionist. *Make* them filibuster. Make it a true filibuster, which stops all other business until a cloture vote occurs. If anyone complains, or if anyone in the media doesn't get it, tell them that all you want is an up-or-down vote, but a minority of Republicans is preventing the business of the country from getting done, not to keep the bill from passing, but just so their president doesn't have to *bother* to veto it.
That's a heck of a lot less pointless than going through the motions of introducing bills you know won't pass because you "don't have the votes."
TPM Reader JC:
Hardly! The whole point is forcing Republican to defend their opposition to popular bills by obstructing the work of Congress with a filibuster. By meekly stepping aside after a failed cloture vote, Democrats basically allow the Republicans to make Democrats look like they are ineffective, and it's working. And when the Republicans tire of their filibuster or fail to follow through, it then forces the president to veto a popular bill, thus making things worse for him. The point is that it isn't the Democrat's pointless exercise. All they have to do is step back and let the Republicans hang themselves with filibusters and vetoes. Whose skin are they saving here?
TPM Reader AC:
Politics is the art of the possible. And when nothing concrete is possible, that leaves theater. I am baffled at Democrats' continual willingness to concede the stage. Veto or no veto, making the GOP filibuster a bill like Webb's is not pointless. It puts vulnerable GOP moderates on the hot seat, it puts the blame for obstruction on the minority where it belongs, and it may force a series of unpopular high-profile vetoes from Bush.
TPM Reader RT:
One reason why filibusters are popular is because they protect the President. Yes, the result may be the same as a veto and there may be no difference practically between the 60 and 67 vote threshold - but there is a huge image difference. The headline on a filibuster is "Senate Fails to Pass XYZ." The headline on a veto is "Bush Kills Stem Cell Research" or "Bush Rejects End to War." Republicans filibuster to prevent Bush from having these headlines. Keep it muddled and it all looks like a mess. A veto would provide clarity. Republicans don't want clarity on these issues.
TPM Reader NB:
[Q]uite frankly, I gotta call B.S. on the statement that the forced filibuster is a futile exercise. Yeah, the law would get vetoed, but a LOT of hay could be made by forcing the F-word and then HAMMERING the point that the GOP will go this far to NOT support troops. Done half-assed, this tactic could backfire in a big way, but if you think about all of the ABSOLUTE LIES that have become conventional wisdom through sheer repetition over the last few years, a forced filibuster along with a blitzkrieg PR campaign could actually force the 67. Especially with public sentiment the way it is, and a CRAPLOAD of presidential candidates.
--David Kurtz
Grow Up
Am I the only one embarrassed by the dingbat brouhaha over Iranian President Ahmadinejad's attempt to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath? Given relations between our countries I could see denying him a visa, but as long as we're hosting the UN that's not an option. Ahmadinejad now says he's "amazed" that such a visit would be insulting to Americans. Sen. McCain said that Ahmadinejad should be "physically restrained if necessary" from visiting the site. The National Review's Kathryn Lopez got worked up in such a lather that she begged Rudy Giuliani to "lead a human blockade keeping Ahmadinejad from getting to Ground Zero" -- thus demonstrating once and for all Rudy's true calling as the surrogate id of right-wing nerds everywhere.
So what's the problem exactly? Presumably we can be frank enough to acknowledge that the real issue here is that while Ahmadinejad is not Arab to most of us he looks pretty Arab. And he is Muslim certainly -- and pretty up in arms about it at that. And we officially don't like him. And we classify the country he runs as a state sponsor of terrorism. So even though he has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, when you put all these key facts together, he might as well have done it himself. And what business does anyone with the blood of the victims of 9/11 on his hands have going to Ground Zero?
That's basically it and don't tell me it's not.
Alternatively I guess it's that he's a very mean guy, said bad things about Israel or questioned the Holocaust? Is this man any worse than the various Soviet dignitaries who we feted and hosted around our country? Or is it simply that we've grown increasingly infantile as a country since the end of the Cold War, more and more obsessed and histrionic about minor powers like Iran and Iraq?
A president with some dignity and sense of the greatness of his country would say, good he should go there. Maybe he'll learn something about us and our loss.
If we as a country were a person, I'd say grow up. Act like a man
* Yes, outdated language. But I know no non-gendered language that conveys the same meaning.
--Josh Marshall
Could the noose finally be tightening on Boss DeLay? Not looking good for the Bug Man.
--Josh Marshall
Grover Norquist at TPM
Well, look who just walked in the door at TPMCafe. At Greg Anrig's invitation, Grover Norquist (yes, THAT Grover Norquist) is joining the discussion on Greg's new book, The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing.
--David Kurtz
Boehner Defends Self
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) went on Fox yesterday to explain his comment that we were paying a "small price" in Iraq. Go watch.*
*Ed. Note: You'll notice that for this segment Fox grabbed TPM video which was grabbed from CNN, meaning the TPM logo is right there running on Fox News. Weird.
--David Kurtz
Congress-Lovin' Republicans
Since President Bush's poll numbers have been in the toilet for something like forever at this point, Republicans (and various pundit sycophants) have desperately clung to Congress's extremely low levels of approval. In many polls, Congress's numbers are actually lower than the president's.
But Eric Kleefeld's got a great catch here: According to the latest Gallup poll, more Republicans approve of Congress's performance than Democrats. Actually, by a pretty substantial amount. So while it's not at all good news for elected Democrats, it's pretty clearly even worse news for Republicans, since the real energy behind Congress's unpopularity seems to stem from Democrats who don't believe the Congress is being aggressive enough in standing up to President Bush.
--Josh Marshall
When to Hold 'em, When to Fold 'em
Sure, a year is an eternity in politics. But a lot of the playing field for the 2008 congressional election is being defined today. In today's episode of TPMtv we look at the rash of Republican congressional retirements and how it's stacking the deck for 2008 ...
--Josh Marshall
Beyond the Filibusters Looms a Veto
I think TPM Reader MW has a pretty good read on the lay of the political landscape:
Something that strikes me about the Republican use of filibusters is that they have no effect on actual outcome. That is, everything that the Republicans have filibustered would have been vetoed by Bush anyway. So, filibuster or not, the end result is the same. This is in striking contrast to the Democrat's use in the last term, where the filibuster was the only thing standing between a law or an appointment going through.So, why do they do it? I think they are engaging in obstructionism because most people don't pay much attention to legislative details. All they know is that Democrats have not passed a bill. A veto, on the other hand, makes more news and sets up the Democrats as being in opposition to Bush. Republicans are well aware that people dislike congress because congress has not done enough to oppose Bush. So, I think their use of the filibuster is intended to portray Democrats as being ineffective.
This explains Warner's vote on troop dwell time. Whether he voted for it or not, it wasn't going to be enacted. So, being a Republican not up for reelection (and I think most Democrats would do the same) he chose to stick it to the opposing party rather than cast a vote that has no effect in the end.
In any case Republican claims that "Democrats did it last term" are
laughable, since Bush was then and still is president.
Lots of readers have written in to urge that Democrats actually force the Republicans to filibuster, not merely cave at the threat. The prospect of a presidential veto is, in part, what makes that a pointless exercise for the Democrats. So for all the frustration about not being able to achieve a 60 vote majority, remember that 67 votes is the real bar to overcome.
--David Kurtz
Correct me if I'm wrong here. But by my calculation, more U.S. senators (72) voted today to condemn a newspaper ad attacking Gen. Petraeus than voted yesterday (56) to lengthen the time off troops get from the frontlines in Iraq, thereby reducing individual soldiers exposure to actual attacks. Am I missing something, or is that about right?
--David Kurtz
The Republic is Saved
The Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the MoveOn ad that appeared in the NYT last week. Final tally was 72-25. Hillary Clinton was among those voting against the resolution.
--David Kurtz
Boxer Resolution Fails to Get 60 Votes
The Senate is playing who can be nicest to military figures today. Sen. Barbara Boxer's resolution condemning political attacks on all current and former military figures (Grant? MacArthur?) got 51 mostly Democratic votes, less than the 60 needed to overcome the GOP's procedural roadblock. That was just a sideshow to the real sideshow, a vote on the GOP resolution condemning the MoveOn Petraeus ad, which is coming shortly.
--David Kurtz
That Was Fast
Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu to be indicted in Southern District of New York today, according to reports, on fraud and campaign finance charges.
I'll be interested in looking at the indictment to see if it can be determined when the feds' investigation started. The Wall Street Journal article that first reported on Hsu's suspicious campaign finance activity ran at the end of August. That is what appears to have sparked the investigation. If so, I don't recall the last time I saw a white collar criminal case go from launch of investigation to indictments in less than a month. Perhaps some of our federal criminal lawyer-readers can enlighten us.
Late Update: The AP is now reporting that prosecutors will unseal a criminal complaint, not an indictment.
--David Kurtz
Senate Takes Up MoveOn Resolution
After blocking measures on habeas corpus and Iraq yesterday, Senate Republicans will seek to condemn MoveOn's Petraeus ad today. Sen. Barbara Boxer has proposed an alternative resolution that includes condemnations on other political attack ads, too, including on John Kerry in 2004 and Max Cleland in 2002.
Late Update: No word on whether there is a statue of limitations on congressional condemnation of attack ads.
Later Update: Reid and Levin to vote against GOP resolution and support Boxer alternative.
--David Kurtz
Daniel Into the Lions' Den
While Rudy Giuliani speaks to the NRA convention tomorrow, a federal appeals court will be hearing arguments in a lawsuit Giuliani filed against gun manufacturers when he was still NYC mayor.
--David Kurtz
TPM is looking for two full-time interns to work out of the office here in NYC and help us stay on top of breaking news, manage our growing multimedia system, and do the research that is vital to our muck-tastic reporting.
What the job lacks in financial reward it more than makes up for with first hand experience in a new media newsroom. Former TPM interns include TPM staff, a handful of professional bloggers, and even a few writers at mainstream national newspapers.
If you're interested in joining us, email talk at talkingpointsmemo dot com with the subject "TPM internship." Send us a resume, a few references, and a letter explaining why you want to be a TPM intern. Because this is a non-seasonal call for interns, applications will be processed on a rolling basis. So first come, first interviewed.
We hope to hear from you.
--Andrew Golis
Priorities
On the new CBO study out now counting the costs of President Bush's 'Korea model', keep this comparison in mind. This report and a previous report covering projections for 2009-2017 estimate that by 2057 we will spend $2 trillion on Iraq in addition to what we've already spent, which is over $500 billion.
But let's set aside the half trillion we've already blown and focus on the two trillion more over the next 50 years. And let's compare that to the Social Security budget shortfall over the next 75 years. And remember, the Iraq numbers are quite low compared to what we're currently spending. And the Social Security numbers are based on conservative estimates of future growth. So the Iraq numbers would likely be higher and the Social Security number lower.
But Iraq over the next 50 years: $2 trillion.
Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years: $4.7 trillion.
--Josh Marshall
CBO: Iraq Will Cost U.S. Trillions
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq in the trillions of dollars in a new report released this morning. The study appears to make some pretty conservative assumptions in calculating cost estimates.
--David Kurtz
Sen. Hillary Clinton: "You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges." (via The Politico).
--David Kurtz
Filibuster: The Pachyderms' Club
Senate Republicans killed three major measures via filibuster threats today: habeas corpus for enemy combatants, a House member for DC, and the Webb Amendment on troop rotations. It is part of an unprecedented use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans in the 110th Congress. I don't use "unprecedented" lightly. McClatchy ran the numbers, as we noted back in July (thanks to Kevin Drum for the reminder). At that time, Republicans were on pace this term to nearly triple the previous record high for the use the filibuster in the modern era. It's worth taking a look.
--David Kurtz
Martinez: Resting the Troops is Demeaning
Following the vote on the Webb Amendment, Sen. John McCain took to the floor and praised the high level of debate in the Senate over the measure. Perhaps he missed the speech by RNC Chairman and Florida Sen. Mel Martinez: "I think we would demean their service if we were to say to them that there had to be a parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home."
--David Kurtz
Webb Amendment Filibustered
The Senate could only muster 56 votes to cut off debate on the Webb Amendment, the second time Senate Republicans have successfully filibustered the amendment to ease troop rotation schedules.
Late Update: GOP alternative also fails to muster enough votes to overcome filibuster threat.
--David Kurtz
No More 'Please' Resolutions!!!
It has to be a sign of the progressive gelding of the United States Senate that we have more and more of these 'please' resolutions going to a vote -- or as they're rather grandiosely styled, sense of the senate resolutions.
The point of a sense of the senate resolution is to put the senate on record with a position that is in its nature not capable of being made a law. But with this bogus GOP version of the Webb Amendment -- McCain-Graham, or the Warner Amendment, or whatever -- you have what is for all intents and purposes a law (legislatively, an amendment), only it starts not with the language of mandate -- of law making -- but with a 'please'. A respectful request of the president.
But that's not what they're in Washington to do. If they're not ready to make a law they should just shut up. It's pathetic. Stick to the home renovations and sweetheart house deals.
--Josh Marshall
McCain Roils the Waters
We have a copy posted of the GOP alternative to Sen. Jim Webb's troop readiness amendment. It is being billed as the "McCain-Graham" amendment. This comes after Sen. McCain announced on the Senate floor that Sen. John Warner would be sponsoring the resolution. We're told that McCain later retracted that remark, but not before Webb reacted strongly to the purported Warner move.
Confused? So are we. Whatever the case, Warner now says he won't support the Webb Amendment, although he had supported it when it first came to a vote over the summer.
The votes on both amendments are scheduled to take place momentarily.
--David Kurtz
He's Pissed
Dan Rather files $70 million lawsuit against CBS, Viacom et al.
Good for him.
--Josh Marshall
What Exactly Happened Today on the Webb Amendment?
We've been bringing you reports through the day on the battle in the Senate over the amendment on troop readiness offered by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA).
The big news was that Sen. John Warner (R-VA) was going to offer a non-binding resolution to undercut the Webb Amendment. That was announced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the Senate floor and prompted a swift reaction from Webb, who had been negotiating with Warner but was apparently not told by Warner of his plan.
But now we're hearing that there may be more to this story. It's not clear whether McCain misspoke in saying Warner was the sponsor of the resolution, or whether Warner is now distancing himself from the resolution.
We're looking into it and will have more shortly.
Late Update: What doesn't appear to be in dispute is that Warner has announced he will not vote for the Webb Amendment, after originally supporting it. That is probably the most important takeaway from today's events, not whether Warner stabbed Webb in the back in the process of withdrawing his support for Webb's proposal.
Later Update: Our Greg Sargent is being told that the vote on the Webb Amendment and the GOP non-binding resolution is scheduled to occur in about an hour, at 5:15 ET.
--David Kurtz
Warlord-in-Chief
As you can see, we're all over today's developments in the Webb-Warner imbroglio. But I want to zero in on Sen. McCain's (R-AZ) claim that Webb's amendment is not just wrong-headed but plainly unconstitutional. People talk a lot of crap and a lot of trash up on Capitol Hill. But this seems worth addressing. The idea that the United States Congress cannot make laws governing the organization, regulation and laws governing the US military is as plainly ridiculous as it is shocking.
The organization of the branches, the order of ranks and the chain of command, the Uniform Code of Military Justice all come from laws passed by Congress. What McCain must be claiming is that these regulations about lengths of troop deployments amount to de facto limitations on his operational control of the Army. But all sorts of those regs and laws I just mentioned do that in one sense of another. And of course cutting off funds would do the same thing (something the GOP talking points claim would be an appropriate, if ill-advised, assertion of congressional power).
As I said, people spout off about a lot of crap on Capitol Hill. But McCain's claim is part of a increasingly common Republican claim that the president is a virtual dictator on all questions regarding the American military.
--Josh Marshall
Just Don't Take a Bribe in a Men's Room
Sen. Craig's (R-ID) swirling down the bowl. But even though a high-profile prosecution witness has testified under oath that he bribed Sen. Stevens (R-AK), no one seems to care.
We bring you up to speed in today's episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall