Results from "Values Voter Summit" Straw Poll
Candidate Name ... Percentage
1. Mitt Romney ... 27.62 %
2. Mike Huckabee ... 27.10 %
3. Ron Paul ... 14.98%
4. Fred Thompson ... 9.77 %
5. Sam Brownback ... 5.14 %
6. Duncan Hunter ... 2.42 %
7. Tom Tancredo ... 2.30 %
8. Rudy Giuliani ... 1.85 %
9. John McCain ... 1.40 %
--Josh Marshall
The hysterical party heads for the fainting couch
A month ago, congressional Republicans were so desperate to avoid discussing the substance of U.S. policy towards Iraq, they decided a newspaper ad from MoveOn.org was the single biggest threat to Western Civilization in recent history. The coordinated hissy fit was a transparent effort to distract attention from the issue at hand, but it was also a largely successful sham -- Republicans stopped talking about Bush's failed policy and started talking about the NYT's ad rates.
This month, those same congressional Republicans are so desperate to avoid discussing the substance of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), they've decided Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) has replaced MoveOn as Public Enemy #1. (For reasons that defy logic, CNN has decided that the GOP's feigned outrage is a really important story.)
Far be it for me to give Republicans advice, but I don't think they've thought this one through.
For the record, what did Stark say to send the right into high dudgeon? During the debate on overriding the president's veto for children's healthcare, Stark said, "You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're gonna spend it blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their head blown off for the president's amusement."
Intemperate? Sure. But the coordinated hysteria we've seen over the last few days is more than misguided; it's silly.
There's just no reason for apoplexy here. Stark said something mean about Bush during a congressional debate. The president is a big boy; I think he can handle it. But by throwing a tantrum, congressional Republicans are suggesting that they can't handle it. They're not grown-ups. Random, intemperate criticism of Bush is just too much for the fragile, virgin ears.
In other words, by throwing a fit, Republicans end up looking weak and hysterical. Indeed, it reinforces the least flattering GOP caricature of all -- these guys can't govern, but they can fall onto a fainting couch like nobody's business.
For years, Republicans worked to create the opposite reputation. They're tough. This is the macho "daddy party." They don't care about "political correctness" and wussies who cry over words that rub people the wrong way. This is a crowd that calls it like they see it, and doesn't look bad or apologize.
And yet, they've now spent the better part of a year trembling over mild rebukes from liberals. If Democrats were smart, they'd look at this as an opportunity to rebrand the GOP as pathetic cry-babies who can barely go a week without throwing a hissy fit over one manufactured outrage or another. Alas, it doesn't look like Dems are smart at all.
--Steve Benen
Romney tells the faithful what they want to hear
When attendees at yesterday's Values Voter Summit (a.k.a. PanderFest 2007) weren't staring at the top of Fred Thompson's head, they were waiting to see what Mitt Romney had to offer. And while it's a challenge for a Mormon candidate who used to be pro-choice to overcome evangelical skepticism, Romney told the faithful -- by one count, there were nearly 3,000 attendees at the event -- exactly what they wanted to hear.
"Parenthood is the ultimate career for which all other careers exist."
"The American family is under stress. Is under attack. Ann and I are going to use the bully pulpit to teach Americans that before they have babies, they should get married."
"As president, I will realign government incentives to encourage marriage."
"A federal amendment is the only way we can protect marriage from liberal, unelected judges."
"I will oppose tax payer funding of abortion, oppose partial birth abortion ... ban cloning ... and raise awareness about embryonic adoption, or snow flake babies."
"It will be one strike and you're ours" for pedophiles on the internet -- "long prisons sentences, and if you get out, it means an ankle bracelet for the rest of your life."
"I will ensure that every family has health care -- without new taxes, without Hilarycare, without socialized medicine."
Romney's discliplined; I'll give him that. He quoted C.S. Lewis (dog-whistle politics), and avoided foreign policy (which this audience doesn't emphasize). He spoke of defending "America's religious heritage," while brushing off concerns about Mormonism with a joke about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In short, Romney promised the crowd everything -- which is exactly what they demand.
The underlying motivations here are pretty obvious. Romney wants the foot-soldiers the religious right offers, recognizes the significance of social conservatives in Iowa and South Carolina, and figures that support from the Dobson crowd will make this a two-man race (Romney vs. Giuliani) for the GOP nomination.
Theocons seem to have been slowly coalescing around Romney of late, and at a minimum, he didn't hurt his chances yesterday.
--Steve Benen
Thompson's fall from grace
There was a time over the summer when Fred Thompson looked like he'd enjoy enormous support from the GOP's religious right base. The Dobson crowd had already ruled out McCain and Giuliani, and skepticism over Romney lingered. Thompson would fill the gap left by George Allen, and the theocons would swoon.
And then Thompson announced.
Yesterday's "Values Voter Summit," the year's largest religious right gathering, offered the actor/lobbyist/senator a chance to reconnect with the activists who've been slipping away. How'd he do? I spoke to several people who were on hand for the event, and everyone agreed that they were amazed at how awful he is on the stump.
[Thompson] spoke with his chin often buried in his chest, his voice largely monotone, and he cleared his throat or coughed repeatedly, prompting some to wonder if he might be ill.
"He didn't look good," said Ronald Sell, 63, a musician from New York City.
Mr. Sell said he initially had high hopes for Mr. Thompson but left disappointed and wondering why as an actor, Mr. Thompson did not "at least have his lines memorized."
"If he was the candidate, we'd be in trouble," Mr. Sell said.
As the NYT's Gail Collins put it, "Thompson's tendency to look down and read his remarks provided the audience with some of the most prolonged views of the top of a bald politician's head in recent history. When you feel compelled to use an index card for lines like, 'We must have good laws. We must do our best to stop bad laws,' you have been spending too much of your life filming 30-second bits of dialogue."
--Steve Benen
Fool for a Lawyer, Part III
We've been chatting over the last few days about whether Brent Wilkes is the stupidest criminal defendant in the world or Mark Geragos is the stupidest lawyer in the world. And I've exchanged emails with a number of readers -- mainly lawyers -- who've shared with me various different theories of the case or theories of the just what Geragos has been up to that, I concede, have exposed me to some complexities of the situation that at least complicate the picture.
That said ...
Seth Hettena, one of the key reporters on the Duke Cunningham case has been blogging the trial at his website. He notes in his latest post that in court Geragos can't help yacking away about how he's putting his all into Wilkes case -- up all night, preparing this, planning that, yada, yada, yada.
So where was he burning the midnight oil the night before he had to begin his defense?
On Larry King Live shooting the breeze with Dr. Phil about how to defend accused child molester Chester Stiles.
If Wilkes didn't appear to be such a cretin you would almost have to feel sorry for the guy, kicking back on the night before the start of his doomed defense and seeing his lawyer chatting it up with a self-help guru about how he might defend some child molester after they ship Brent off to the slammer.
--Josh Marshall
Great Moments in Campaign Vetting
The guy the Giuliani campaign named yesterday for law enforcement outreach in Minnesota has a well-publicized history of using the N word.
--David Kurtz
Who is Steve Bradbury?
Spencer Ackerman takes a look at the White House's man in Justice, who may have more to do with the legal future of the war on terrorism than a new attorney general.
--David Kurtz
Today's White House press briefing covers Condi Rice's efforts to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian talks . . . the assassination attempt on Benazir Bhutto . . . those documents dumped on the Senate intelligence committee . . . and the President's visit to the Cheneys' home on Maryland's Eastern Shore (duck hunting not included):
--David Kurtz
Caught Between a Rocke and a Hard Place
When the history books pillory the Republicans for their assault on civil liberties in the post-9/11 era, they should put a little asterisk next to "Republicans"--in memory of Democrat Jay Rockefeller.
In his role first as ranking member and now as chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Rockefeller has been run over, bypassed, steamrolled and otherwise hoodwinked by the White House on so many occasions that he's become something of a laughingstock among civil libertarians--at least among the more charitable of them. Whether he was antagonistic to civil liberties or simply ineffectual will be another question for the historians.
The latest surrender has come on the FISA bill, where the Senate version (.pdf) that emerged from a closed hearing last night included, to no one's surprise, retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies who cooperated with the President's warrantless surveillance program. (In the years before the program was revealed by The New York Times, Rockefeller's opposition to it consisted of fretting to the Vice President in a hand-written letter.)
But, despite the predicted inclusion of telecom immunity, the political theater this week surrounding that provision is worth a closer look, because the White House, with Rockefeller's help, pulled off quite the bait and switch.
On Tuesday, the White House turned over piles of documents to Rockefeller about the warrantless surveillance program. Like the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, his committee had demanded the documents for months (although it never took the step of subpoenaing them), but the White House had stonewalled. The release of the documents was timed as part of the White House's full-court press, in cooperation with the telecom lobbyists, to get a Senate version of the FISA bill through with a telecom immunity provision.
Rockefeller chortled over his apparent success in getting the White House to release the long-sought documents, The Politico reported:
"I am hoarse from screaming," Rockefeller joked about his faceoff with the White House over the highly classified program. "But I scream well."
By some accounts, the White House relinquished "millions of pages of documents," which intel committee staffers began reviewing Tuesday at a secure undisclosed location. Rockefeller warned that the mark-up of the bill, scheduled for Thursday, could be delayed as staff analyzed the new information. Early reports from Democrats on the committee were not encouraging. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sits on both the intelligence and judiciary committees (which had actually subpoenaed the documents from the White House but was not given them) told the Post that one of her staffers who reviewed the new documents "wasn't impressed" by what was produced.
Yet, with the White House document dump as cover, the mark-up went off as scheduled yesterday, and the Senate version of the bill emerged last night, telecom immunity intact. Did Rockefeller's crack staff get through the "millions of pages" in three days? Did the White House really produce what was requested or bury its non-compliance in a blizzard of useless documents and duplicates, as it did repeatedly with document dumps on the U.S. attorneys scandal?
In a press conference with Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) following the mark-up, Rockefeller said that nothing he has seen so far in the portion of the secret White House documents he has reviewed makes him believe the program was illegal. That's reassuring. As Sen, Ron Wyden (D-Or), who voted against the bill in committee, put it, "If this program is so legal why does there have to be this special legal protection?" (Although unimpressed by the White House document production, Feinstein voted for the bill in committee.)
If the predicate for senators to approve telecom immunity is knowing what conduct they are being asked to immunize, which sounds reasonable enough, can senators--even members of the intel committee--say today that they know with any precision what the telecoms were doing on behalf and at the insistence of the Bush Administration? I seriously doubt it.
Rockefeller's sympathy for the telecom companies--and his position at the crux of the legislative battle--is reflected in his campaign contributions from telecom employees, which have spiked in recent months. No wonder then that the White House dumped its documents on Rockefeller's committee rather than the Judiciary Committee. It was all part of setting the stage for getting what the White House knew it could get from Rockefeller anyway.
--David Kurtz
Fool for a Lawyer, Part II
TPM Reader TB checks in on the Wilkes case ...
I don't know Geragos personally, but I practice in Los Angeles and am familiar with his work, and people who have dealt directly with him. When is the last time he has been successful in one of these high profile cases? Think Michael Jackson. Wynonna Ryder. Yet people seem to be drawn to his "celebrity" status. If Wilkes was looking for an "attorney to the stars", he would have been better off with Harvey Birdman. If, on the other hand, he was looking for competent criminal defense counsel, he should have gone to a store front attorney who practices law for a living, and has to be good to eat.By the way, it was a bonehead move to put the employee up to testify what a good guy Wilkes is. It opens the door to evidence of character - always a messy issue with people like Wilkes.
I thought Michael walked. But maybe Geragos was no longer defending him when he went to trial? Can't remember. In any case, picking Geragos always seemed like an odd pick. Not just on the track record of non-success issue, but people nabbed on these public corruption cases often go for lawyers with pretty specialized expertise in this sort of defense. Any other insights into the Geragos choice?
--Josh Marshall
Brownbacking
More success for Romney's rally-round strategy. Sen. Sam Brownback, who will drop out of the race shortly, seems to be tipping his hand in Romney's direction, though also sort of slipping him the shiv at the same time.
More importantly, Brownback says Rudy won't get the GOP nomination.
--Josh Marshall
FISA Filibuster?
Sen. Chris Dodd takes his opposition to telecom immunity in the Senate FISA bill to a new level, threatening to filibuster if it comes to the Senate floor.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) were the only two no votes on the FISA bill that came out of the Senate intelligence committee late last night.
--David Kurtz
Altie News Legends Arrested
Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey of Village Voice Media (formerly New Times) were arrested at their homes in Phoenix last night after their Phoenix New Times allegedly published secret grand jury information:
Michael Lacey, the executive editor, and Jim Larkin, chief executive, where arrested at their homes after they wrote a story that revealed that the Village Voice Media company, its executives, its reporters and even the names of the readers of its website had been subpoenaed by a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor had been appointed to look into allegations that the newspaper had violated the law in publishing the home address of Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s home address on its website more than three years ago.The weekly and its leadership has been in a long running battle with Mr. Arpaio, after the weekly published a series of stories about his real estate dealings.
Here's the story written by Lacey and Larkin, published yesterday, that prompted the arrests. The paper's website has more.
--David Kurtz
Adm. William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dies at 82.
--David Kurtz
Speaking of Jerry Lewis . . .
The investigation of the former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee--which you can catch up on here--apparently drags on, according to The Hill. A committee staffer has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles:
Greg Lankler, an aide who now works for the Democratic majority on the spending panel but had worked for Republicans when Lewis chaired the committee, sent a notice to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), as House rules require, alerting her of his decision to resist the subpoena after consulting with the General Counsel’s office. Notice of the letter was read on the House floor Thursday afternoon.
The Lewis investigation has been on a very slow burn for reasons that are not entirely clear but which have raised suspicions that the investigation might be a victim to one degree or another of the politicization of DOJ under Alberto Gonzales.
--David Kurtz
Fool for a Lawyer?
I must say I don't get Brent Wilkes' defense strategy. Wilkes, (alleged) briber of disgraced halfwit Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA), is represented by celeb lawyer Mark Geragos. This afternoon, in a federal courtroom in San Diego began the defense phase of the trial. Today he called to the stand only a former executive assistant of Wilkes who, less than surprisingly, called him a good employer and a "straight shooter."
Then Geragos said that he planned to call the rest of his witnesses on Tuesday when the trial resumes. Closing arguments are likely on Wednesday and the jury will likely have the case by the end of the day.
Now, here's the thing. I know the strength of a case is not measurable only or even mainly in duration. But you need a little time to make any kind of serious argument. And a serious argument would seem to be called for when the government has brought forward overwhelming evidence of your guilt against an unsympathetic client.
The only logic I can see to this is based on something a lawyer friend told me. If Wilkes tries to push an 'everybody does it' too hard at trial then he's locked himself to a set of facts that will make it a lot harder for him to turn around and cut a deal in exchange for serving up Bill Lowery and Rep. Lewis (R-CA).
That makes sense, I guess. Though I think I need to guard against a professional investment in having it having it be true since Wilkes serving up these two jokers would be a veritable festival of muck, something akin to taking a pin to a muck balloon. But in that case, why'd he go to trial in the first place? Something about the whole thing just doesn't fit to me.
Who can help me?
--Josh Marshall
Baghdad Boondoggle
Strobel and Landay have an extensive report out tonight for McClatchy on the criminal probe arising from the construction of the new $592 million U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
--David Kurtz
Ahhh, Simpler Times ...
As Paul Kiel notes here, the prosecution in the Brent Wilkes case (the key -- oh fine, alleged -- briber of Duke Cunningham) has just rested their case. So just what defense is Wilkes, or rather his celeb lawyer, Mark Geragos, going to put on?
We've been mulling this question both because we're interested in the case and because we're considering sending star TPMmuckraker reporter Kiel to San Diego to report from the court room on Wilkes' effort to wriggle out from under his rather obvious guilt.
So here are a few factors to consider.
First, this may be the only trial to come out of the case. Duke and Mitch Wade both pleaded out. Wilkes goes into the trial with a ton of evidence pointing to his guilt. He's not a particularly sympathetic defendant. And his defense is quite bold. His lawyers will essentially argue that he's not guilty of bribery but rather an innovative form of self-interested advocacy called "transactional lobbying."
No, I'm actually not kidding.
How Wilkes plans to skate on these charges is really beyond me, for the reasons I note. And since he's the only one not to cooperate you really have to figure that the government is going to crucify him at sentencing.
But there's one more card Wilkes might be able to play. Remember, fellow scammer Bill Lowery and Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) are still out there under investigation. (Possibly the bad acts Wilkes knows the detailed info about are too far in the past, but I doubt it.) Wilkes probably wouldn't have much difficulty serving those guys up. So maybe he figures he can have his cake and eat it too -- take a shot at a wildly-improbable acquittal and then still rat out his fellow scamlings after conviction.
Anyway, all food for thought.
--Josh Marshall
Dana Perino responds on WWIII . . . Iran nukes . . . Turkish border incursions in northern Iraq . . . and SCHIP, all in today's White House press briefing:
--David Kurtz
Robotic antiaircraft cannon goes berserk and kills 9 soldiers in South Africa.
--Josh Marshall
Dodd to Block Telecom Immunity
In an exclusive, TPM Election Central reports that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) will put a hold on the new FISA legislation if it includes retroactive immunity for telecoms.
--David Kurtz
Not Enough Votes to Overturn SCHIP Veto
House Republicans stand united against health care for low-income children--not a single defection among GOPers who voted for the bill the first time.
--David Kurtz
New Gallup poll: Barely a third of Republicans say things are getting better in Iraq.
--David Kurtz
The Wealthiest Among Us
Rep. Hensarling (R-TX): SCHIP to go to "the wealthiest among us."
--Josh Marshall
Brownback Out
Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback expected to announce withdrawal from presidential race on Friday.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Mitt & Rudy's Showdown at the Values Voter Corral
What's the latest in the GOP presidential race? Will Romney's new anti-Mormon allies help him mobilize evangelicals against Rudy? Will Rudy make up for his pro-choice views by promising war with Iran? Rudy and Mitt go head to head at this weekend's Values Showdown. We give you all the details in the second weekly episode of our TPMtv campaign 2008 roundup ...
Embed code:
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Rocke crumbles: White House reaches deal with Senate intel committee chairman Jay Rockefeller on telecom immunity for warrantless surveillance.
--David Kurtz
Break for Rudy
If you've been watching closely, Rudy Giuliani has been trying to play up the similarities between himself and newly-minted French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Now Sarkozy appears to be trying to further the Rudy-Sarkozy peas-in-a-pod alliance by dumping his wife.
--Josh Marshall
Chillin'
Ready for the National Day of Climate Action on November 3rd? Get up to speed by heading over to Stepitup2007.org.
--Josh Marshall
Politico: Despite hardship, emboldened House GOP rises to challenge of the day with courage, panache and vision for a better tomorrow for all people.
--Josh Marshall
Bent Spear
Punishments coming in that incident last August in which six nuclear-armed cruise missiles were flown across the US.
--Josh Marshall
Views on Illegal Immigrants
Interesting poll out from CNN.
I've often heard it suggested that blacks are more hostile to illegal immigrants than whites because of competition over jobs. Not so, way more whites are hostile to illegals.
14% of blacks say there should be more illegals in the country than there are now; 3% of whites agree. 19% of blacks think all illegal immigrants should be deported; 35% of whites agree. I don't find this very surprising. But it counters an assumption I've heard a lot.
The breakdown of views? 7% of Americans want more illegal immigration. 22% are fine how it is. And 16% want it decreased "a little." In other words, 45% of Americans are bothered by the issue little or not at all.
--Josh Marshall
FISA Fix Scuttled
House leadership pulls the FISA bill in face of Republican poison pill amendment. More here.
--David Kurtz
Not Gay
I watched a portion of Larry Craig's chat with Matt Lauer. And his denial was so thorough and complete that I had moments where I was almost lulled into the thought that the whole thing was just a misunderstanding. Andrew Sullivan has some germane thoughts on the lifetime investment in denial that keeps Craig on his chosen path.
--Josh Marshall
Foiled Again!
In a bid to derail the Democrats' FISA legislation, House Republicans are introducing a poison pill amendment--one that Democrats are loathe to vote against but which would send the bill back to committee if approved.
Greg Sargent has the details.
--David Kurtz
Genuine Wingnut Catches up on Phony Wingnut
Don't look now but Huckabee is tied for second in Iowa, and not that far behind Romney in first.
--Josh Marshall
10 Questions
TPM is proud to be a co-sponsor of 10Questions.com, a nifty new project in which you upload your questions, the community chooses the 10 they like best, and the Presidential candidates respond. It's going to be like the YouTube debate, except for controlled by you instead of cable executives.
The site launched this morning and there are already a few questions up.
Upload yours and vote on your favorites. Then boo and hiss or clap and cheer as the candidates respond.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush warns of World War III . . . and other amusing tidbits from today's press conference:
--David Kurtz
TPMCafe's Table for One: Jacob Soboroff
At Table for One this week, Jacob Soboroff blogs on election reform. He is the Executive Director of Why Tuesday? and the host of their weekly video blog. The name Why Tuesday? is a coy reference to the national election day being in the middle of the week. Today, Soboroff and his colleague John Bonifaz tackle electronic voting machines.
--David Kurtz
Jewlier Than Thou
When I want a healthy dose of arrested psychological development I know to head over to the New York Sun, or at least the oped page (no slight to the several highly sane and well-adjusted reporters). So that's what I did when one of my colleagues here at TPM passed on today's editorial. If I'm not mistaken, the editors are hinting that Matt Yglesias and I, two Jews, are peddling some sort of subtle anti-semitism. As they might say, go figure.
Later in the editorial the Sunies vamp about New York City, which, if I'm understanding this correctly, they now appear to own. Praising the city for all its marvels, they gush, "As an entryway for immigration, as Ground Zero in the world war, as an engine of economic growth and trade, as a venue of school reform, and as a capital of commerce, culture, and religion, New York has more than its share to offer in the coming election year. Ethnic paranoia, indeed."
Ground zero in the world war. Ethnic paranoia? And so many other varieties.
--Josh Marshall
A Message Question to You, Rudy
This is a follow up on yesterday's episode of TPMtv, in which we ran through the list of foreign policy fanatics and Iran-war-mongers Rudy Giuliani has advising him. Now normally it's not reasonable to hold a candidate to every policy and particular embraced by their named advisers. But the case of Iran is unique. Rudy's key adviser on the issue is Norman Podhoretz. And as we showed in yesterday's episode, Podhoretz doesn't think we should threaten Iran with military action or leave it on the table or whatever the phrase may be. He says we must go to the war with Iran. We have to do it.
Nor is Iran just any foreign policy issue. It is the central foreign policy question before us right now. Rudy's key advisers says war is a must. And his adviser on Iran particularly, Michael Rubin, seems to lean strongly in the same direction, though I'm not sure if he's addressed the issue recently in public, as Podhoretz repeatedly has.
So, for Rudy, do you believe we must go to war with Iran as your key advisers say they do?
Yet to the best of my knowledge no one has asked Rudy this question, even though he's interviewed regularly these days. So who will ask it? The question is so central and his advisers' position is so clear, it's simply a journalistic responsibility for any reporters who gets a chance to ask it not to.
--Josh Marshall
Giuliani promises to appoint "people like Scalia and Roberts and Alito" to the bench if elected.
--David Kurtz
The Post-Gonzales Era
The TPMmuckraker crew is providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Michael Muksaey's nomination to be attorney general.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv interviews Markos Moulitsas
Who's Markos of Daily Kos think is running the best presidential primary race? Setting out the best positions? He isn't endorsing a candidate in the Democratic field. But he gave us a detailed run-down of who's running a flawless campaign, who's not measuring up to expectations and who his favorites are at this stage of the campaign.
Check out his take in Part I of our TPMtv interview with Markos Moulitsas, Founder and Publisher of Daily Kos.
Embed code:
Watch this episode on Youtube.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Four-plus years into the Iraq War, the Bush Administration starts considering how to oversee security contractors: Bob Gates wants them under DOD control.
--David Kurtz
Hmmm ...
It hasn't gotten much attention outside of the Boston suburbs and truly hardcore political junkies. But there was a congressional election today. The topline is that the Democrat, Nikki Tsongas, wife of the late Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate Paul Tsongas, won. But the details are much more interesting. As of 10:23 PM, with 88% of precincts reporting, Tsongas has only 51% vs 45% for the Republican Jim Ogonowski.
That is weird. This is Massachusetts, after all, specifically the rim of suburbs to the northwest of Boston, Marty Meehan's (D) old seat, the 5th district. This is strong Democratic territory. At Openleft.com, Chris Bowers says it's a +10 Dem district. (By the way, among many other things, this is one of the best sites to get smart and candid analyses and number-crunches of stuff like this.) One of many eye-popping numbers about this race was that the Republican, Ogonowski, was crushing Tsongas among voters under 35.
So what happened? Bowers had an interesting post yesterday evening analyzing Tsongas' expected narrow victory. His basic verdict is that Tsongas was a lousy candidate, nominated largely on the basis of her husband's reputation, and picked by an "ossifying" local political machine that hadn't faced a real race in decades. But Chris isn't putting that forward just as an excuse; he notes that the same probably applies to the machines that run numerous solidly Dem districts around the country.
There's so much bad data out there for the Republicans today that I'm inclined to think that this is the issue -- a really good Republican candidate, a really bad Democratic candidate. But only fools spin excuses and rationales for data that doesn't square with their assumptions. So I'm not sure I'm ready to let go of this one yet.
Late Update: TPM Reader CL checks in from district ...
This is my district.Among progressives there was a lot of resentment that 1) Tsongas beat out a great progressive candidate in the primary and that she 2) was essentially crowned by the local Democratic machine, without having done anything whatsoever to deserve it.
Oganowski, it must be said, was also a far better candidate than the usual Republican types. Not when it cames to "ideas" of course, but rather when it came down to simple old style retail politics. He was everywhere and seemed to attend every dopey local town event possible. Tsongas on the other hand was virtually invisible.
Thus a lot of progressive folks stayed home. I almost did, but thought better of it, held my nose and then voted for her.
That's my take. I may be wrong.
TPM Reader DP chimes in too ...
As someone who volunteered on the Tsongas campaign way back when, I'm not surprised the widow is not the most charismatic of candidates. However, I think an important element of this election is the GOP candidate's biography -- his military background and the loss of his brother on 9/11. People still carry a soft spot for the victims and relatives of that day, and in a low information election I can imagine people using 9/11 as a tie-breaker. I don't think this carries over to national campaigns, however, where the focus is more intense and the campaign is more high profile.
--Josh Marshall
Into the Mist
Here I think we're focusing down to some swirl of personalities, hypocrisy and general weirdness that will be the 2008 presidential battle. Last we met Bob Jones III he was feting then-candidate George W. Bush and identifying Mormons as members of a non-Christian "cult." Today Jones endorsed Romney, the man he believes is a cultist, saying ...
"This is all about beating Hillary. And I just believe that this man has the credentials both personally and ideologically in terms of his view about what American government should be to best represent the rank and file of conservative Americans. If it turns out to be Guiliani and Hillary we've got two pro choice candidates, and that would be a disaster."
Andrew Sullivan says this is an example of how Republicans will rally by uniting in opposition to Hillary. And I don't doubt that is and will prove to be true. But I think the Grand Inquisitor protests too much.
Look at the simple logic of his statement and it's clearly not "all about beating Hillary." The polls, at least for the moment, show that, head to head, Rudy does much better against HIllary than Romney. Name recognition may be the big factor there; Romney may be able to catch up there. And polls that give GOP voters the choice, show a substantial minority opting for a spoiler third party candidate.
But I don't think Jones is arguing for an electoral bank shot. He's saying that Rudy vs. Hillary, in itself, would be a disaster. Not because Rudy would lose the GOP base and elect Hillary. I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying that Rudy has to be beaten. He's simply not acceptable as the Republican standard-bearer -- which makes sense since he opposes the Fundamentalists on the key issues that make them Republicans.
--Josh Marshall
Big Pimpin'
From the Post ...
Giuliani's spending was elevated at least in part because he traveled in style. He often stayed in luxury hotels, spending $2,010 at the Greenbrier in West Virginia, $4,034 at La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, Calif., and $5,370 at the Fairmont in San Francisco. He also spent more than $565,000 reimbursing various corporate supporters for private jet travel and an additional $800,000 on charter jet travel.
--Josh Marshall
At today's White House briefing, Dana Perino covers the Dalai Lama . . . Gen. Sanchez's condemnation of the Iraq War catastrophe . . . and the Mukasey confirmation hearings:
--David Kurtz
TPMCafe Book Club: Daniel Brook
In his first book, The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America, Daniel Brook argues that income inequality between public and private interest careers perpetuates mass inequality by giving people the impossible choice of either being a "a sellout or a saint."
Brook kicked off the Book Club discussion with a post describing how this particular inequality "routes professional talent in ways that, as progressives, we should be very worried about." Though mostly in agreement with Brook, Dana Goldstein suggests that Brook overstates his case when he writes that careers in public service and the arts “have been relegated to a mix of moral giants, mental midgets, and trust fund babies.” Scott Winship is less impressed, still unconvinced that the problem Brook describes is either widespread or more pronounced that it was in the past.
--David Kurtz
Rudy: 'I'm Really Not' a Republican Mayor
In trying to prove his GOP bona fides, Rudy Giuliani said in a speech today that he "gave my blood" for the Republican Party in New York.
But 'twas not always so.
Greg Sargent has obtained a copy of a video showing Rudy back in 1996 telling Charlie Rose, "I'm really not" a Republican Mayor.
Take a look.
--David Kurtz
House Rebukes State Dept. for Stonewalling
House condemns State Department's refusal to divulge information on Iraqi corruption.
Resolution passes overwhelmingly: 395-21.
--David Kurtz
Get Out!
Iraqis complete their investigation of Blackwater's Nisour Square shooting and ask the State Department to pull Blackwater out of the country.
--David Kurtz
'The Disgruntled General'
Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former top commander in Iraq, gave a speech last week that gained considerable attention for its blistering criticism of the conduct of the war. He called the war plan "catastrophically flawed" and the war itself a "catastrophic failure" and "a nightmare with no end in sight."
But as Spencer Ackerman argues persuasively in a piece for The American Prospect, the Sanchez speech was not an example of another general falling on his sword but rather a bitter and self-serving broadside from a figure disgraced by the war:
Sanchez's speech is very different from the criticisms offered during the so-called "general's revolt" of 2006. Those accounts indicted the strategy of Donald Rumsfeld, the wisdom of commanders like Sanchez, and the opportunism of the administration as a whole. Sanchez's occasionally hysterical speech represents a triumph of embitterment, coupled with a cynical willingness to blame practically every civilian institution -- prowar, antiwar, whatever -- for the war's failures. "Our nation has not focused on the greatest challenge of our lifetime," Sanchez said. "The political and economic elements of power must get beyond the politics to ensure the survival of America." That's right: the survival of America.Contrary to its billing, this was no mere attack on the administration. Sanchez's speech is perfectly positioned to accelerate the stabbed-in-the-back myth of explaining the war now emerging on the right. That corrosive idea, revived most recently by revisionist Vietnam historian Mark Moyar, holds that sybaritic and feckless civilians recklessly squander the hard-won gains of the military.
The current crop of right-wingers is too close to the Iraq war to accept Sanchez's vituperation, since it contains an attack on Bush. But as the war recedes and the need for scapegoating expands -- particularly if conservatives lose the White House next year -- Sanchez's speech reads like a foundational text for an aggrieved conservative worldview that the war was too virtuous for the country that fought it. And it makes a lot of sense that it's Sanchez, the most disgraced general of the entire war, who issued this j'accuse.
--David Kurtz
Read Yglesias on Putin and Iran. Nothing's more important over the next fifteen months than making sure President Bush and his handler Vice President Cheney don't embroil us in a catastrophic war with Iran.
--Josh Marshall
Everybody's Got a Specialty
So it seems like we're getting a little more clarity on the different players in the GOP primary race. Giuliani is the candidate of lunatic foreign policy and war on Arabs and Muslims. Romney, meanwhile, has his niche in an aggressive defense of torture. Romney's new national security adviser is pro-torture. And his counter-terrorism and intel advisor, former counterterrorism center chief Cofer Black has talked a good game on torture. And he's also a VP with Blackwater now. So that may count for general misbehavior and abuse credit.
--Josh Marshall
Mitt Romney: The Pro-Torture Candidate?
Mitt Romney's new national security adviser: "I'd stick a knife in somebody's thigh in a heartbeat."
--David Kurtz
Leahy Likes Him
More and more it's looking like Michael Mukasey is a shoo-in for attorney general.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Meet the Four Horsemen of Rudy's Apocalypse
Maybe you love Rudy or maybe you hate him. But whatever you may think of him, check out his foreign policy team, because that's the key to knowing what to expect from a Rudy presidency. Especially for candidates with little or no foreign policy experience of their own, the folks advising the candidate are key. And Rudy's team is made up, more or less, of all the guys who were too nuts or too extreme to make the cut with George W. Bush. If you really, really want to go to war with Iran as soon as possible, vote Rudy. We run down the highlights and key bios in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Embed code:
Watch this episode on Youtube.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Verizon has turned over customer information to the feds hundreds of times without court order since 2005.
--David Kurtz
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) won't seek re-election in 2012 and may bow out early to run for governor in 2010.
--David Kurtz
Who You Gonna Believe?
From CNN ...
Six years of investigations and prosecutions have turned up little evidence of Islamic jihadists at work in the United States, according to a study released Monday.The study, conducted by New York University's Center on Law and Security, tracked 510 cases billed as terrorism-related when arrests were made.
But it found only 158 of those people arrested since al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks were prosecuted for terrorism.
In a statement issued Monday afternoon, the Justice Department said the report "reflects a serious misunderstanding" of anti-terrorism efforts and includes "wildly inaccurate" statistics.
The study found only four people -- including confessed al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui and "shoe bomber" Richard Reid -- were convicted of planning attacks within the United States.
"The vast majority of cases turn out to include no link to terrorism once they go to court," the report found. The analysis "suggests the presence of few, if any, prevalent terrorist threats currently within the U.S."
--Josh Marshall
Another OpEd by Iraq War vets who say it's time to get out. Shockingly, it's on the Post oped page.
--Josh Marshall
Republican Watching
There are several interesting nuggets in this piece in Tuesday's Post about presidential candidate spending. Obama, Romney and Giuliani each spent more than they brought in during the third quarter.
What really jumps out though is Romney. Romney spent a whopping $21 million in the 3rd quarter. That's three million more than he brought in. But, remember, Romney pulled in just under $10 million in genuine contributions. The rest of his $18 million came from an $8.5 million loan from himself. So really Romney spent twice as much as he brought in, though perhaps Romney's apparent and increasing willingness to self-finance -- even if in the form of never-to-be-repaid 'loans' -- makes the whole point moot.
Then there's this fun nugget ...
Giuliani's spending was elevated at least in part because he traveled in style. He often stayed in luxury hotels, spending $2,010 at the Greenbrier in West Virginia, $4,034 at La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, Calif., and $5,370 at the Fairmont in San Francisco. He also spent more than $565,000 reimbursing various corporate supporters for private jet travel and an additional $800,000 on charter jet travel."We have said, at the end of the day, looking at the total that we have, it shows we're running a very efficient and effective campaign and are very mindful of the donations that we receive," said Maria Comella, a Giuliani spokeswoman.
Sort of recalls the Luv Shack Emergency Command Center at the World Trade Center with its "humidor for cigars ... as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom."
At this point, on the Republican side, what really has me interested is Romney's effort to check Rudy on the evangelical front and make himself the candidate around whom religious right voters must coalesce in order to deny Giuliani the nomination. We mentioned this in last week's '08 election roundup. And just today Robert R. Taylor, dean of the college and arts and sciences at Bob Jones University endorsed Romney. As Eric Kleefeld points out here, as recently as 2000 the president of the place, Bob Jones III, was denouncing Mormonism as a "cult."
Despite the ridiculousness and humor of Romney (in fact, closest to Rudy on all the key social issues) trying to lock-up the evangelical vote to deny Rudy the nomination, I think it's probably a pretty smart move for him. And it may well be successful.
I know I've said before that Romney's profound and almost incalculable phoniness is a terrifying prospect to behold in a possible president. But the danger of phoniness, aesthetic or otherwise, cannot hold a candle to the truly catastrophic foreign policy Giuliani would likely pursue if he got anywhere near the Oval Office. Watching him campaign it's pretty clear that the guy has no real sense that posturing and pandering to ethnic paranoia in New York City simply isn't the same as running a national foreign policy. The people he's coalescing around himself as his foreign policy advisors are the ones who are going to help him learn as he goes. And they are simply the most dangerous, deranged and deluded folks you can find in American political and foreign policy circles today. It's really not an exaggeration. Scrape the bottom of the "Global War on Terror" Islamofascism nutbasket and you find they've pretty much all signed on as Rudy advisors.
--Josh Marshall
Arianna interviews Pelosi: "Are You Too Well-Behaved to Get Us Out of Iraq?"
--Josh Marshall
Jaw, Jaw, Jaw, Waw, Waw, Waw
Tonight we were shooting a TPMtv run-down of the list of whackjobs Rudy Giuliani has advising him on foreign policy. And believe me, that's not hyperbole: Rudy's national security 'brain trust' basically amounts to all the neocons and Arab-haters who were too extreme to cut it on the Bush team. But when we were shooting, it occurred to me how far the language has been manipulated to excise the serviceable and highly descriptive word "war" from our vocabulary.
This is not wholly new of course. War ministries across the world were renamed "Defense" ministries or departments after World War II. And the Korean and Vietnam Wars were classified as "police actions." But when we were running through the list of Rudy's advisors who are gung-ho supporters of going to war with Iran, I was struck by how few of them use the word -- and these folks aren't shrinking violets, but full-blown bombs to mask personal insecurities armchair generals like Norman Podhoretz.
Podhoretz insists we need to "strike" Iran, "bomb" Iran and "take military action" against Iran. But we couldn't find any instance of his saying we absolutely positively had to go to war with Iran. When I described his position, I simply said that he insists we must go to war with Iran. Was that editorializing? Going beyond what he's actually said? I don't think so. Can anyone really imagine that we can launch a decapitating strike against Iran's nuclear facilities and elite Army units and not find ourselves in something we can only refer to as "war"?
--Josh Marshall
Goin' Down
Congressional Research Service report finds multiple violations of the constitution in Rep. Young's (R-AK) post-bill-passage earmark scam.
--Josh Marshall
The Power and the Privilege
From the AP:
Three telecommunications companies have declined to tell Congress whether they gave U.S. intelligence agencies access to Americans' phone and computer records without court orders, citing White House objections and national security.Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell "formally invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent AT&T from either confirming or denying" any details about intelligence programs, AT&T general counsel Wayne Watts wrote in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Qwest and Verizon also declined to answer, saying the federal government has prohibited them from providing information, discussing or referring to any classified intelligence activities.
. . .
The White House declined to comment on the matter Monday.
--David Kurtz
Going Down?
Abramoff-tainted Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) out-raised by GOP primary challenger in 3rd quarter.
--David Kurtz
Kurtz: The Kid Had It Comin'
From today's WaPo Chat ...
Rockville Md.: I have a question that has been bugging me for some time and I hope you can address it. I have folloewd the recent stories about Graeme Frost, the child who gave the Democratic response about SCHIP, and what some commentators are calling the "Swift Boating" of Frost by right-wing groups. Realizing that the jury may still be out about Frost: It is one thing when politicians slam each other, but when someone goes after a private citizen, don't libel and slander laws ever come into play?Howard Kurtz: Libel and slander laws only come into play when you say something that is both inaccurate and damaging about someone. Whether or not the Frost family should be considered too well-off to qualify for federal health benefits doesn't seem to fall in that category. When the parents agreed to make their son available to the Democratic Party as a spokesman for the program, surely they must have expected that their financial situation would become part of the debate. I am not, for the record, in favor of beating up on 12-year-old boys, but the family did willingly step into the political arena.
Late Update: A number of readers suggest that Kurtz may have been referring narrowly to the issue of whether the Frost family has any legal recourse with regards to the claims in question as opposed to his take on the morality or appropriateness of the attacks on the Frost family. I can see that in part. But I'm not sure that quite explains the sense in the quote that if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
--Josh Marshall
Craig Scorned
Looking at Larry Craig's swipe at Mitt Romney, you quickly see why Craig's senate Republican colleagues are now giving him, shall we say, a wide berth.
This dude is pissed.
And while that's hardly a surprise I do find it surprising, interesting, perhaps even refreshing, that he doesn't seem inclined to hold back when speaking publicly about it.
What more damage might he intentionally inflict on his senate pals who threw him under their own bus?
--Josh Marshall
'Cheney's Law'
A new Frontline documentary to be released tomorrow traces the vice president's long, secretive battle to expand the powers of the presidency. Spencer Ackerman has a sneak preview.
--David Kurtz
Hillary on The View: Is she still leaving herself flexibility --political or otherwise--on "enhanced interrogation techniques"?
--David Kurtz
Iran, Anyone?
Getting bored with Iraq? Nothing ever changes? Well, how about war with Iran? The drumbeat for military action against Iran has been a low rumble building gradually throughout the year. We gauge just how high the pitch has risen in today's Sunday Show Roundup episode of TPMtv ...
Embed code:
Watch this episode on Youtube.
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
Blackwater CEO Erik Prince is engaged in an all-out media blitz: a Newsweek interview, Wolf Blitzer's Sunday gabfest, 60 Minutes last night, and Charlie Rose tonight.
The reason?
Prince is positioning his company for even more lucrative government contracts than the billion dollars Blackwater has snared since 9/11.
--David Kurtz
Twice for Good Measure
Sen Craig on Mitt Romney: "I was very proud of my association with Mitt Romney ... And he not only threw me under his campaign bus, he backed up and ran over me again."
--Josh Marshall
Back to Reality
Akbar Ganji, Iran's leading political dissident, discusses Iran's theocratic regime, democratization and the United States.
Big surprise: he's not a fan of Dick Cheney and Bushism.
--Josh Marshall
Even the WSJ
How can you tell for sure when the far-right attack machine has gone a little too far over the edge? When the Wall Street Journal editorial page starts criticizing conservatives.
--Steve Benen
Negotiating Blackwater’s expulsion?
We learned on Friday that Army officials in Baghdad believe Blackwater guards at Nisoor Square not only weren't under attack when they opened fire, the private security force actually opened fire on Iraqi civilians while the Iraqis were fleeing in the other direction. Said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers reached Nisoor Square 20 to 25 minutes after the gunfire subsided, "It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting."
To date, there have been exactly zero independent reports and/or evidence bolstering Blackwater's version of events on Sept. 16. It is against this backdrop that Iraqi officials have renewed discussions with the Bush administration about kicking the private army out of the country.
U.S. and Iraqi officials are negotiating Baghdad's demand that security company Blackwater USA be expelled from the country within six months, and American diplomats appear to be working on how to fill the security gap if the company is phased out. [...]
The Iraqi investigators issued five recommendations to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which has since sent them to the U.S. Embassy as demands for action. Point No. 2 in the report says: "The Iraqi government should demand that the United States stops using the services of Blackwater in Iraq within six months and replace it with a new, more disciplined organization that would be answerable to Iraqi laws."
Sami al-Askari, a top aide to al-Maliki, said that point in the Iraqi list of demands was nonnegotiable.
"I believe the government has been clear. There have been attacks on the lives of Iraqi citizens on the part of that company (Blackwater). It must be expelled. The government has given six months for its expulsion and it's left to the U.S. Embassy to determine with Blackwater when to terminate the contract. The American administration must find another company," he told AP.
In a bit of a shift, al-Askari, according to the AP report, said Bush administration officials are no longer "insisting on Blackwater staying."
If Blackwater is expelled, as now appears increasingly likely, who'd replace their teams? Apparently, DynCorp, which already has a significant presence in Iraq, is poised to replace the controversial North Carolina company, though the AP noted that DynCorp probably doesn't have the infrastructure in place to take over Blackwater's responsibilities within six months, as the Maliki government demands.
--Steve Benen
Congressional GOP: 'We are not happy'
The NYT's Carl Hulse reports today that Republicans on the Hill have a serious morale problem. The White House communications team invited some congressional counterparts to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue the other day, and was apparently disappointed to see their widespread depression. Said one of the senior Republican congressional aides who attended the White House gathering, "We are not happy, no doubt about it."
The leading cause of the discontent, at least right now, is the Republican sense that they're loosing the S-CHIP battle in a big way. Hulse noted that Ed Gillespie and others at the White House are encouraging congressional Republicans to just wait for the storm to blow over, while GOP lawmakers believe the president's aides "[do] not fully appreciate their political difficulties."
Stuart Rothenberg had a similar report in Roll Call the other day.
"It's just stunning to me," one veteran Republican strategist told me this week, "that after seven years of Republicans complaining that the president won't use his veto, [the White House and Republican Congressional leaders] choose their big showdown to be over children's health care. Good Lord, it probably polls at 80 percent!"
Added the GOP insider: "If we had been talking about cutting spending and waste in government for years, we could oppose SCHIP. But now we are finally going to get religion on spending?"
So what advice would this Republican give his party's Members of Congress? "If I were in a swing district, I'd vote to override. There's no way I'd take a bullet on this."
One GOP lawmaker added, "It's stupid politics. The leadership is putting pressure on Members [to sustain the veto], promising to rebuild the brand. I don't know why our guys are following [Bush] into the sea like lemmings."
Maybe out of habit?
The S-CHIP override vote is slated for Thursday. Stay tuned.
--Steve Benen
There will be no JFK moment
National Journal conducts a weekly "Insider's Poll," which, as the name implies, questions DC players about political stories of the day. As the WSJ noted, the poll is "generally a good reflection of conventional wisdom among strategists, lobbyists, consultants, pollsters and party operatives inside the Beltway."
This week's survey asked insiders: "Does Mitt Romney need to address the issue of his religious faith the way that John F. Kennedy did in 1960?" The results showed that 59% of Republicans, and 44% of Democrats said, "Yes, and soon."
Robert Novak recently noted the same trend. "Although disagreement remains within the Romney camp, the consensus is that he must address the Mormon question with a speech deploring bias," Novak wrote a couple of weeks ago. "According to campaign sources, a speech has been written, though much of it could still be changed."
I don't doubt that Romney's faith tradition is controversial in some conservative circles, but I haven't the foggiest idea what he could say about it to overcome some voters' prejudice. Answering the "Mormon question" isn't nearly as easy as it sounds.
The notion that Romney could deliver a JFK-like speech is rather silly, for reasons that have nothing to do with Romney's skills. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960, and made a powerful case that his administration would be neutral on matters of faith. (It seems ridiculous in hindsight, but there was a common fear that Kennedy, as a Roman Catholic, would let the Vatican dictate U.S. policy.)
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote, where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source, where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
Romney's challenge is entirely different. He can't deliver a similar speech because Republicans don't want to hear it.
Nearly a half-century after JFK's speech in Houston, many of today's conservatives, particularly those in the GOP's religious right base, abhor the very idea of church-state separation. It's not unusual to hear figures like James Dobson and Pat Robertson reject the constitutional principle's very existence.
If Romney were to publicly argue that "the separation of church and state is absolute," he would be thumbing his nose at some of the very people he hopes to impress. Conservative activists -- indeed, the very people who worry about the "Momon question" -- want more intermingling between religion and government, not less.
For that matter, the nature of the controversy is very different now than in 1960. Conservative Republicans uneasy about Romney's faith aren't worried that Salt Lake City will dictate policy through the White House; they're just not comfortable with a faith tradition with which they're unfamiliar (and in some cases, find heretical). In this sense, as a friend of mine recently argued, Romney is "boxed in" on the issue.
The "Insider's Poll" suggests the DC establishment is waiting for a grand pronouncement. Unfortunately for the campaign, there's a disconnect between what the insiders expect and what Romney can say.
--Steve Benen
Mysterious and Faraway
Didn't happen in a bathroom, but it seems we've got another terrible misunderstanding ...
A Vatican official suspended after being caught on hidden camera making advances to a young man said in an interview published Sunday that he is not gay and was only pretending to be gay as part of his work.In an interview with La Repubblica newspaper, Monsignor Tommaso Stenico said he frequented online gay chat rooms and met with gay men as part of his work as a psychoanalyst. He said that he pretended to be gay in order to gather information about "those who damage the image of the Church with homosexual activity."
...
"It's all false; it was a trap. I was a victim of my own attempts to contribute to cleaning up the Church with my psychoanalyst work," La Repubblica quoted Stenico as saying.
...
In the Repubblica interview, Stenico said he had met with the young man and pretended to talk about homosexuality "to better understand this mysterious and faraway world which, by the fault of a few people — among them some priests — is doing so much harm to the Church."
--Josh Marshall
A misguided rationale for telecom immunity
The WaPo's editorial board seems to believe congressional Dems on the right track with their "RESTORE Act," unveiled this week, but sides with the Bush administration on a key sticking point.
There is one major area of disagreement between the administration and House Democrats where we think the administration has the better of the argument: the question of whether telecommunications companies that provided information to the government without court orders should be given retroactive immunity from being sued. House Democrats are understandably reluctant to grant that wholesale protection without understanding exactly what conduct they are shielding, and the administration has balked at providing such information. But the telecommunications providers seem to us to have been acting as patriotic corporate citizens in a difficult and uncharted environment.
It's a confusing argument. We know that the telecoms weren't just motivated by "patriotism" during a "difficult" post-9/11 period, but were in fact cooperating with the NSA long before the 2001 terrorist attacks. We know this, of course, because the WaPo ran a front-page story on this just yesterday.
Indeed, this same front-page article suggests the telecoms that were playing ball with the NSA weren't necessarily driven by national service, but rather the corporate desire to secure lucrative contracts that were in jeopardy unless the companies obliged administration requests.
So, what's the argument here? That Congress should provide retroactive immunity to companies that cooperated in secret with the NSA to violate customers' privacy rights, apparently in violation of the law, before a national emergency? That these companies should be entirely shielded from responsibility, before lawmakers even understand what exactly transpired?
This is what the WaPo finds persuasive?
Update: Glenn Greenwald has more, including a solid analysis of how seriously (or, in this case, not) the DC establishment takes the rule of law.
--Steve Benen
Rich: 'Our humanity has been compromised'
Nearly two weeks ago, the NYT had a front-page blockbuster, highlighting secret legal opinions from the Bush administration, which endorsed "the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency." After insisting publicly that "torture is abhorrent," administration officials "provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics," including simulated drownings and freezing temperatures.
The revelations sparked renewed discussion about U.S. policy on torture, but Frank Rich argues today that the response wasn't nearly enough: "The administration gives its alibi (Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples). A few members of Congress squawk. The debate is labeled 'politics.' We turn the page."
Our moral trajectory over the Bush years could not be better dramatized than it was by a reunion of an elite group of two dozen World War II veterans in Washington this month. They were participants in a top-secret operation to interrogate some 4,000 Nazi prisoners of war. Until now, they have kept silent, but America's recent record prompted them to talk to The Washington Post.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an M.I.T. physicist whose interrogation of Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy, took place over a chessboard. George Frenkel, 87, recalled that he "never laid hands on anyone" in his many interrogations, adding, "I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."
Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those "good Germans" who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It's up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war's last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country's good name.
Complacency, under the circumstances, is untenable.
--Steve Benen
McCain's glass house
On Friday, in an otherwise unremarkable speech, Mitt Romney said he is the candidate who best represents the "Republican wing of the Republican Party." This prompted John McCain, who apparently considers Romney something of a fraud, to launch quite a tirade yesterday in New Hampshire.
"When he ran against Ted Kennedy," Mr. McCain said as dozens of people wearing Romney buttons looked on angrily, "he said he didn't want to return to the days of Reagan-Bush. I always thought Ronald Reagan was a real Republican."
He continued: "When he voted for a Democratic candidate for president, Paul Tsongas, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. When he refused to endorse the Contract with America, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. And when he was embracing the Democratic position on many issues of the day, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans."
As Mr. McCain spoke, his voice became pitched with indignation.
"So you'll understand why I'm a little perplexed when Mitt Romney now suggests that he's a better Republican than me, or that he speaks for the Republican wing of the Republican Party," he said.
I guess the gloves are off?
In terms of motivations, it's not hard to guess why McCain is unloading on the former Massachusetts governor -- McCain has a lot of ground to make up, and Romney's record makes him vulnerable. Indeed, everything the Arizona senator said about Romney yesterday was true.
But I wonder if McCain underestimates his own vulnerabilities on this. If the race for the GOP nomination comes down to who is the most loyal partisan and fiercest advocate of the Republican agenda, McCain's going to lose.
I started thinking about the past few years, and McCain's record is ripe for the picking. He's worked with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) on sweeping campaign-finance reform, former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) on a Patients' Bill of Rights, and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) on immigration reform -- all bills the GOP opposed in large numbers. McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the anti-gay constitutional amendment last year. In March 2004, asked on national television whether he would consider joining the Democratic presidential ticket as John Kerry's running mate, McCain said, "John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years. Obviously I would entertain it."
A month later, in April 2004, just as the national Republican campaign was beginning in earnest, McCain said, "I believe my party has gone astray.... I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy."
And now McCain has decided his path to the nomination will be decided by a fight over who is the "real" Republican in the race? Is this really a wise strategy?
--Steve Benen
