The most well-connected 'outsiders' in the country
The headline on the AP report on Freedom's Watch reads, "Outsiders aim to frame political debate." If there's a less accurate description of the powerful conservative activists behind this new group, I can't think of it.
Freedom's Watch and MoveOn.org could be the left and right bookends not only on the war, but on a number of issues that will decide the 2008 elections and shape congressional debate beyond. Freedom's Watch organizers said they are considering whether to create a political subgroup, like MoveOn has, that could directly play a role in elections.
"Bookends"? Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, noted, "The main difference is that MoveOn is a group of 3.3 million. Freedom's Watch is a few mega millionaires."
What's more, they're incredibly well-connected mega millionaires. The AP's headline notwithstanding, Freedom's Watch includes some key establishment heavy-hitters. Bradley A. Blakeman, president and chief executive officer of Freedom's Watch, was a member the White House senior staff in Bush's first term. Mary Matalin, Dick Cheney's counselor until 2003, is helping set the group's agenda. Freedom's Watch's chief spokesperson is Ari Fleischer, Bush's first White House press secretary. The board and principal financiers include Bush administration ambassadors and party insiders.
Freedom's Watch can call this a "grassroots" effort, and the AP can call the group "outsiders," but that doesn't make it so. As Digby put it, "Only in the Village could someone characterize that group as being 'outsiders.' You just have to laugh."
--Steve Benen
Huckabee compares Bush, Musharraf
There are plenty of Republican presidential candidates anxious to carry on Bush's foreign-policy legacy -- Rudy Giuliani's vision comes to mind -- but former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is taking a different approach. He's comparing the president to Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, and not in a good way.
Eric Kleefeld has the details.
--Steve Benen
Newsweek poll in Iowa shows close Democratic race
When it comes to the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, national polls show Hillary Clinton with a significant lead. In New Hampshire, the latest CNN/WMUR poll showed Clinton way out in front with 43% support, followed by Barack Obama with 20%, and John Edwards with 12%. (It's worth noting that 55% of poll respondents are still "trying to decide" which presidential candidate to support.)
But what about Iowa, which has consistently been the closest contest? A just-released Newsweek poll is bound to get some attention.
Among all Iowa Democratic voters, Clinton draws 31 percent, followed by Obama (25 percent) and Edwards (21 percent). But among likely caucus-goers, Obama enjoys a slim lead, polling 28 percent to best Clinton (24 percent) and Edwards (22 percent). Bill Richardson is the only other Democratic candidate to score in the double digits (10 percent).
Stay tuned.
--Steve Benen
Fox News analyst slams U.S. generals
In light of the controversies surrounding the MoveOn.org "Betray Us" ad and Rush Limbaugh slamming U.S. troops who support withdrawal as "phony soldiers," you'd think Fox News wouldn't publish a piece called, "Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead."
And yet, as Glenn Greenwald noted, that's the headline on the latest piece from Col. David Hunt, who wrote, "Our generals are betraying our soldiers ... again"
Hunt's argument is that the "politically correct" U.S. military shouldn't punish troops for using tactics such as "baiting" -- leaving munitions in a public area, and then shooting those who try to pick it up. Because top officials are cracking down on these tactics, Hunt is condemning U.S. generals, accusing them of "betraying" the troops.
Indeed, the rest of the Fox News piece continues in the same aggressive vein. Hunt argues that our generals "have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them," and deserve to put "on trial" for their decisions.
Given the current climate, I don't imagine the Fox News contributor could have chosen more provocative language. As Glenn argued:
To accuse a general of "betrayal" is, in military parlance, the equivalent of accusing him of treason to his country. Yet that is what this Fox News article does in the very first paragraph with regard to many of our brave Generals risking their lives for our country in a Time of War -- and it not only accuses Our Military Commanders of "betrayal," but betrayal of their own troops.
I shudder to think what the reaction would have been from our friends on the right if this ran in an outlet other than Fox News.
--Steve Benen
No laughing matter
The scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's marriage has been excessive. The scrutiny of her hairstyle has been absurd. The scrutiny of her cleavage has been offensive. The scrutiny of her clothing has been almost comical.
And so I suppose it was only a matter of time before the media turned its attention to her laugh.
Last Sunday, meanwhile, she appeared on all five of the major morning talk shows. I don't know what she had for breakfast, but her laughter was heavily caffeinated at times. Chris Wallace, of Fox News, first pressed Mrs. Clinton about why she was so "hyper-partisan," and that drew a huge cackle. (Coming from Fox, that question is pretty funny, her aides said.) But at another point Mr. Wallace switched gears and said, "let me ask you about health care," and she responded, "Yeah, I'd love you to ask me about health care" -- and then let it rip, again, a bit quizzically.
The weirdest moment was with Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" when he said to Mrs. Clinton, "you rolled out your new health care plan, something Republicans immediately said is going to lead to socialized medicine." She giggled, giggled some more, and then couldn't seem to stop giggling -- "Sorry, Bob," she said -- and finally unleashed the full Cackle.
Yes, four months before Iowans register a presidential preference, the New York Times is not only giving Hillary Clinton's laugh a specific label, the paper is also capitalizing it.
Slate's John Dickerson also devoted a whole piece to the question: "What's with Hillary's laugh?"
Matt Drudge posted a sound clip of it, and Sean Hannity raised the pressing question of whether Clinton's laughter was presidential.... Liberals, always on the lookout for signs of artifice from Clinton, are concerned that the laugh is staged to make the candidate appear more lighthearted and approachable. If so, it's certainly not working. The laugh sounds forced -- tacked on to warm Hillary's persona.
If bwah-ha-ha is a strategy, an aide should stop it now, before someone gets hurt…. Clinton also needs to ditch the laugh because it has become her tell.
It's going to be a long campaign, isn't it?
--Steve Benen
AP exonerates Limbaugh?
It's one thing for the Weekly Standard and Rush Limbaugh to spin the "phony soldiers" flap; it's another for the AP to uncritically accept the spin -- and take it even futher.
Greg Sargent explains at the Horse's Mouth.
--Steve Benen
Gingrich bows out
On Thursday, Newt Gingrich told supporters that if "they pledge at least $30 million to his campaign over a three-week period starting Monday and ending Oct. 21, he will compete for the nomination."
Today, the effort is over before it begins.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.
"Newt is not running," spokesman Rick Tyler said. "It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president."
Gingrich decided "to continue on raising the challenges America faces and finding solutions to those challenges" as the group's chairman, Tyler said, "rather than pursuing the presidency."
Gingrich must not have had too much confidence in his chances; he's ending a likely presidential campaign to stay on as chairman of a non-profit that no one's ever heard of. (Running "American Solutions" is, apparently, a lucrative gig.)
As for the GOP presidential field, Republicans hoping for a credible, compelling presidential candidate, who can swoop in and save the party from electoral ruin are just about out of time. Fred Thompson was supposed to be that guy, but he's proven to be a surprisingly awful candidate -- prompting the party faithful to give Gingrich a look.
So much for that idea.
--Steve Benen
Larry Craig to stick around
It's Sept. 29; do you know where your Larry Craig resignation is?
Based on a self-imposed deadline announced a month ago, the Idaho Republican, who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after making advances towards an undercover police officer in a Minneapolis airport men's room, was supposed to step down from the Senate tomorrow. That's clearly not going to happen.
As of Wednesday, Craig said he would await a judge's ruling on his request to withdraw his guilty plea, before making a final decision on whether to resign. That could take a couple of weeks, and perhaps longer depending on appeals and any possible new charges prosecutors may file.
But in a "Hardball" interview the other day, Craig lawyer Stanley Brand suggested the senator may disregard the outcome of his case in Minnesota, and may very well stick around regardless.
MATTHEWS: Stan Brand, is your sense that the senator may well be able to hang on until the end of his term?
BRAND: I -- think that's conceivable, especially if he gets some type of relief in Minnesota. But I don't think it depends on that.
For those keeping score at home, as of a couple of weeks ago, a favorable ruling in Minnesota was the only thing that would keep Craig from resigning. Now, the senator may decide that a misdemeanor charge on his record isn't the end of the world.
Craig seems to be nearing the point in which he tells his colleagues, "If you want me to go, you're going to have to expel me."
--Steve Benen
McCain: Constitution establishes a ‘Christian nation’
I've always thought the constitutional language was straightforward: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Constitution is entirely secular -- there's no mention of God, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or the Judeo-Christian tradition.
With this in mind, one wonders what Constitution Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been reading.
A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?
I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, "I only welcome Christians." We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.
John McCain has been in Congress for several decades, and he's sworn to uphold the Constitution on more than a few occasions. One would like to think he's read it enough times to know this is nonsense.
Indeed, what BeliefNet did not mention in the question is that the poll was conducted by the First Amendment Center, which released the results on Constitution Day. The accompanying report noted that far too many Americans are confused about the Constitution.
Apparently, it's not just the electorate that's mistaken.
--Steve Benen
9/11 Tourette's strikes again
Much of the political world arched an eyebrow last week when Rudy Giuliani interrupted a speech to the NRA to chat with his wife, a shtick he has pulled a couple of times on the campaign trail.
In an interview posted yesterday, Giuliani told TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network exactly why he answered his phone: 9/11.
For Rudy Giuliani, it's always about 9/11 -- even when it comes to his wife's ill-timed phone calls.
Elaborating for the first time on why he interrupted a speech to the National Rifle Association this month to take a cell-phone call from his wife, Judith, Giuliani explained that, since 9/11, he and the missus always chat before flying.
"Quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other," the Republican presidential hopeful told the Christian Broadcasting Network.
First, I know Giuliani has an acute case of "9/11 Tourette's," but this just isn't healthy.
Second, it's interesting that Giuliani makes this reaffirmation with his third wife before air travel "since Sept. 11," given that on Sept. 11, Giuliani was married to someone else.
And third, Giuliani is trying way too hard to convince people he's a good husband. We're talking about a thrice-married candidate who, among other things, married his cousin, was a serial adulterer, and marched with his mistress in a St. Patrick's Day parade. If Giuliani doesn't want to be the subject of ridicule, he probably should stop talking quite this much about his personal life.
--Steve Benen
MoveOn dot what?
There was an interesting tidbit buried in the latest poll (.pdf) from Fox News. Respondents were asked whether they have a "generally favorable or unfavorable opinion" about a variety of groups and institutions. The poll included MoveOn.org in the mix and found these results:
Favorable: 11%
Unfavorable: 22%
No opinion: 11%
Never heard of: 56%
In fact, the numbers were relatively steady among self-described Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, with a majority of each saying they had no idea what MoveOn is.
The poll was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, following more than two solid weeks of intense media scrutiny of the group, and condemnations from the House, Senate, White House, and Republican presidential candidates.
It looks like the aggressive conservative push-back hasn't amounted to much. Even now, most folks just don't know, or don't care, who the group is.
--Steve Benen
Limbaugh gets specific
It didn't take too long for Rush Limbaugh and his allies to come up with a defense for the "phony soldiers" flap. While the transcript makes it rather clear that Limbaugh was referring to troops who oppose the president's Iraq policy, Limbaugh, the Weekly Standard, and others, have argued that the far-right blowhard was being literal. In other words, when Limbaugh trashed "phony soldiers," he was referring to actual frauds -- those who claimed to serve but didn't.
I think an honest reading of the transcript shows otherwise, but that's the defense and the right is sticking to it.
Indeed, Limbaugh parroted the line on the air yesterday, telling his critics, "I never said what you think I said." As part of his explanation about being literal, and not metaphorical, Limbaugh cited Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) as one of the veterans who deserves the "phony" label. That would be the same Murtha who earned the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
Got that? "Phony soldiers" was a literal reference to those who've lied about serving, a list which Limbaugh believes should include decorated war hero Jack Murtha.
Note to Limbaugh: quit while you're behind. You're cutting off your supporters at the knees and making yourself look even worse.
--Steve Benen
McConnell Responds
Spy chief Mike McConnell's spokesperson has provided an extended written response to TPMmuckraker about its reporting on the sketchy episode where FISA allegedly delayed surveillance of Iraqi insurgents who kidnapped American soldiers. McConnell is not retracting his account--which our sources say is inaccurate--but he's not exactly standing by the account either. Make your own judgment.
--David Kurtz
Here We Go Again
TPM Election Central has learned that Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will introduce a resolution Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh's remarks about "phony soldiers."
Sigh.
--David Kurtz
"I don't have the time, the energy or the inclination to psychoanalyze the president's thought process."
--GOP Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, one of the 45 Republicans supporting the SCHIP expansion, on Bush's opposition to it.
--David Kurtz
The Nisour Square Incident
ABC News has obtained stills of the Sept. 16 Blackwater shootout.
--David Kurtz
Abramoff Investigation Reaches into DOJ
From Peter Stone at National Journal (sub. req'd):
The Justice Department has asked the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland to handle one aspect of the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling probe -- ex-Abramoff colleague Kevin Ring's lobbying of Justice officials.According to lawyers familiar with the case, U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein has recently sought documents and information relating to Ring's lobbying of members of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff. They include David Ayres, Ashcroft's former chief of staff, and Robert Coughlin II, who worked on Justice's legislative affairs team and later became deputy chief of staff in the Criminal Division (which oversees the Abramoff investigation). Coughlin, who recused himself from the probe of his friend Ring, resigned abruptly from Justice in early April, citing personal reasons. Later that month, Ring announced that he was leaving his law firm of Barnes & Thornburg.
--David Kurtz
Been Through This Movie Before
The US military command in Iraq says a key al Qaida operative was killed in Iraq today. "Abu Osama al-Tunisi was one of the most senior leaders ... the emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq and part of the inner leadership circle", says Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson.
Not surprisingly, as ThinkProgress reports, al-Tunisi also apparently died last year.
--Josh Marshall
The Hypothetical Candidate
Newt to launch pledge drive: if I were to run for President, how much would you contribute to my campaign?
--David Kurtz
San Francisco columnist Mark Morford takes us on the Great American Hypocrisy Tour, with stops at Ted Haggard's former church, Larry Craig's bathroom stall, and other noteworthy destinations. But not the Capital Yacht Club in DC?
--David Kurtz
Stop Her Now
Will "Stop Her Now" try to do to Hillary Clinton what Swift Boat Veterans For Truth did to John Kerry?
--David Kurtz
Having Their Cake and Eating It Too
GOPers up for re-election have come up with what they think may be a way to thread the Iraq needle: call now for a withdrawal of U.S. troops--but don't begin the withdrawal until after President Bush leaves office. Brilliant!
Those trying to weasel on the issue are Sens. George Voinovich (R-OH), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and Norm Coleman (R-MN), all of whom are up for re-election in 2008 except for Voinovich.
--David Kurtz
The Larry Craig Effect
Minneapolis airport restroom to get new stall dividers!
From the AP:
The Minneapolis airport has more than 80 restrooms, but only two are being targeted for the new dividers, including the one now known for Craig's arrest. . . .Both restrooms, in the busy Northstar Crossing shopping area, had a reputation on some Web sites as good places for bathroom liaisons. Hogan said airport officials had been checking the Web sites and found the activity had dropped off since Craig's arrest.
One person arrested over the summer told police he had four sexual encounters in three hours, and it was only on his fifth approach that someone objected, Hogan said.
The new stall dividers will fall to just 2 to 3 inches above the floor, instead of leaving as much as a foot of open space as they do now. The airport expects to spend $25,000; installing them in every restroom there would cost about $1 million, Hogan said.
Late Update: Or as TPM Reader PO puts it: Larry Craig: a uniter on the dividers.
--David Kurtz
A couple of interesting Gallup poll items today:
--Hillary Clinton leads the other Democratic candidates in every major Dem subcategory.
--Rudy Giuliani continues to lead all Republican candidates among conservative and religious voters despite his moderate views on gun-control, gay-rights and abortion.
--David Kurtz
Nope. Not us.
There's been a lot of discussion of this "first blush" State Department 'report' about the Blackwater incident in Baghdad that largely absolves Blackwater of culpability. But look at the details of the Post piece and you'll see that "first blush" -- the State Department's wording -- is something of an understatement. As the Post puts it, "the report, by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, details the events as described by Blackwater guards ..."
So this isn't a preliminary or initial report in any sense I'd recognize. It's a debrief taken the day of the incident from the guys who actually did the shooting.
I'm not sure how much it tells us that they largely absolve themselves of culpability.
--Josh Marshall
Eric Kleefeld recaps last night's GOP presidential debate, such as it was--the top tier candidates all ducked the forum at historically black Morgan State University.
--David Kurtz
You Read it Here First
Here's an important story. If you're a regular reader, you know that for the last week, Spencer Ackerman's been turning over important new ground in the latest FISA dispute. DNI Mike McConnell said that restrictive FISA regs led to a critical delay in obtaining a warrant to surveil Iraqi insurgents who'd kidnapped American soldiers. But Ackerman's sources disputed McConnell's account. And now the Associated Press has obtained documents that appear to confirm Spencer's reporting. The delay wasn't caused by FISA but because administration officials couldn't get their act together quickly enough. Check out Spencer's latest.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
The State Department's own initial investigation into the Nisour Square incident largely absolves Blackwater for the deaths of 11 Iraqi civilians.
--David Kurtz
Villains Go Broke
Seems the GOP effort to pre-steal a chunk of California's electoral votes is kaput. So says this LA Times blog. The outfit behind the scheme is "virtually dead with the resignation of key supporters, internal disputes and a lack of funds."
Rick Hertzberg had a very nice piece in The New Yorker a couple months back with a run-down of what was afoot.
--Josh Marshall
Doolittle Subpoenaed
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and five staffers subpoenaed in Abramoff corruption probe, AP reports.
Here's our collection of all things Doolittle.
The Sacramento Bee is reporting that this is a new round of subpoenas, in addition to the ones issued to some Doolittle staffers in recent weeks. The new subpoenas seek records going back 11 years:
Doolittle declined comment about the development. But his criminal defense attorney said in a prepared statement that the subpoenas "raise serious constitutional issues going to the very core" of the separation of powers between the Congress and the executive branch.In a release issued by Doolittle's office, it said that the Justice Department has assured the five staff members that they are merely witnesses. Left unanswered is the question of what Doolittle's status in the investigation is, and whether he has become a target in the on-going investigation related to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff that would mean an indictment is near.
The AP has more on the separation of powers angle being advanced by Doolittle's criminal defense attorney:
The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with legislative business. Barger said he and Doolittle would "be vigilant" to ensure Congress' independence is "vigorously protected." Any court challenge would go before a federal judge, but the documents would be sealed. . . ."The rest of the Congress would be well served to pay attention to the message the Executive Branch seems to be sending about whether the three branches are truly coequal," Barger said.
The raid on Rep. William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office in an unrelated corruption probe has breathed new life into what had been a rather moribund area of constitutional law: the Speech and Debate Clause.
--David Kurtz
Breaking the Army
It's remarkable what gets lost some days amid the mounting detritus of the Bush Administration. Yesterday the new Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey, the former top commander in Iraq, went before Congress and essentially declared the Army to be broken.
The Boston Globe had the best account:
In his first appearance as Army chief of staff, Casey told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."Officials said Casey, who appeared along with Army Secretary Pete Geren, personally requested the public hearing - a highly unusual move that military analysts said underscores his growing concern about the health of the Army, America's primary fighting force.
Casey, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wanted a public forum even though he has ample opportunity to speak to lawmakers in closed-door meetings.
There's a long history of military leaders going before Congress and making dire predictions of what will happen if their desired funding is not appropriated. But this is of a different order entirely. And note the initiator of this hearing: it was Gen. Casey himself. He wasn't dragged up to the Hill so the majority party could score some points. He requested a public hearing.
Now Casey was essentially removed from his position as commander in Iraq because he was insufficiently enthusiastic about the President's proposed surge. So perhaps some Republican yaker somewhere will claim Casey has an ax to grind. Except everyone knows the Army is broken. It's no secret. Factually, there is no real dispute about it.
It is simply a measure of our times that when the top officer in the Army goes before Congress so that he can publicly warn about the state of readiness of his branch that it's not the top news story of the day.
--David Kurtz
WH Responds to Leak of Secret Transcript
Spokesperson Dana Perino was asked about the transcript published this week by the Spanish newspaper El Pais. It purports to be from a meeting just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq between President Bush and the prime minister of Spain. In it, President Bush is clearly set on a path for war, although he denied so publicly at the time.
Perino was mostly non-responsive to the questions, but notably the White House did not dispute the authenticity of the transcript:
Here is the relevant portion of transcript from the briefing:
Q If I can change topics, there's a -- about the history of the Iraq war here. There's a transcript in the Spanish newspaper, El Pa s, that was said to be from a meeting between the President and the Spanish Prime Minister back in February 2003, in which, according to the tapes of this transcript of the conversations, Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion, and the President seemed to think that that was a realistic possibility at that time. Do you believe that this is an accurate transcript?MS. PERINO: Well, without commenting on the details or talking about a private conversation between two world leaders and whether or not that happened, if you think back to that time, there were a lot of rumors. There were a lot of people floating ideas around about what may or may not happen. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein decided to defy the international community. All diplomatic measures ran their course. And what we are focused on now is making sure that Iraq can be a government that can sustain and defend itself and make sure it's an ally in the war on terror for that region.
Q And one more thing on this. The President is quoted in this transcript saying, "No matter what happens, we'll be in Baghdad by the end of March." Three days after that meeting, Ari Fleischer was at a podium in this room, saying, "The President has not come to the conclusion that the inspections have reached a dead end." I'm wondering if you can --
MS. PERINO: I wasn't there for the private meeting that the President had with President Aznar. I don't know what Ari said. I do know where we are now, which is in a position of trying to make sure that the Iraqis have what they need in order to be a democratic force in the Middle East region.
--David Kurtz
National Security Writing 101
Set aside for a moment the propriety of the NSA organizing off-the-record seminars for reporters to discourage them from reporting NSA secrets. Which news outlets actually consented to their reporters attending these classes?
--David Kurtz
Trick Me Once . . .
The only thing more dismaying than the Bush Administration's continued fear-mongering is that it continues to work.
--David Kurtz
Stevens Speaks
Since his house was raided by the FBI, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), a titan of pork, has kept a low profile, but he's speaking out now in a spat with Alaska's GOP governor over her de-funding of the notorious Bridge to Nowhere.
--David Kurtz
The Few, the Brave, the Opponents for Health Insurance for Kids
Broder ...
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
The Post has more on the battle over SCHIP renewal here.
Broder gets the key dynamic right. And this is one reason there is an as-yet-unrevealed though in many ways profound antipathy for President Bush among many congressional Republicans. He's not running again. And he couldn't care less how much he damages his party over the next 18 months. Often political leaders face a choice -- stand for principle and possibly have a strong political issue at the next election or achieve some substantive accomplishment. Here the Dems appear to have every likelihood of achieving both. They'll probably get SCHIP and while also having the president inflict what may turn out to be a fatal political wound on a number of House Republicans. He'll bring them down in the noble cause of keeping lower and middle income kids from getting health care.
--Josh Marshall
As Long as We're Talking Contractors . . .
A friend of the site sent along a reminder of the exchange President Bush had with a student back in April 2006 while speaking at Johns Hopkins University:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to have you here. I'm a first-year student in South Asia studies. My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Help. (Laughter.)
Q I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter.) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against -- over our American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I wasn't kidding -- (laughter.) I was going to -- I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation -- I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kind of convenient in this case, but never -- (laughter.) I really will -- I'm going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That's how I work. I'm -- thanks. (Laughter.)
Late Update: Here's video of the exchange:
--David Kurtz
Commission on Contracting
On the contracting issue we've been discussing, here's one amendment I want to put on everyone's radar. Sens. Webb (D-VA) and McCaskill (D-MO) have introduced an amendment to create a bipartisan commission specifically to investigate the contracting processes in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The text of the amendment still appears to be in flux. But my understanding is that its brief would include both the policy dimensions of the issue and investigating wrongdoing. So far the two have only been able to get out-going Sen. Hagel (R-NE) on board on the GOP side of the aisle. Out-going Sen. Warner (R-VA) spoke against it yesterday on the floor, saying he would oppose it because it would pull jurisdiction away from the Armed Services Committee.
--Josh Marshall
Crowd Sourcing of Earmarks?
The Sunlight Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense have put together a new site with a database of over three-thousand earmarks with tools you can use to investigate their probity and usefulness yourself. Are they of use to the districts of the earmarker? Or are they favors for fundraisers? You can dig in, find out, and then share you findings with other users.
--Josh Marshall
Yet More on Contractors ...
Was Blackwater cost-cutting behind the 2004 ambush of those four US security contractors, the ones whose bodies were mutilated and put on public display? That's what a new report says.
It's an ugly story of cost-cutting and efforts to undercut a competitor, based on testimony from Blackwater employees and internal reports.
--Josh Marshall
Yet More on the Contracting Game
TPM Reader CH chimes in on military contracting ...
I just wanted to chime in again on the contractor issue because in my own military experience, I arrived at my duty station in late 1997 and even at that point my unit was losing senior enlisted who decided to get out and, as you stated, do what they were doing anyway but privately and for substantially more money. This continued over my five years of service, and one of the factors that led to my leaving military service was that I could look up the chain and see the proverbial rats fleeing the ship. These were individuals with 12-16 years of service too!! They could retire at 20 years, but decided to leave and go private. My colleagues and I would often debate the merits of privatization back at that time as well. I worked in military intelligence, and I think this was one of the first areas to go private. It never made sense to us that the U.S. Government would pay a contractor 10 times (or more) what we were making to do the EXACT same thing and with no guarantees that the results would be on par with ours or better. From my experience and that of my friends, we also came to know certain contracting operators WERE in fact incompetent. This stemmed from the fact that private companies jumping into the bidding process to get a piece of the pie had never before done the work that we were doing. If/when they would win the bids, they would just hire whomever and throw them at the mission. This, naturally, caused some trouble. Furthermore, there were issues of morale in places like JTF-Guantanamo when private contractors were treated far better than military members doing the same jobs. In some cases, people who were called up out of the IRR left Gitmo only to come back as private contractors too. I don't blame hard-working people for jumping the military's ship in favor of much better pay and treatment, but it would seem that an argument could be easily made to show that an increase in the military's size and ability to carry out the operations needed WITHOUT private contractors would be beneficial to everyone. Well, everyone except for those making the money...which, in my and most of my colleagues' opinion is 100% mercenary work. I still don't blame those who choose to do it because they're just taking advantage of where things are now, but we should call it what it is and not delude ourselves into thinking that it is anything but war-fighting for hire.
--Josh Marshall
Verizon Reverses NARAL Decision
The decision to not allow text messaging on abortion was incorrect, a company spokesman tells The New York Times.
--David Kurtz
Over at the TPMCafe Book Club . . .
Matt Bai responds to the critics: You call that innovation?
And McJoan of Daily Kos offers her own analysis.
Late Update: Matt has been really digging into and responding to the comments to his posts, which we appreciate and which makes for a lively and interesting discussion. Take a look.
--David Kurtz
Dartmouth Dem Debate Delight!
On Wednesday night the Democratic presidential candidates squared off at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire for the first Dem debate of the fall season. Which candidate has the true plan for getting us out of Iraq? Which candidate believes the national army of Iran should be classified as a terrorist organization? And which candidate thinks Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about? Find out all the answers and more in today's Highlight Reel episode of TPMtv ...
--Ben Craw
The Contracting Racket
Here's another issue we're going to be looking at very closely in the whole military contracting/corruption nexus. In testimony yesterday, Sec Defense Bob Gates said that one of the issues he's most concerned about is the way that private contractors in Iraq lure away active duty members of the military with promises of much higher salaries -- often to do more or less the same stuff they're doing in uniform. In fact, that problem is so bad that he's looking into whether or not he can get soldiers to sign non-compete agreements to prevent them from getting headhunted by the private contractors who are allegedly there in Iraq working for us.
This really casts in a sharp, almost comedic relief what's happening in the privatization of our military and what's becoming of what we used to call the basis of state sovereignty -- the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
But there's also a more immediate and tangible issue. A short time ago I wrote a post in which I referred to but did not specify the standard reasons for our military's increasing use of private contractors. And many of you wrote in to ask, Well, just what are those reasons?
We're going to try to bring in some experts in this field who can give some more granular answers but there are basically two answers -- one short term, one longer term. In the short run, often they have no choice. So for instance, why does the State Department have to hire Blackwater to protect its diplomats? Why isn't there some sort of State security service which can do this? Or why isn't there, say, a contingent of Marines specially equipped and trained for this task?
In many cases, bureaucrats have no choice. Because they need security protection for some sort of mission and the government simply has no capacity to provide it. But that begs the question of why that is so. And the reason is that over the last couple decades the military and State and other federal agencies have been progressively hollowed out because a policy decision was made to privatize many military and related functions.
Now why is this so? The reasons aren't so different from those behind privatization in more domestic parts of government service. Cost-savings and -- at least this is the argument -- streamlining the functions that are core to the missions of various agencies and government institutions. Another, less frequently stated, reason is that working through contractors allows you to evade a lot of laws and accountability.
But let's focus on the alleged budgetary savings. If private contractors are able to lure soldiers/marines away with far higher salaries and if you figure in the sizable profit margins of the contractors themselves, it's not hard to see that the US government is paying a lot more to have the 'contractors' do whatever job it is than it would to simply have the Army or Department of State do the jobs themselves. And this is one of the keys to understanding what's happening. A lot of what the contracting mega-issue is about is the US government paying contractors big bucks to do jobs the military (or other agencies of government) could do better and cheaper themselves.
And here's a bonus. Who came up with this bright idea. It didn't begin with him. But a lot of the key decisions were made by none other than Dick Cheney, back when he was Sec Def under the first Bush administration.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Four years and counting into the occupation, the Pentagon moves to step up oversight of its contractors in Iraq.
--David Kurtz
Kristol tokes up and analyzes the Dem debate.
Late Update: TPM Reader MM chimes in: "Hi, have you got Bill Kristol home phone number? He's offering 2 to 1 that the Republican nominee will win in November 2008, and I want in on that action!"
--Josh Marshall
Abortion Rights too Unsavory for Verizon
Verizon: Naral's Pro-Choice messages too “controversial or unsavory” to be texted over our network.
This has no direct technological connection to the net neutrality issue. But it shows pretty clearly what can happen when you have no 'common carrier' protections on the new telecom frontier.
--Josh Marshall
Syrian Nukes?
I just saw the replay of Hillary's response to the Iran-Israel nuclear strike question. And what struck me is that she seemed to confirm the theory that the Israeli strike in Syria was on a nuclear facility the Syrians had built with help from the North Koreans. I don't think I've seen any government official or member of Congress confirm that and I still find it highly suspicious. What'd she hear?
--Josh Marshall
More Thoughts on the Debate
I'll be honest, I don't tend to watch these things much any more. Long story why, I'm not even completely sure myself. In any case, I'm watching the commentary on MSNBC. And the view, the consensus, seems to be that Obama had a bad night. And I have to agree. I was a little pained to see it. But he did seem unfocused and slow on his feet. If this was the first time I'd seen him, I wouldn't have had a very good impression.
I've been both fascinated and disappointed that there seems to be this growing consensus that Hillary isn't just the frontrunner but all but has the whole thing locked up. But I doubt Obama did himself a lot of favors this evening. (Howard Fineman said he had a cold or a flu this evening.)
--Josh Marshall
Heckuva Job
Interesting new direction in the Blackwater story from the Times: Blackwater's shoot rate in Iraq is much higher than other similarly situated security firms in the country and among Americans and Iraqis the company apparently has a reputation as a "company that flaunts an aggressive, quick-draw image that leads its security personnel to take excessively violent actions to protect the people they are paid to guard."
--Josh Marshall
Debate Commentary Part I
Just flipped on the Democratic debate at a little before 9:30. The first exchange I saw was with Russert asking Barack Obama if he would support Israel attacking Iran if Israel thought it was endangered by the Iranian nuclear program. The question was framed a bit better and more sharply. But that was the gist of it. Weak answer. Obama didn't come down one way or another; he just rambled.
Not impressive.
9:31 PM.
Actually, Richardson just got the same question. He didn't do much better. Didn't ramble quite as long. But he also wanted to avoid the question.
I can see this is a question neither thought they had much to gain by giving an answer to. But I would think a candidate could say something like this: "The US is Israel's stongest ally. When Israel is threatened we will always stand with her, with the American military if need be. But an attack on the Iranian nuclear sites would be a grave step. And as president I'm not going to give any ally a blank check based on their own perceptions of the threat and without knowing the specifics of the situation in advance."
Not particularly smooth or articulate. But I would think the general point is clear. And a candidate, even one who doesn't want to offend anyone, could say that and also be able to do what's critical which is to refuse to sign off in advance, in the absence of any situational knowledge, on any attack the Israeli government might decide is necessary.
9:54 PM
Gravel is one weird dude. But sort of inspiringly weird in a way. He triumphantly said yes, I went bankrupt. But who'd I stick the $90,000 dollars of unpaid debts with? The credit card companies. And they deserved it!
9:56 PM
Russert hit Kucinich with the bankruptcy of Cleveland while he was mayor. His response was actually incredibly good, actually better than the facts of the case as I remember them.
9:59 PM
Russert now comes at Richardson with a list of all his gaffes, weird statements, etc. Good answer. I've noticed that Richardson's numbers, while still well behind the top three, are still pretty decent. I guess we just all assume that Richardson isn't pretty enough to win the nomination. But I could actually see him being a pretty good president.
10:10 PM
Russert starts in on Social Security. I thought he misstated the actuarial numbers in the initial questions -- saying that the program would be bankrupt in 20 years. But I may have misheard that. Biden says he'd lift the cap on payroll tax liability. HRC basically dodges the question. But then when Russert tries to get in her face, she slaps him down for some of his silly ignorance of the topic. Obama signs on for the cap-lift -- maybe.
One thing that's very interesting about this discussion is how little privatization is even getting mentioned. Until a moment ago no one had even mentioned it. Obama touched on it as an aside at the end of his answer.
Dodd mentioned it as an aside too.
I think what this means is that privatization is so dead people barely feel the need to mention it any more.
Of course, a constant backdrop to this discussion is Russert's amazingly militant ignorance of the topic, wrapped in a package of illusion that he has some idea what he's talking about. Unfortunately Richardson wasn't quite quick enough on his feet to knock down Russert's ridiculousness.
Okay, I'm about to lose my mind. Tim Russert is so colossally ignorant and talks so routinely out of his ass on the topic of Social Security that I'm not sure I can bear it anymore. Help. Please stop him.
10:45 PM
Obama, really good answer on torture.
10:56 PM
Russert's final question: what's your favorite Bible verse. Believe it or not, there were some decent answers.
--Josh Marshall
O'Reilly: Black People Just Don't Understand
I'll give ABC some real credit for this headline of their new story on the firestorm in response to Bill O'Reilly's latest racist outburst: "O'Reilly: Blacks Suprisingly Civilized."
I usually don't go in much for working the O'Reilly front. But in this case the comedic value of this racist dork is just too much to pass up.
O'Reilly says that only people looking to be offended could have been offended by his comments.
"If you listened to the full hour, it was a criticism of racism on the part of white Americans who are ignorant of the fact that there is no difference between white and black anymore," O'Reilly told the AP. In other words, I guess, it was criticism of people like Bill O'Reilly, which is sort of broad-minded of him.
It's also good of him to note that blacks aren't any different from whites like he apparently thinks they were before the 1990s or something.
--Josh Marshall
Rangel on Cheney
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D): Cheney's policy legacy more damaging to America than anything since slavery. See the video.
--Josh Marshall
At the TPMCafe Book Club, Mark Schmitt and Ed Kilgore chime in on Matt Bai's new book, The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics. It's so engrossing that Mark read it right past his subway stop. Ed's post is here.
--David Kurtz
D'oh!
Leave it to Sen. Norm Coleman to step on his own dingbat story. Turns out Coleman also got a cut-rate price on his anti-Moveon newspaper ad.
--Josh Marshall
Joe Makes a Strategic Retreat
In yesterday's episode of TPMtv we brought you news of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the backdoor use of force resolution against Iran. They just voted on the amendment in the Senate, and in today's episode we bring you up to speed on what went down ...
Late Update: More details on Kyl-Lieberman here at 'National Security Advisors', a national security blog.
Later Update: TPM Reader TC dissents ...
I just watched your "Veracifier" piece on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I'm mystified by your analysis. Paragraphs 3 and 4 were largely irrelevant, as evidenced by Lieberman's ready willingness to drop them. The essential part of the amendment was the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. That's all bush needs to attack Iran. The Iraq AUMF conceded Bush's inherent constitutional authority to deter terrorist attacks, and Bush will now certainly characterize any hostile action by the IRG, however immaterial, as a terrorist attack. Now that the IRG is a terrorist organization, Bush can attack with further congressional authorization. The IRG is obviously a part of, and under the control of, the Iranian government. Accordingly, authority to attack the IRG is authority to attack the Iranian government. Would any democrat dare suggest that Bush's authority extended only to the IRG proper, but not to the "command and control" functions residing in the Iranian government? Not likely. I really hate to say this, but the terrorist designation was really the whole point for Lieberman all along. Paragraphs 3 and 4 were just decoys.
My response is that I think this is largely a matter of emphasis. Designating the IRG a terrorist organization does open a backdoor way for the president to say he has authorization to use force against Iran. But the president himself already made this designation, via the State Department. Congressional confirmation does add to that. But I think paragraphs 3 & 4 were even more dangerous. So the upshot is not that the bill is innocuous. It's just not as bad as it was. At least that's my read. For those Dems who voted for it, it was still a really bad vote.
--Josh Marshall
House Condemns MoveOn; War Grinds On
A House resolution condemning MoveOn's Petraeus ad passed overwhelmingly, 341-79.
Late Update: Greg Sargent, on the unwillingness of so many opinion-makers to refute the underlying premise that the NYT was in collusion with MoveOn.
--David Kurtz
Thinking Ahead
Republicans make big gains on voter suppression and 'caging' for 2008 election.
--Josh Marshall
Toned-Down Iran Measure Passes
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment, in substantially revised form, passed 76-22. The most egregious saber-rattling language was removed. We'll have more soon on TPMtv.
--David Kurtz
Kickin' the Can
I haven't seen much published reference to this speech but it seems we can add retired Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to the list of former Bush appointees and Generals serving under the president who turn out to be thoroughly disillusioned with the president's conduct of the war. This weekend, at a speech in Corpus Christi, Texas, Sanchez said ...
My assessment is that we have a crisis in national political leadership. When will America recognize the danger we face? When will the corrosive partisanship of American politics end and allow for a bipartisan solution to arguably the most dangerous threat our nation has faced in over 60 years?
When asked who he meant by "national political leadership", Sanchez said “the most senior political leadership,” which leaves little doubt he's referring at least to the president and his chief subordinates.
Taken on its own, the statement certainly contains at least some ambiguity. Is this an indictment of the White House or a more general 'pox on all your houses' dig at our collective politics and the failure of those of us at home to unify around a strategy while we've got soldiers in the field fighting and dying.
I found the link to the report of the speech at Scott Horton's site. And just after the quote I just excerpted Horton provides this gloss ...
For three months now, Sanchez has been making off-the-record statements. He eventually came to the conclusion, he says, that Republican politics had trumped the national security interests of the United States in the execution of plans in Iraq. The Bush Administration had not planned to win in Iraq, but simply to keep a war running so Bush could run around and play “war president.” That is as devastating a criticism as any general has made of a president since the days of Douglas MacArthur. Unlike MacArthur’s criticisms, however, it has the advantage of being accurate.
Horton's right. If anything he understates it how devastating a charge that is. Does anyone know more about what Sanchez has been telling people off the record?
--Josh Marshall
Voting on Now
The Kyl-Lieberman (aka, backdoor to war with Iran) amendment is currently being voted on in the Senate. We'll bring you the final results when we have them. So far, Sens. Reid and Clinton have both voted in the affirmative.
We're still also trying to find out what happened in the revision which took place yesterday and how offensive the bill now being voted on actually is.
Late Update: It appears that much but not all of the offending language was removed, particularly the part that more or less authorized war against Iran and all its proxies.
--Josh Marshall
Maybe, Maybe Not?
Sen. Craig is no longer saying whether or not he'll resign on Sept. 30th, as originally promised, even if he's not able to get his guilty plea withdrawn.
In his defense, if that's even possible, I've always thought the highly technical and procedural issue of whether he can get his plea withdrawn is a silly factor to determination the resignation of a senator. All that really matters is what he did and whether it matters -- whether he can get the local judge to allow him a do-over seems thoroughly beside the point.
--Josh Marshall
The Get Lost Caucus
I don't know if she deserves the credit for coining a new term, but The Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown has a piece today on "The Get Lost Caucus," which includes Reps. William Jefferson (D-LA), John Doolittle (R-CA), and Rick Renzi (R-AZ), and Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), all mired in scandal and stripped of their committee posts:
They . . . have been consigned to the Get Lost Caucus — a highly unofficial, exceedingly exclusive, nobody-chooses-to-enroll kind of club. It is four members strong, with potential for growth.The guidelines for qualification: First, you hit a few legal snags (a raid, an indictment, an arrest), then you lose your committee assignments (or, in the case of Craig, your ranking status).
Lacking clout and commitments, you are the congressional equivalent of walking pneumonia, wounded and worn but still showing a pulse.
The Get Lost Caucus--I have a feeling we'll be appropriating that for our own use. So if Brown came up with it, consider this post a permanent footnote crediting her.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Blackwater incident "worse than Abu Ghraib" in impact on Iraqi hearts and minds.
--David Kurtz
Not Above the Law?
Are Blackwater employees subject to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)? It seems they may now be, because of an amendment to last years Defense Authorization Act authored by Sen. Graham. Whether or not anyone's going to act on that power, of course, is another matter entirely.
--Josh Marshall
Spain Opens the Books on Bush?
My ability to bring you the full details on this are, to put it charitably, limited by my inability to accurately translate Spanish. But it seems someone in the Spanish government has leaked to El Pais transcripts of conversations between President Bush and then Spanish Prime Minister Aznar just before the outbreak of the Iraq War. The gist seems to be that Bush was rather candid about the fact that the efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis were a sham and that the war was a done deal.
Not a surprise certainly, but interesting to see it revealed as it was discussed by the actors at the time.
Apparently El Pais is going to be publishing more . If you read Spanish, take a look and tell us what you see.
Late Update: El Pais has now posted the full transcript.
--Josh Marshall
More on Contractors
I've been thinking for some time that I want to turn more of TPM's energy and resources (by which I mean mainly, TPMmuckraker, but mine too) to the vast, complex and corrupt issue of private contractors in Iraq. Both those on the security (i.e., privatized army) front and also on the reconstruction side more generally. And along those lines my attention is now fixed on the second and third day developments in the Blackwater firefight story out of Iraq.
As Spencer has been reporting and David further explains below, the Department of State is telling Blackwater the company may not answer Congress's question without the specific approval of the State Department. What's more, Condi Rice has told Chairman Waxman (who plans an investigation of the incident) that she will not testify about Blackwater or contracting corruption cases in general.
Now, there are two issues here. One is Rice's refusal to testify, which, unless there's some unasserted privilege I'm not aware of, is simply contempt of Congress. She's a senate-confirmed department secretary. So in the absence of some specific privilege, it's not up to her about whether she testifies before Congress. That's called oversight.
More pressing is the argument about Blackwater -- which seems to be that the Department of State has entered into a business contract for war services and because of that contract, the activities are beyond congressional scrutiny. Let's set aside for the moment the issue of what they might be trying to hide. And let's focus on argument being set up -- services rendered on behalf of the State Department, pursuant to State Department policy goals, are not subject to congressional oversight because the State Department wrote the contract with what amounts to a non-disclosure agreement.
I can't imagine that this argument flies far. But it gets us into the deeper issue of what's up and what's wrong with the explosion of use of private contracting by the Bush administration in Iraq. You'll remember that one of the many arguments the Bush administration put forward when they were trying to evade court scrutiny of the Guantanamo prison camp was to argue that it was not in the United States and thus wasn't subject to US laws or judicial scrutiny. In addition to making a ton of money for private firms, a lot of what the growth of the private contracting sector in US foreign policy is to create islands of unaccountability, areas of work by private contractors who don't have to follow the various regulations US military and civilian personnel have to follow and who aren't answerable to our democratic institutions like actual soldiers and government employees are. The case here with Blackwater, however, as evidenced by State's clampdown, seems to be an extreme example of that pattern. What is it they don't want Blackwater to say?
--Josh Marshall
If Henry Ain't Happy, Ain't Nobody Happy
Is it stonewalling, obstruction, or both?
Shortly after Rep. Henry Waxman announced last week that his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee would hold hearings on the Blackwater incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians died, the State Department notified Blackwater that under the terms of its contract no information could be produced without prior written State Department approval.
The fallout from this whole episode has been swift and if you haven't been paying close attention, you may have missed some of developments in recent days. So here's a time line of last week's events:
Sun, Sept. 16: Blackwater incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians are killed after State Department convoy reportedly comes under fire, an account disputed by the Iraqis.Mon, Sept. 17: Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee announces his committee will investigate the Blackwater incident.
Tue, Sept. 18: The American Embassy in Baghdad suspends diplomatic convoys outside the Green Zone.
Wed, Sept. 19: In a phone call, Acting Assistant Secretary of State William Moser warns Blackwater that no information regarding the Blackwater contract can be released without State's prior written approval.
Thu, Sept. 20: Moser repeats the warning in a second call to Blackwater, and State sends Blackwater a follow-up letter again asserting again that the information possessed by Blackwater belongs to State and cannot be disclosed.
Fri, Sept. 21: The four-day suspension of State Department convoys ends and Blackwater resumes business. Secretary of State Condi Rice announces that her department will undertake a "full and complete review" of diplomatic security in Iraq.
Since then, aides to Rice have notified Waxman that she herself will not testify about Blackwater or about Iraqi corruption inquiries pending before the committee. (In addition, other officials at State have refused to answer questions in the corruption inquiry unless the committee agrees not to disclose their answers.)
Things may come to a head sooner rather than later. Waxman has scheduled a Blackwater hearing for October 2 and requested that Blackwater founder Erik Prince testify.
--David Kurtz
More Bad News for Ted Stevens?
One of the Alaska state legislators on trial in the VECO investigation, Rep. Pete Kott (R) has been convicted on 3 of 4 counts. Not directly connected to Sen. Stevens (R), but the more convictions the feds pile up, the more people there are going to be willing to talk.
--Josh Marshall
War with Iran, Part II
ThinkProgress has good video from the senate floor today of Jim Webb on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. As Webb notes, Kyl-Amendment is a cleverly worded back door use of force resolution against Iran.
For more on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment see today's episode of TPMtv.
--Josh Marshall
Buddy, Can You Spare a Dime?
The GOP knows a fund-raising opportunity when it sees one, and MoveOn's Petraeus ad is nothing if not a fund-raising opportunity. Here's the email that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has sent out condemning the ad. It's from Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and asks recipients to sign a petition demanding that Senate Democrats return contributions from MoveOn, while making a pitch to pony up a contribution to the NRSC:
Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, Americans must always value the sacrifice and service of America's soldiers. We cannot let our political views cloud our judgment and cast any shadow of a doubt on our soldiers' honor.Sign the Petition to Senate Democrats today urging them to return MoveOn's contributions.
And after you complete the Petition, please make an immediate contribution of $25, $50, $75, $100, $500 or even $1,000 to our efforts to regain the Republican Senate Majority.
Because what better way to honor our troops' sacrifice than contributing to the NRSC. I have a lump in my throat just thinking about it.
--David Kurtz
War with Iran for Fun and Profit
Did you hear about the War on Iran Authorization bill the Senate is going to vote on perhaps as early as today? No, that's not how it's getting billed. But that's what the 'Kyl-Lieberman' amendment is. In fact, the supporters of going to war against Iran are using exactly the same strategy with this amendment that they did to lay the groundwork for the Iraq War.
We give you the rundown in today's episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
Why the Judiciary Counts
Over the last six months here at TPM we've extensively discussed the issue of voter suppression tactics the Republican party uses to suppress voter turn out among minority and lower-income voters. One of the chief of these are so-called 'voter ID laws'. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about Indiana's voter ID law in advance of next year's election.
In the lower court ruling, right-wing Judge Richard Posner said the law was intended "to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes" even though there's little or no evidence of in-person vote fraud in the United States today.
Historically, at least over the last half century, the Supreme Court has been very protective of the right to vote. But does anyone think the Roberts Court will uphold that tradition? I don't know where Kennedy is seen as standing on voting rights issues. But it sounds to me like the court is likely to give a big thumbs up to GOP voter suppression tactics in this case and probably usher in a whole new raft of these laws, perhaps in time for pumped up GOP voter suppression next year.
--Josh Marshall
Blow Out?
In recent years, the very Republican state of Virginia has been slowly trending Democratic. It has elected two Democratic governors in a row. It elected a Democrat to the senate last year (Webb) and will likely do so again next year (Warner). But in the senate races especially those are the results of a particular set of circumstances and very good candidates rather than overwhelming generic support for the Dems.
But check out these numbers Eric Kleefeld just found over at TPM Election Central. A new poll shows nine match ups -- each of the three leading Dem candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) against each of the three leading Republicans (Giuliani, Thompson, Romney). And 8 of 9 match-ups put the Democratic candidate ahead. The one exception is Thompson v. Obama, where Thompson edges out Obama by 2 percentage points, 47-45.
Significantly, Clinton is at 50% or over against each of the three candidates. Rudy does best against here, pulling 44% to her 50%.
--Josh Marshall
Stickin'
That didn't take long. Spy Chief Mike McConnell just said again that public oversight of the administration's FISA policies will cost American lives.
--Josh Marshall
Duck and Run
Pro-war GOP senators up for re-election have repeatedly refused to go on MSNBC and discuss Iraq.
--David Kurtz
Cool!
Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki says the threat of civil war in Iraq is now over and Iranian interference in the country has "ceased to exist."
--Josh Marshall
Live by the Gotcha, Die by the Gotcha
You don't have to get into the appropriateness of the MoveOn ad or the intricacies of the NYT's ad rate schedule to conclude the obvious: The GOP is engaged in another round of cynical, exploitative caterwauling to change the subject from their party's Iraq debacle. The manufactured indignation over the MoveOn ad has the added benefit of letting the vast right wing fund-raising machine milk a little more money from what's left of its base, not to mention that it turns MoveOn into a proxy candidate for president, which may be the only candidate the weak GOP field can beat.
Not convinced? Watch this David Shuster interview with the pathetic Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who is prepared to slam the MoveOn ad and mock the NYT's financial difficulties (the point of which is what?), but who is brought up short, first when she is asked to repudiate a similar "betray us" remark made by Rush Limbaugh and then when she is asked to name the last soldier from her district to die in Iraq. She won't and she can't. Take a look:
As a rule, I'm not much into gotcha politics, and normally Shuster's question about the name of the soldier from Blackburn's district would be a cheap shot. But right there and right then, it was right on the mark.
--David Kurtz
So Hard?
Now, was that so hard?
As you know, Iranian President Ahmadinejad spoke yesterday before a raucous crowd at Columbia University. The president of the university excoriated him. He backtracked a bit from his statements about Israel, perhaps as some commentators have noted because they've caused him trouble within Iran. In other cases he put together a fairly incoherent mix of religious interpretation and political rambling. And in still more he simply sounded ridiculous, as when he assured the audience that there were no gays in Iran -- a claim that prompted a round of guffaws from the audience.
I think it's hard to come to any conclusion but that Ahmadinejad was diminished by yesterday's events, not elevated. And America seemed bigger for not having cowered before him, as so many wanted to.
--Josh Marshall
New Levels of Ridiculousness
House GOPer demands congressional investigation of New York Times over MoveOn ad, which apparently comes in response to yesterday's column by the NYT's public editor.
Late Update: Or as Matt Stoller puts it, "I'm a little worried about upcoming fights over funding for Iraq, inasmuch as they might distract us from discussing the Moveon ad."
--David Kurtz
TPMCafe's Table for One: Jeffrey Toobin
The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin will be at TPMCafe's Table for One this week. He will be discussing his book The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. I have a feeling the discussion may veer in other directions, but so far I don't see any comments about a certain former Heisman Trophy winner.
--David Kurtz
Resistance is Futile!
2008 Democratic frontrunner Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) took the airwaves by force Sunday morning, flexing her political might with appearances on all five Sunday talk shows. And her dial was turned to 11 the entire time, flooding the zone with details of her recently unveiled healthcare proposal, denunciations of the Bush approach to Iraq, and a wall-to-wall drumbeat of determination to become the next President of the United States. Check out the highlights in today's Sunday Show Roundup episode of TPMtv ...
--Ben Craw
Vitter Earmarks Federal Funds for Anti-Evolution Group
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has earmarked $100,000 for a Louisiana group that advocates stopping the teaching of evolution in public schools, the Times-Picayune reports. Vitter has close ties to the group, the Louisiana Family Forum (insert joke about Vitter and DC Madam here), which calls evolution a "dangerous" theory. The spending bill containing the earmark is pending before the Senate.
--David Kurtz
Don't Miss That Meme
As you can see in our feature story over on the right, the White House's new line is that Barack Obama may be too "intellectually lazy" to run a serious presidential campaign let alone be President of the United States.
But don't think this allusion to generations of stereotypes about black men was just some stray comment.
The RNC just shot off an email building on the slur. With the headline "Razzle Dazzle", the email continues the theme that Obama is just another black fancy-pants with a slick smile and nice turn of phrase but either without the candle-power or stick-to-it-iveness to actually get things done.
"Chicago Star Obama Continues His All Show, No Substance Campaign With Event On Broadway," the email begins.
What to expect next out of the RNC? Obama would be a better singer and tap dancer than president?
--Josh Marshall
Bucking the Tide
In Mitt Romney's new ad, touting himself as the scourge of all presidents of Iran, he's got this hilarious line, saying he did "what was right, not what was politically correct" in refusing to provide security last year for a visit of former Iranian Pres. Khatami to Harvard last year.
--Josh Marshall
Larry Johnson reads the long piece in the Sunday Washington Post on those missing nukes and has a succinct response: Simple error, my ass.
--David Kurtz
IRS Drops Case Against Liberal Church
From the LA Times:
The Internal Revenue Service has told a prominent Pasadena church that it has ended its lengthy investigation into a 2004 antiwar sermon, church leaders said Sunday.But the agency wrote in its letter to All Saints Episcopal Church that officials still considered the sermon to have been illegal, prompting the church to seek clarification, a corrected record and an apology from the IRS, the church's rector told standing-room-only crowds of parishioners at Sunday's services.
The church also has asked the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS, to investigate allegations that officials from the Justice Department had become involved in the matter, raising concerns that the investigation was politically motivated.
This IRS investigation was launched way back in June 2005, but suddenly ramped up just before the 2006 mid-term elections. Now, no action from the IRS, just an ominous warning without apparent foundation. More here on the history of this odd case.
--David Kurtz
TPMCafe Book Club: Matt Bai
Up for discussion this week at the TPMCafe Book Club is Matt Bai's The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics. Bai, who is covering the 2008 presidential campaign for The New York Times Magazine, has kicked things off with his first post at the Book Club. Joining us this week for the discussion will be Michael Schellenberger, Kenneth Baer, Joan McCarter, Mark Schmitt, Ed Kilgore, and Todd Gitlin. Let the argument begin.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Let's be clear here: The recent Blackwater shoot-'em-up is by no means the first time the contractor has acted with impunity in Iraq.
--David Kurtz
The Gingrich Groundswell
From David Broder:
In the years since I first met him in 1974, I have learned that it’s wise to take Newt Gingrich seriously. He has many character flaws, and his language is often exaggerated and imprudent. But if there is any politician of the current generation who has earned the label "visionary," it is probably the Georgia Republican and former speaker of the House.
To Newsweek:
Gingrich wants to be a postmodern Goldwater, a man who uses technology to bring on the next great debate. He imagines a presidential campaign where instead of spending money on TV advertising, a candidate mails DVDs laying out his ideas to every voter in Iowa and New Hampshire with a simple request: "Do you think your country's future, your children's future and your grandchildren's future is worth one hour of your time?" Could such an unorthodox strategy actually work if it was unleashed as late as this winter? It seems unlikely. Which is why Gingrich can't be discounted: unlikely prospects have always served him well.
[H]onestly, on the facts, nobody's better suited than Newt to both hark back to high times for the GOP and break decisively with Bush ... his other shortcomings notwithstanding. I for one hope Newt runs.
Can't you just feel the Newtmentum?
Sure, some of us may think of the former Speaker as the ethically-challenged, unhinged conservative who shut down the government (twice) and was driven from Congress by his caucus. Or who includes among his "big ideas" getting laptops for the the homeless. Or who raised concerns about women in combat roles because, "males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes." Or the man who was so outraged by President Clinton's personal indescretions that he sought impeachment during his own extramarital affair.
But that's apparently all in the past. Now he's the GOP Savior of the Week.
--Steve Benen
The 'too much information' campaign
The New York Times laments the fact today that today's presidential candidates are sharing too much information about themselves.
Barack Obama gets morning breath. Elizabeth Edwards felt her rib pop during some good loving with her husband, John. And Rudolph W. Giuliani, by the testimony of no less than his third wife, is a really-high-testosterone guy.
Must we go there?
Too Much Information is a concept rarely honored in modern presidential politics. In a YouTube, cellphone photo, I'm-posting-it-on-the-Web world, no secret is safe, no taboo assumed, no limit observed. If a candidate, a grumpy spouse or a resentful second cousin once removed is foolish enough to talk about it -- whatever "it" happens to be -- that banality is pretty much guaranteed to be broadcast worldwide and discussed on a thousand blogs.
Or in 1,000-word pieces for the paper of record.
The Times piece seems to revel in its own irony. It details revelations about Obama's dirty socks, Giuliani's testosterone, and Elizabeth Edwards' rib (apparently, it was injured during sex), and then complains that we shouldn't know any of this.
"This sort of diary tell-all has gotten so out of control," said Susan K. Abrams, owner of Political Icon, an image development company. "These details are not that fabulously interesting."
I couldn't agree more. Given that the NYT has run lengthy reports on Hillary Clinton's cleavage and John Edwards' hair, are we to assume that today's piece is something of a mea culpa? That trivial revelations about candidates' personal lives won't get lengthy treatments from the paper anymore?
--Steve Benen
Prosecutor Paulose's performance problems
In April, when U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Rachel Paulose was appointed, the controversy was almost immediate. First, her predecessor, Thomas Heffelfinger, resigned under suspicious circumstances. Second, Paulose treated herself to an elaborate "coronation," complete with a Marine Corps honor guard and choir. Third, she clashed with her top three deputy prosecutors, all of whom resigned in frustration. ("They did it jointly because they couldn't stand her anymore," one source said, citing what was described as her "dictatorial management style and general lack of management experience.")
At the time, officials at the Justice Department blamed some kind of systemic prejudice. The New York Times reported, "Ms. Paulose's defenders at Justice Department headquarters said the criticism of her was unwarranted. They said older lawyers had difficulty dealing with a young, aggressive woman who had tried to put into place policies important to Mr. Gonzales like programs to combat child exploitation." Even then, it was a pretty weak defense.
The Post added today that conditions in Minnesota have gone from bad to worse.
Now, the 34-year-old Yale University Law School graduate is the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel into allegations that she mishandled classified information, retaliated against those who crossed her, and made racist remarks about a support staff employee, said multiple sources in Minnesota and Washington, who declined to be identified because the probe is still under way.
In addition, an internal Justice Department audit completed last month said her employees gave her very low marks, alleging that she treats subordinates harshly and lacks the requisite experience for the job, said several sources familiar with the audit. Her performance review was so poor that Kenneth E. Melson, head of the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, took the unusual step of meeting with her in Minnesota several weeks ago, two sources said.
Maybe the concerns about Paulose weren't driven by older lawyers who couldn't deal with a "young, aggressive woman"?
--Steve Benen
Blackwater -- caught on tape?
The debate over last weekend's Blackwater shootings, which killed as many as 20 people in Iraq, has been complicated by the competing version of events. Blackwater insists they were attacked by armed insurgents and returned fire in self-defense. Iraqi witnesses say the private security forces fired without provocation.
Of course, a videotape of what transpired might clear things up.
Iraqi investigators have a videotape that shows Blackwater USA guards opened fire against civilians without provocation in an incident last week in which 11 people died, a senior Iraqi official said Saturday. He said the case had been referred to the Iraqi judiciary. [...]
Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, an Interior Ministry spokesman, said Iraqi authorities had completed an investigation into Thursday's shooting in Nisoor Square in western Baghdad and concluded that Blackwater guards were responsible for the deaths.
He told The Associated Press that the conclusion was based on witness statements as well as videotape shot by cameras at the nearby headquarters of the national police command. He said eight people were killed at the scene and three of the 15 wounded died in hospitals.
Will the video answer all of the questions and resolve the controversy? It's unlikely. As Kevin Drum noted, Iraqi officials believe the video is conclusive enough to file criminal charges against the Blackwater employees involved in the shooting. But it may not matter -- even Iraqi officials know Blackwater isn't going anywhere.
"If we expel this company immediately there will be a security vacuum that will demand pulling some troops off the battlefield," Tahseen Sheikhly, a civilian spokesman for the seven-month-old offensive against militants in Baghdad and surrounding areas. "This will create a security imbalance in securing Baghdad."
So we're left with a situation in which Iraqis feel compelled to grudgingly accept Blackwater's presence, despite instances in which the company may have killed unarmed civilians without provocation. The alternative, they say, would be less stability.
Got it.
--Steve Benen
Mukasey the Maverick?
When the president nominated former New York district judge Michael Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, conservatives responded with one of three reactions: there were the rank-and-file Republicans who said, "Michael who?"; there were the Bill Kristols of the world who followed the White House's lead; and there were the activists who wanted Ted Olson and found Mukasey to be a poor substitute.
Bob Novak, summarizing the feelings of many conservative leaders, blasted Mukasey as "totally unqualified," preferring Olson because he "knows where the bodies are buried."
The New York Times' Adam Liptak had a good feature piece today on Mukasey and his 18 years on the federal bench, which probably won't help smooth over conservative discontent. Liptak describes the AG nominee as "fiercely intelligent, prickly, impatient, practical and suspicious of abstractions" -- hardly qualities found in "loyal Bushies."
He was quick to chastise and impose sanctions on lawyers who tested his patience or, much worse, lied to him. He did not hesitate to rule against the powerful, including President Bush's uncle, or people with sympathetic cases but no claim to legal relief. His decisions often crackled with an acerbic and sometimes aphoristic wit.
He was tough at sentencing but not uniformly so. He showed leniency to people convicted of immigration offenses but little mercy to white collar criminals.
In one notable example, Justice Department officials asked Mukasey to allow them to force a mentally troubled defendant to take psychotropic drugs to render her competent to stand trial. Mukasey not only rejected the request, but seemed offended by it.
"It is not inappropriate to recall in plain terms," he wrote, "what the government seeks to do here, which necessarily involves physically restraining defendant so that she can be injected with mind-altering drugs."
"There was a time when what might be viewed as an even lesser invasion of a defendant's person -- pumping his stomach to retrieve evidence -- was said to 'shock the conscience' and invite comparison with 'the rack and the screw,' " he added, quoting from a 1952 Supreme Court decision.
Where have you gone, Alberto Gonzales, a conservative movement turns its lonely eyes to you.
--Steve Benen
Loose nukes
Looking back, it's still hard to fathom. In late August, an Air Force bomber accidentally flew six cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads from North Dakota to Louisiana -- with the power of 60 Hiroshimas -- and no one realized the nuclear-armed missiles were missing for more than a day.
The breathtaking incident raised questions about whether the flight was, in fact, an accident, or whether this might be part of some hyper-aggressive posturing towards the Middle East. How does a bomber inadvertently fly across the United States with six nuclear warheads? Was this human error? A bureaucratic mix-up? Or something more sinister?
The Washington Post has a detailed front-page analysis today of what transpired and concludes that this really was an accident. An incredibly serious, jaw-droppingly dangerous accident.
The episode, serious enough to trigger a rare "Bent Spear" nuclear incident report that raced through the chain of command to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and President Bush, provoked new questions inside and outside the Pentagon about the adequacy of U.S. nuclear weapons safeguards while the military's attention and resources are devoted to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You think?
--Steve Benen
Romney’s tough love
A few days ago, Mitt Romney unveiled a new TV ad in New Hampshire in which he tried something counter-intuitive: he took his own party to task for abandoning its principles. "If we're going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in order," Romney says in the ad, ticking off a list of transgressions. "When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. It's time for Republicans to start acting like Republicans. It's time for a change, and change begins with us."
It appears to be part of a concerted strategy that positions Romney as the GOP candidate of change. It's a bit of a challenge -- Romney can't bash the conservative direction of his party, because his bona fides are far from solid. He can't bash Bush/Cheney, because the die-hard 28 percenters are a key primary constituency. And he can't run as Bush's heir apparent, because the vast majority of the nation is desperate for something different.
So, he's trying to thread the needle -- the GOP is great, according to Romney's new pitch, but it's gotten off track.
Courting the party faithful Saturday at the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference, Mitt Romney promised to return a wayward GOP to its core principles while rival John McCain portrayed himself as the most qualified to take charge of the country amid dangerous times.
"Change must begin with us," Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, told activists as he challenged the party to "put our own house in order." [...]
On Saturday, Romney argued that Republicans share the blame with Democrats for the nation's woes. He bemoaned excessive spending, insecure borders and ethical lapses. "When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses," he said.
Even as he sought to distance himself from the president, Romney gave Bush credit for keeping the United States safe and in "restoring personal integrity and dignity to the White House." But otherwise Romney talked of problems with the government, saying, for example, that the Hurricane Katrina cleanup "didn't look like Republicans were in charge."
That's not necessarily a bad pitch. Romney is basically saying he'll be a more competent, fiscally responsible version of Bush. But the pitch only works if Republicans recognize the need for change.
Jonathan Martin, reporting from Mackinac Island, suggested the audience wasn't exactly quick to embrace the tough-love message.
[W]hen Romney launched into his litany of how the GOP should act going forward by saying, again with enthusiasm in his voice, that "it's time for change in Washington and change begins with us," there was an awkward moment when one person began to clap but nobody else in the crowd joined.
Note to the GOP: the first step on the road to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
--Steve Benen
Adventures in poll questions
The Washington Post reports today on a recent Democratic poll gauging support for Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 31 "swing" House districts currently represented by Democrats. It's not an unworthy exercise -- Dems obviously want to do well in those districts, and if the top of the ticket might hurt candidates down-ballot, it's something for voters to consider during the primaries.
The bad news for Dems is that the results showed Clinton and Obama underperforming in these districts. The good news is, the wording of the question brings the survey into question.
While the average lead of Democratic House members stands at 19 percentage points in the 31 vulnerable districts -- all but two of which are part of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's incumbent-protection program known as Frontline -- that number sinks considerably when the lawmakers are linked to either front-runner.
"Some people say [your Democratic incumbent] is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and will support her liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she becomes president," the poll stated, before asking respondents whether they would still vote for their incumbent or choose a Republican candidate.
Whether the question named Clinton or Obama, the Democratic incumbent's lead shrank to an average of six points: 47 percent to 41 percent with Clinton leading the ticket, 44 percent to 38 percent with Obama as the nominee.
"The images of the two early favorites are part of the problem," Lake and Gotoff wrote.
Really? I'm inclined to think a poll that tells the respondent that the presidential candidate wants "big government and higher taxes" might skew the results a bit. In fact, given the wording, it's kind of encouraging for Dems that Clinton and Obama performed as well as they did in the survey.
--Steve Benen
Rewriting 'God Bless America'
It didn't generate much in the way of media attention this week, but a bunch of religious right groups co-sponsored the first-ever "Values Voter" debate a few days ago for the GOP presidential field. The top four (Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson) stayed away, but seven other Republican presidential hopefuls cozied up to luminaries such as Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, and Don Wildmon.
There were plenty of bizarre questions and answers, but one of the elements of the debate that stood out for me was, oddly enough, the song that got things started. Event organizers invited the Church of God Choir, from Springfield, Ohio, to sing "God Bless America" -- except the lyrics were rewritten. Instead of a song about "the land that I love," and "home sweet home," this version condemns the country, saying we've all turned against God, and that He won't bless us. It was a big hit among the conservative Republicans in the room.
(The lyrics are here.)
I'm trying to imagine the response if, say, Yearly Kos hosted a Democratic presidential candidate forum, which started with a rewritten version of "God Bless America" that disparaged the United States.
It's the kind of thing Fox News would jump all over -- and every Democratic candidate on hand would be asked whether they agreed with the song's lyrical condemnation of the country. Bill O'Reilly would tell us that "God Bless America" is fine the way it is, and it doesn't need to be rewritten by liberals to serve a radical political agenda.
Admittedly, it gets tiresome to hear "if this were a Democrat..." but in this case, I think it's appropriate.
--Steve Benen
