The Last Polka

Corporate Fraud Lives!

2006-05-23T15:51:00.000-04:00

Despite its best efforts, the Bush Administration's Justice Department has not been able to cut down of corporate fraud.

Via MSNBC:

The wave of high-profile corporate fraud cases involving companies like Enron, World Com and Tyco International was followed by criminal charges and new regulations that were designed to put an end to corporate fraud. But despite hundreds of millions spent on improved audit controls and several high-profile convictions, occupational fraud is alive and well in the post-Enron era. From the mailroom to the board room, people are still busy stealing from their employers and shareholders.

“We're not seeing a tremendous reduction in the amount of fraud out there,” said Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic accountant based in Bethesda, Md. [...]

While new laws have helped expose fraud, and tougher criminal penalties are being handed out to those convicted, fraudsters continue find ways around them. U.S. losses from fraud rose to an estimated $660 million in 2004 — up from $600 million in 2002 and $400 million in 1996, according to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, a trade group of accountants who are often called in when fraud is suspected or discovered.

“When you look at the underlying cause of fraud, the underlying drivers are still there,” said Dubinsky.

Worldwide losses to fraud amounted to at least $2 billion last year — a 50 percent increase from 2003, according to a PriceWaterhouseCoopers report.

“Globally, the trend is toward an increase in economic crime, not a decrease,” the firm found in its 2005 Global Economic Crime Study.

And just for reference, here's what the White House has to say about 'corporate responsibility:

The Administration continues to pursue an aggressive agenda to fight corporate fraud and abuse:

-Exposing and punishing acts of corruption
-Holding corporate officers and directors accountable
-Protecting small investors, pension holders and workers
-Moving corporate accounting out of the shadows
-Developing a stronger, more independent corporate audit system
-Providing better information to investors.

-Since the exposure of the corporate fraud scandals, the President has taken decisive action to combat corporate fraud and punish corporate wrongdoers [...]

Bayh: '08 Darkhorse

2006-05-22T15:48:00.000-04:00

Here's a nice little piece about Sen. Evan Bayh and his '08 presidential aspirations. Nothing too fancy, but be sure to listen to the audio.

Breaking: Nagin Re-elected

2006-05-20T23:24:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press is now reporting that Mayor Ray Nagin has been reelected as Mayor of New Orleans. Landrieu is currently giving his concession speech. God speed New Orleans...

Chokeback Mountain...What?

2006-05-20T23:20:00.000-04:00

This is a tremendous video for a Sox fan like myself...

Marine 1 Photo

2006-05-20T23:01:00.000-04:00

This is just a cool picture...

Immigration Deadlock To Come (????)

2006-05-20T22:46:00.000-04:00

The New Nebraska Network discusses some comments that Sen. Ben Nelson made regarding what could prove to be an inevitable impasse in the immigration debate: the House-Senate Conference. I've noted here the virtually impossible nature of attempting compromise between the House bill and the more complete Senate bill. Here's what the NNN had to say:

And, although it's going to piss-off the American public - there is some question whether no bill in 2006 is truly worse than a bad bill that neither side cares for very much. Congress should not just go along to get along on an issue of this much importance. Sure, compromise is a good goal to have, but when it's not possible, it's only right that the decision be left to the American people. That's why we have elections, and - lucky for us - the next one's just around the corner.

I have to agree that no bill would certainly be better than a bill that closely resembles the House version. If the President fails to get the reform he wants, he's toast. If he can succeed on this one, he's got a chance to gain some ground in the coming months. It's only a chance though - the President and the GOP have enough other problems to keep the President's numbers in the shitter.

New Orleans Mayoral Election

2006-05-20T22:18:00.000-04:00

You can find real time election results for the New Orleans Mayoral race here, if you're so inclined. At this hour, 99/443 precincts are reporting and the race is a dead heat. This will be fun to watch throughout the night.

Bush And Immigration

2006-05-20T11:54:00.000-04:00

This is a few days old, but OxBlog has some thoughtful analysis of President Bush's address to the nation regarding immigration. Which brings me to this point - this is most likely a first for The Last Polka - I agree with the president on this issue. I agree with OxBlog that the President has crafted a "carefully balanced position" and has refused to "'[capitulate] to the more zealous and hysterical wings of the American right." And by the way, for all those saying that the President is a 'Johnny Come Lately' on this issue, here's a part of a press conference he held after his reelection (I believe its the same one where he discussed his abundance of political capital...oops):

Q: Mr. President, the Senate Republicans recently listed their priorities, and immigration reform wasn't on it. Do you think this means it's dead for this year? And why are you having so much trouble with your own party on that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that question. It will be one of my priorities. I believe it's necessary to reform the immigration system. I'm against amnesty; I've made that very clear. On the other hand, I do want to recognize a system where a willing worker and a willing employer are able to come together in a way that enables people to find work without jeopardizing a job that an American would otherwise want to do.
I also happen to believe immigration reform is necessary to help make it easier to protect our borders. The system right now spawns coyotes and smugglers and people willing to break the law to get people in our country. There is a vast network of kind of shadowy traffickers. And I believe by making a -- by advancing a program that enables people to come into our country in a legal way to work for a period of time, for jobs that Americans won't do, will help make it easier for us to secure our borders. And so --

Q: Why the resistance in your party so much?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think -- I'm looking forward to discussing it with members of both parties. I believe it's a very important issue that we need to address. I've had a lot of experience with dealing with borders, as the governor of Texas. I know there's a compassionate, humane way to deal with this issue. I want to remind people that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River. People are coming to our country to do jobs that Americans won't do, to be able to feed their families. And I think there's a humane way to recognize that, at the same time protect our borders, and at the same way to make sure that we don't disadvantage those who have stood in line for years to become a legal citizen. And I'm looking forward to working with people of both parties on the issue.

Yes that's right, I'm going out of my way to defend this President. Pigs are flying.

Anyway, like I said, the President has clearly been speaking about reforming the immigration system and securing the border for some time now. His problem was that his post-election agenda was far too ambitious. His administration put the ball in the air with Social Security and he failed to convince anybody. The War in Iraq dragged on...then there was Katrina...Hariet Miers...Dubai Ports World...and on and on. He maxed out the little political capital that he actually had (indeed, much less than he boasted about). Immigration reform didn't become an issue again until this year, an election year. Members of the House have spent little time in session and much time campaigning and listening to their constituents who are extremely nervous about the illegal immigration issue.

This post has turned into something of a rant. One final point - the electoral implications of cozying up to Latino-Americans are certainly not lost on this president. OxBlog is right to note the following: "To be sure, there is probably much self-interest in Bush's carefully balanced position. A large Hispanic vote getting larger will not have been overlooked." Bottom Line: Karl Rove understands demographics and is trying to set up the GOP as a solid ally of Hispanic. Unfortunately (perhaps) the traditional Republican base is a bit more shortsighted.

And just for fun, take a look at the President's speech on immigration... en espanol.

Speaking Of Immigration...

2006-05-19T13:07:00.000-04:00

Speaking of immigration, check out this clip from The Colbert Report about the Minutemen and their quest to build a 400 yd. fence in Southern California. It's pretty funny.

Specter To Feingold: Good Riddance! (UPDATED)

2006-05-19T12:52:00.000-04:00

This AP story does a great job summarizing what happened in a recent Judiciary Committee hearing on a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. There were apparently fireworks and some choice words exchanged between the Chairman of the Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter, and one of the most vocal oppenents of the Bush Administration, Sen. Russ Feingold. Here's what happened:

WASHINGTON - A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Amid increasing partisan tension over President Bush's judicial nominees and domestic wiretapping, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional amendment — which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages — to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing.

Holy crap. I wish I had the opportunity to see this. Hopefull C-SPAN will play this hearing at some point.

UPDATE: A statement from Feingold's office says the following:

Today’s markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. [...]

I'm not a huge Feingold fan, but I have to agree with him on this one. Ammending our constitution is not the appropriate way to address the gay marriage issue. The ammendment will likely be voted down in the full Senate. Also, it seems that the heated exchange between the Chairman and Feingold was not caught on camera. Too bad.

'National Language' vs. 'Common And Unifying Language'??

2006-05-19T11:52:00.000-04:00

The other day I was discussing the Senate's Immigration legislation with someone and I proposed a question: How long do you think before English as the National Language legislation is drafted? Neither of us said less than 24 hours.

Via AP:

The Senate first voted 63-34 to make English the national language after lawmakers who led the effort said it would promote national unity.

But critics argued the move would prevent limited English speakers from getting language assistance required by an executive order enacted under President Clinton. So the Senate also voted 58-39 to make English the nation’s “common and unifying language.”

Supporters agreed that both measures are largely symbolic.

The language of the original English Language Amendment (SA 4064 - scroll down until you find 4064 sponsored by Sen. Inhoffe and co-sponsored by several others reads as follows:

The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America. Unless specifically stated in applicable law, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English. If exceptions are made, that does not create a legal entitlement to additional services in that language or any language other than English. If any forms are issued by the Federal Government in a language other than English (or such forms are completed in a language other than English), the English language version of the form is the sole authority for all legal purposes.

You can find the breakdown of the vote - the amendment passed 63-34 - here.

Indeed an interesting development. Seems to be another way to pacify enough conservatives and hold the bipartisan coalition together and move the legislation forward. While I don't support the English as the National Language Amendment, it seems to be a symbolic gesture. Still, it will be interesting to see to reaction to this development across the country.

Moving Forward On Immigration Reform...

2006-05-17T21:56:00.000-04:00

In the last few days a strange thing has happened in Washington DC: actual governing, marked by reasonable debate and compromise. The Senate, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. John McCain, and others has worked hard to move forward a comprehensive immigration reform bill - if you'd like to read the text of the 600+ page Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S.2611), you can do so here (you're welcome).

After coming to a stalemate before their latest recess/vacation (which I commented on here), the Senate has heeded President Bush's call for action and has acted to move the bill forward. The Senate has acted on a number of amendments in recent days, including ones that appeared to be the source of the pre-Easter recess controversy. The Senate approved two somewhat controversial amendments, one that approved the construction of 370 miles of fencing along the border (sponsored by Sen. Jeff Sessions) and the Cornyn-Kyl amendment which would deny those who have committed a felony or 3 misdemeanors from moving down the path toward citizenship provided by the bill. Attempts to derail the essence of the reforms, most notably by Sen. David Vitter, who repeatedly echoed the sentiments of his GOP colleagues in the House by referring to this comprehensive reform as mere amnesty, were ultimately defeated.

Via AP, regarding the Vitter Amendment:

Vitter led the drive to strip from the bill a provision giving an eventual chance at citizenship to illegal immigrants who have been in the country more than two years. His attempt failed, 66-33, at the hands of a bipartisan coalition, and the provision survived. In all, 41 Democrats joined with 24 Republicans and one independent to turn back the proposal. Opponents included the leaders of both parties, Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev. Thirty-one Republicans and two Democrats supported Vitter's amendment.

As for the fence provision:

The vote to build what supporters called a "real fence" as distinct from the virtual fence already incorporated in the legislation was 83-16. The fence would be built in areas "most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens," as determined by federal officials. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., estimated the cost at roughly $3.2 million per mile, more than $900 million for 300 miles.

The provision includes a call for construction of 500 miles of vehicle barriers, adding to a system currently in place.

It marked the first significant victory for conservatives eager to leave their stamp on a measure that looks increasingly like it is headed toward Senate passage.

Construction would send "a signal that open-border days are over. ... Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors," Sessions said. He said border areas where barriers are in place have experienced economic improvement and reduced crime.

"What we have here has become a symbol for the right wing in American politics," countered Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said if the proposal passed, "our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries."

All Republicans and more than half the Senate's Democrats supported the proposal. A core group of bill supporters who have held off other more serious challenges in the past two days made little attempt to fight this one, judging it far less damaging than the attack on the citizenship provision or an attempt on Tuesday to strip out a guest worker program.

This is what happens when we compromise, kids. Its about the give-and-take. If a fence is important enough to convince enough Republicans to move the bill forward, then build a damn fence. The fact that the Sessions proposal garnered the support of 83 Senators is quite significant. For the record, the Cornyn-Kyl Amendment passed 99-0.

It's no secret that approval ratings of Congress as a whole are quite low. Part of the reason for these low ratings is the perception that Congress does nothing. It's certainly heartening to see such progress being made on such a vital issue. That being said, this battle has just begun. Should the Senate's bill pass, as it appears it will, the Conference Committee charged with 'working out the differences' between House and Senate versions of legislation will have a virtually impossible task. House Republicans refuse to address the totality of the immigration issue and will not support a perceived amnesty. The President's plan and Senate legislation fall under the amnesty umbrella for House GOPers.

What's important to note here is that this is not a mere cabal of hard nosed conservatives in the House that oppose the President--its the leadership and other high ranking Republicans:

Via WaPo:

"I understand what the president's position is. I have made it pretty clear that I have supported the House position," said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Via AP:

"Regardless of what the president says, what he is proposing is amnesty," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. the lawmaker who would lead House negotiators in any attempt to draft a compromise immigration bill later this year.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt has also been a vocal critic of the President's position and Rep. Tom Tancredo has become a mainstay on cable news programs discussing his opposition to amnesty.

The open defiance of the House led Karl Rove to pay a visit to House Republicans today (I thought he was stripped of his policy duties??), via The Hill:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove went into the lion's den yesterday, calling on House Republicans to rally behind an immigration plan that many of them oppose.

The meeting, however, was cordial, according to congressional GOP officials who attended. Rove characterized the meeting as "hopeful, optimistic and positive."

The White House political guru kept his remarks brief during the Republicans' regular Wednesday-morning conference meeting, expanding on the five points that President Bush laid out in his prime-time television appearance Monday night, members and aides in attendance said yesterday.

Rove spent much of his time explaining the particulars of the president's plan to expand security along the border and did not remain long enough to answer many questions.

Again, the activity in the Senate is encouraging. Republicans and Democrats have actually come together to address a serious issue. That being said, the most important work will occur in Conference. I for one am not at all convinced that a good, comprehensive bill will come out of the Conference Committee. If I were advising the President, I would at least suggest vetoing legislation that does not address the immigration issue comprehensively. He has put his neck out on this issue and should show some balls. He shouldn't settle for a weak bill simply because House Republicans are feeling particularly audacious.

10 Months Jail Time For Ex-RNC Official

2006-05-17T20:43:00.000-04:00

Remember the 2002 midterms? Remember a tight Senate race between former NH Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and now GOP Senator John Sununu? If you do, this story might interest you:

CONCORD, N.H. - A former Republican National Committee official was sentenced Wednesday to 10 months in prison for his role in the jamming of New Hampshire Democrats’ telephones on Election Day 2002.

James Tobin, 45, was found guilty in December of harassment by telephone.

Prosecutors said he helped arrange more than 800 hang-up calls that jammed get-out-the-vote phone lines set up by the state Democratic Party and the Manchester firefighters union for about an hour. [...]

Not surprisingly this type of tactic initially got rewarded by GOPers:

He later became New England chairman of President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign but stepped down when Democrats accused him of playing a role in the jamming.

Good stuff.

UPDATE: Reuters adds the following:

U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe described the crime as "extremely serious" and a threat to the U.S. political tradition of free and fair elections.

"People in your position need to know they cannot do these things and if they do the consequences are very, very serious," he said in handing down a sentence harsher than the six months home detention and community service sought by Tobin's lawyer.

Democrats want an investigation into 22 telephone calls made by Tobin and New Hampshire Republican Party officials to the White House on November 5 and 6, 2002, and say they believe national Republican officials may be involved in the scheme.

"I don't consider this sentencing to be the end of the matter. I consider this to be one more step in the process of uncovering exactly who knew about this," said Kathleen Sullivan, the New Hampshire Democratic Party chair.

New Orleans Times Picayune Endorses Lt. Gov. Landrieu

2006-05-17T12:52:00.000-04:00

Today, in an editorial published following last night's heated mayoral debate, the New Orleans Times Picayune endorsed Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu in that city's first post-Katrina mayoral election. This, I believe, is big news. Furthermore, while I'm not overly impressed by Landrieu, I must concur with the paper's assessment. The incumbent, Mayor Ray "chocolate city" Nagin has consistently failed his city. Electing Landrieu will not guarantee better management and governing in that devastated city; however, it will send a clear message that the citizens of New Orleans want to truly start anew. Again, I concur with the Times Picayune: Nagin must go.

Here's some of what the Times Picayune had to say:

No single elected official can solve all the city's problems. But the recovery does depend on having a mayor who can bring people together and get things done. Voters need to consider these questions: Which candidate can better marshal the outside resources to pay for the city's recovery? Who can manage City Hall at a time when money is short but the need for services is greater than ever? Who will put New Orleans in a position to take care of itself in the future?

Mitch Landrieu is the better candidate for this difficult job. His ability to unite New Orleanians across economic and racial lines will be a salve for a city whose residents are scattered far and wide. And his intimate knowledge of the mechanics of government and the political system will be an asset. [...]

In short, Mr. Nagin is an honest man who has kept the best interests of the city at heart, and the lack of major scandals within his administration is a great credit to him.

But while the mayor's disdain for political intrigue is fully justified, his aversion to the give-and-take of governing has proved a liability. From the start, Mr. Nagin has been unable to turn his larger ideas into realities. He has trouble communicating clearly with other officials and the public, and he has shown little ability to form and retain a team of talented managers.

The gap between the mayor's vision and his ability to execute has only grown since Katrina. His Bring New Orleans Back Commission crafted a nuanced proposal to guide the rebuilding of the city, but the mayor failed to embrace its most important provisions. New Orleanians want answers, but Mr. Nagin has left many people scratching their heads.

Mr. Nagin does enjoy a good relationship with President Bush, and that has helped yield major federal aid for the city. But other relationships appear strained or nonexistent. New Orleans cannot afford to go it alone, as Ray Nagin has often done. [...]

Still, Mr. Landrieu's considerable strengths outweigh his weaknesses. New Orleans needs a mayor with innate political sense and a firm, reassuring manner. Mr. Landrieu is blessed with both. He has a knack for stating the city's urgent case and inspiring others to action.

Right now thousands of damaged homes in New Orleans have FEMA trailers parked out front. At stores and restaurants, handmade posters announce longer hours as customers and employees trickle back. These are hopeful signs. Despite huge losses, despite the risks of future storms, despite mixed signals from elected leaders, New Orleanians are casting their lot with the city they love.

In Saturday's election, voters are fortunate to have a choice between two candidates of good character. But one has the better disposition and drive to rally New Orleanians to their city's cause. Mitch Landrieu is that candidate.

While I do not live in New Orleans, I have a friend at Tulane. His descriptions of the situation on the ground coupled with media accounts have convinced me that the city needs new leadership.

A quick not on last night's debate, which was televised nationally on MSNBC. Most of the questioning was appropriate. However, questions about immigration and whether or not either candidate would support Hillary Clinton for president were absurdly inappropriate. What's worse, each candidate answered the Clinton question. This was a missed opportunity for both candidates--each candidate would've been better served to refuse to answer such a question while the city has such historic problems to deal with. Sen. Clinton's political aspirations are certainly far from the minds of last night's most important demographic--the people of New Orleans, especially those that are dispersed throughout the nation.

RI Senate Update

2006-04-17T18:32:00.000-04:00

According to The Hotline and WJAR/AP Matt Brown (D) primary campaign for Sen. Linc Chafee's (R) Senate seat ain't going so well. He's apparently running out money and has fired some key staffers. I guess his experience overseeing elections in the smallest state as RI Sec. of State has prepared him for the big leagues.

Also, Chafee will reportedly be joined by First Lady Laura Bush at a fundraiser in the coming weeks.

Light blogging for a little while longer...lots of work to do...

Hannity Never Ceases To Amaze...

2006-04-13T21:18:00.000-04:00

The Red Sox are losing, so I flipped it over to Fox News and caught Sean Hannity trying to blame the President's dreadful poll numbers on the possibility that a large segment of American's have forgotten 9/11. I shit you not.

I'll try to get the transcript up when its available.

Rummy vs. The Retired Generals

2006-04-13T09:29:00.000-04:00

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is under attack from an increasing number of retired military officers. The latest, according to the Washington Post, is former head of the 1st Infantry Division, Maj. Gen. John Batiste (Ret.), who had this to say about his former boss:

"I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork." [...]

"It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense."

The article goes on to outline the comments of other retired officers who have called for Rummy to step aside. One of the things that's frustrating about Rumsfeld is that he knows he's doing a bad job--he's offered his resignation at least twice. The President, once again, refuses to accept reality and move past the Rumsfeld era at the Pentagon.

Don't expect the Generals to pipe down anytime soon. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rumsfeld go at some point in the relatively near future. Let's just hope that will make some sort of difference for our troops on the ground.

ABC Poll

2006-04-10T21:02:00.000-04:00

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but some numbers from the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll stand out. Okay, we get it - President Bush's approval ratings are in the shitter. But look at this: 38% of respondents approve of the job that President Bush is doing, while 47% STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. Overall disapproval is at 60%.

To reiterate, 9% fewer approve that strongly disapprove. I don't know about you, but that says a lot - Bush is losing this country at an alarmingly fast rate.

UPDATE: Looking at the data, here are a few more numbers that must go up the President's ass...

2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling...

Iraq: Approve - 37%; Disapprove - 62%

Economy: Approve - 40%; Disaprove - 59%

Immigration Issues - Approve - 33%; Disapprove - 61%

All of the polling data is available here.

Note: Political Wire notes the same stunning finding that I did above.

Fukuyama Strikes Back!

2006-04-10T20:00:00.000-04:00

Take that Charles Krauthammer!!!!

Getting Serious On Darfur?

2006-04-10T19:58:00.000-04:00

Wes Clark and John Prendergast have an op-ed in today's Boston Globe discussing a U.S. plan to end genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Also, the Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration is ready to support a larger role for NATO in that troubled region.

Clark and Prendergast have this to say:

His administration has yet to form a united front on Darfur because of competing interests at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. Bush needs to pull together these disparate players and create a real policy to end atrocities, punish human rights violators, and create sustainable peace.

Now that Bush has finally admitted that his administration needs to do better, he should appoint an envoy to harmonize US policy toward Darfur and demonstrate his personal resolve to end the suffering. [...]

Bush needs to ensure an accelerated AU handover to the UN and identify a capable nation to lead a UN-mandated stabilization force to immediately buttress the AU's civilian protection efforts and help secure the border.

Military planners at the Pentagon need to work closely with this lead nation to plan the mission and provide military assets that enhance the force's ability to respond quickly and aggressively to attacks against civilians. [...]

[T]he United States should press much harder for UN Security Council sanctions against government and rebel officials most responsible for the crisis. Properly executed, such a policy would strengthen cooperation from the government of Sudan.

President Bush has opened the door for stronger US action in Darfur. Now it's time for him to follow through by leading a focused diplomatic and military effort to end the crisis.

And this from the aforementioned WaPo article:

The Bush administration has settled on the idea of sending up to several hundred NATO advisers to help bolster African Union peacekeeping troops in their efforts to shield villagers in Sudan's Darfur region from fighting between government-backed Arab militias and rebel groups, administration officials said.

The move would include some U.S. troops and mark a significant expansion of U.S. and allied involvement in the conflict. So far, NATO's role has been limited to airlifting African Union forces to the region and providing a few military specialists to help the peacekeeping contingent. [...]

Plans under consideration envision fewer than 500 NATO advisers. They would be assigned to African Union headquarters units and assist in logistics, communications, intelligence and command and control activities, not engage directly in field operations. The likely number of U.S. advisers has yet to be determined, officials said.

"This is supposed to be a support effort, not a take-over-the-mission effort," said the administration official, whose name and agency could not be identified under terms of the interview. As the reason for insisting on anonymity, the official cited the sensitivity of the internal planning.

For more of my thoughts, go here.

Hersh Is At It Again

2006-04-09T08:52:00.000-04:00

I would be neglecting my duties as a blogger if I didn't link to this Seymour Hersh article, outlining his anonymous sources' assessments of the Bush Administration's intentions regarding Iran. The article is rather lengthy but is certainly worth the time. It is vintage Hersh as well, with sources described as "A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon," and "A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror." He even cites a member of the House Appropriations Committee who was not briefed about Iran, but knows someone who was.

Regardless, Hersh provides insight into debate within the Administration over how to deal with Iran:

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete. [...]

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [a former senior intelligence official] added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran without success, the former intelligence official said. The White House said, "Why are you challenging this? The option came from you."

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told me. "This goes to high levels." The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen."

This is merely a taste of how Hersh's article reads. He elaborates further on the tactical nuclear option (or lack thereof, depending on how you look at it) and discusses mock operations that are already occurring on the Arabian Sea, among other things. Do yourself a favor and go read the whole thing. It's fascinating.

A Reasonable Assessment Of The Leak Controversy

2006-04-08T20:48:00.000-04:00

Steven Taylor has a great post discussing the Bush-Cheney-Libby leak story. Rather than attacking or defending the President, Taylor assesses the situation for what its political realities. Here's some of what he writes, though I recommend reading this post in its entirety:

The supporters would appear to be correct (I am not an expert on the law in this area, but there appears to be a consensus on this topic): the President can declassify documents as he sees fit... However, the opponents are correct as well: there was some clear politicking going on here, and the President can be seen to be acting hypocritically on the subject of leaks. Further, the situation is complicated by the fact that the White House has, heretofore, painted the Plame leak as something that a rogue member of the administration did on his or her own. Even if there is no evidence that the President directly or indirectly authorized discussion of Plame, it is clear now that whatever Libby did, it was done was some serious official blessing. That alters the public narrative that the White House has been telling since this story first broke. [...]

In conclusion: we can bicker over whether this was "authorized declassification" or a "leak" but in all practical matters such arguments are silly. Just because the President had legal authorization to release the document doesn't make this less a leak - it was still selectively released to the press for the purpose of benefiting the administration before it was widely made available to the public.

Immigration Nirvana??? (UPDATED)

2006-04-08T18:19:00.000-04:00

In an editorial, The Washington Post this morning that the state of 'nirvana' that the stalled immigration bill represented has been lost. The Post was using Sen. McCain's characterization of legislation almost identical to his own. While I'm not a Buddhist, I have to object to this use of the word nirvana and any implication that this bill was anything close to perfect or enlightened. To be fair, the Post's editorial does recognize that the bill at hand had its imperfections. To use McCain's characterization however was foolish to begin with. Headline: McCain likes his own legislation--yeah's that's real shocking.

Besides the cosmetic flaws, this editorial misses the point that I've been trying to drive home since the deal fell apart. The Post puts all of the blame for the failure of the deal on the Democrats. While procedurally, this may be accurate, this type of finger pointing misses the point. Everybody around that deal is responsible for its failure. The fact that the deal's major proponents failed to account for the conservative amendments that would render many parts of the deal useless while they were 'hammering' out the deal (no pun intended, Tom Delay) is ridiculous. Furthermore, the press conference that announced the 'major breakthrough' was a foolish display of Senatorial back-patting. Strange how the Post misses this aspect of the immigration fiasco.

Another aspect that is lost on the Post's editorial board is the Senators' race for vacation. If this issue and its 'solution' were as important as our leaders' would like us to believe, they could've stayed in DC for a few extra days.

Here's what Minority Leader Reid had to say about the collapse of the compromise:

Republicans are still deeply divided on this issue, and we must protect this fragile compromise from those Senators bent on gutting the bill with hostile amendments. We must also ensure that this comprehensive approach is not lost when the bill reaches conference with the House of Representatives.

It is a test of leadership for President Bush and Senator Frist to stop some Republican Senators from derailing comprehensive reform.

If the bill that the Dems agreed to support is systematically dismantled by Republican amendments, then what's the point?

The role of Sen. Reid and the Democrats in this failure is not lost on me. However, let's not pretend that conservative Republicans had nothing to do with it.

UPDATE: Duke1676 of Migra Matters and I seem to be on the same page.

UPDATE II: Kevin Drum does a great job articulating what happened here:

But Frist's actions made it crystal clear that the standard double cross was in the works: agree on a deal, water it down with amendments, gut it in conference, and then eventually present Democrats with a fait accompli: an up-or-down vote on a conference markup that looks nothing like the one Frist and Reid shook hands on. Democrats would then have the choice of either voting for a harsh and punitive bill they never agreed to or else filibustering it and getting tarred as obstructionists by gleeful Republicans[...]

But despite what the Washington Post thinks, what was at stake here wasn't the compromise bill that Reid and Frist agreed to — a bill that might very well have been a decent step forward. That was just flash for the rubes, and Frist knew it perfectly well. Pro-immigration groups who are complaining about Reid's hardball would be wise to figure this out too.

When someone has suckered you enough times, you demand guarantees before you'll make another deal with him. If all you get is sweet talk, you know the fix is in and you walk away. Reid walked away, and it was the right thing to do.

More On Immigration Deal That Wasn't

2006-04-07T22:17:00.000-04:00

Via Time:

Talk about cold feet. Less than 24 hours after the leaders of the Senate's Democratic and Republican families had announced a marriage of convenience on immigration reform, Minority Leader Harry Reid ditched his Republican counterpart Bill Frist at the altar Friday, blocking the bi-partisan bill he had backed the day before. Stunned Senators headed to their home states for a two-week Easter recess, furious over the break-up. "It's a war," said Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter. Even members of Reid's own party, most notably Senator Ted Kennedy, who had worked for five years on an effective amnesty for the country's millions of illegal immigrants, was said to be furious.

Disappointed members of both parties say it was Reid's election-year ambitions that ultimately doomed the immigration bill. The Democrats have a legitimate chance to take back control of the Senate in November, and for a life-long politician like Reid, few things are more important than the opportunity to lead the world's greatest deliberative body, his critics say. A victory for Bill Frist on an issue as nationally charged as immigration would not help the Democrats come election day. "It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for the Democrats not to have an immigration bill," Specter said.

Personally, I would not put all of the blame for the failure on Sen. Reid. The fact that these Senators were willing to declare victory without accounting for conservatiamendmentsnts that were sure to come is ridiculous. Furthermore, pushing through a bill that grants virtual amnesty to most illegal immigrants may not be seen as a victory for Frist by many conservatives, despite the support of the president.

While I've been critical of Harry Reid as minority leader (the Dems managed to pick one of the only people more dull than Tom Daschle to lead them), this may not end up being a bad move for him and the Dems. Consider this analysis from the same TIME article:

In retrospect, however, [the Immigration compromise] may have been too perfect. After initially signing on, Reid decided he might be walking into a trap. Some Republicans wanted to vote on amendments that Reid believed would have essentially picked apart the compromise plan; under one of them, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security would have had to certify that the border was secure before any illegal immigrants could be made legal.

What's more, even if he could defeat the amendments, any bill the Senate passed would have to go into a conference committee with the House which wants to build a wall along much of the U.S.-Mexico border, criminalize all illegal immigrants in the U.S., and dramatically increase the penalties against those who help them, from businesses to churches. Looking several moves ahead in a game of legislative chess, Reid feared that the conference would produce something that looked more like the House bill, which currently has no amnesty provisions for making current illegals citizens, than the Senate version.

Granted, when such a watered down bill came back to the Senate, Reid could still block it by filibustering. But in a election year, Reid knew that could be political suicide, forcing fellow Democrats to vote against a bill Republicans would portray as securing America's broken borders. Those Democrats who were around in the last mid-term election are still smarting from the votes they cast against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, an issue Republicans cashed in handily at the polls. Giving Frist another National Security vote to beat the Democrats with, they feared, was a sure fire way to let Republicans maintain control of the Senate this fall.

This is a rare example of political foresight on the part of the Democratic leadership. While it will still be difficult for the Dems to take the Senate, there's no need to hand them an issue that's getting as much press as this one.

Mitt "Universal Health Care" Romney (UPDATED)

2006-04-07T21:36:00.000-04:00

Get ready to hear MA Governor Mitt Romney's name with the phrase "universal health care" in the same sentences, especially from conservative voices.

Via The American Spectator:

Now, to be clear, I do not expect Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to pull off an elaborate mask moments after signing a bill bringing universal health care to the Bay State, thereby revealing himself to be a certain senator from New York. (No, not Schumer.) In point of fact, during a lengthy chat with Romney for a profile that ran in the March edition of TAS, one of the first things the governor said when I broached the topic of health-care reform was, unequivocally, "I oppose the concept of Hillarycare," and then, "Republicans believe in health care, just like Democrats. We just believe the right approach is not a government takeover, but, instead, the application of free market principles."

Nevertheless, when Joe Klein calls Romney's health-care plan "rather remarkable" and Ted Kennedy is asking to be on hand for the signing ceremony and Hillary Clinton herself is weighing in favorably (i.e. not sarcastically frowning or smirking) and the New York Times really, really loves the idea...

And next comes my favorite line of the day:

Well, fiscal conservatives can perhaps be forgiven for instinctively reaching for some garlic bulbs and a flask of holy water.

Apparently ol' Mitt didn't get the "you better appease the right wing if you want the GOP presidential nod" memo.

UPDATE: This is what I'm talking about:

Real quick thought -- yesterday I watched, quite slack-jawed, as Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told Fox and Friends that his proposed universal health care for Kennedy enablers was (something like this) ''taking a Democratic party ideal and implementing it using Republican market values.'' Un-freaking believable. Massachusetts will mandate across the board health care, but the market will ... what? I'll tell you what. The market will cause an explosion in health care costs, just like Medicare did. Duh. And this sumbitch thinks he can win the Republican nomination? That's strike number 2 in the game of Smart.

Immigration Bill Embarrassment (UPDATED)

2006-04-07T21:33:00.000-04:00

Just 24 hours after inept Senate Majority Leader Frist announced at a press conference/patting on the back session that the Senate "had a huge breakthrough" on the pending immigration legislation, the purported deal fell apart. Sen. Frist and the key actors in this 'compromise' (McCain, Kennedy, Specter, Kyl, Cornyn etc.) should be embarrassed.

Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."

What's tragic is the complete lack of political savvy on the part of these senators. When a deal on important issues facing the nation has almost been reached, don't call a circus-like press conference to commend each other. If you had a deal that you knew would receive the 60 necessary votes to invoke cloture, then by all means, celebrate and have a presser. Until you're sure that you not going to have to ABANDON the legislation before your precious vacation, however, spare us the press conference BS.

UPDATE: More on the Immigration Reform Bill-Tom Foolery, via CSM:

On Thursday, senators thought they had crafted a compromise that would fly with both camps.

"We have a product that is a good product and has the support of more than 60 senators. It takes care of our needs on the border and deals in a very practical way with what to do with those already in our country," says Sen. Mel Martinez (R) of Florida, the only immigrant currently serving in the Senate. He and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska drafted the compromise plan that produced hopes for a breakthrough Thursday. [...]

"It's important for the American people to know how much bipartisan support there really is for this bill," said Senate majority leader Bill Frist, after a vote to end debate on the bill. The motion, which required 60 votes to pass, failed 38-60.

Add this to the list of Frist failures as Majority leader.

Furthermore, this whole debacle underscores why you don't try to do actual work in an election year.

Congress Breaks Wind...

2006-04-07T17:25:00.000-04:00

The next time you hear a politician from Massachusetts talking about our dependence on oil, try not to laugh. With the support of several prominent members of the MA congressional delegation (including Sen. Teddy Bear Kennedy and Rep. Delahunt), the Coast Guard authorization now includes a provision to allow Gov. Mitt Romney "to veto the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm," a "major clean energy source."

Cape Wind Associates refer to the legislation as a "last-minute attack to the project from the Alaskan Delegation ," aka Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens. Cape Wind goes on to say,

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens circulated language on Friday that would allow politics to override the regulatory review of the project, even though more than 17 federal and state agencies have already devoted more than four years of effort into a detailed assessment of its benefits.

The Stevens language unfairly singles out and targets Cape Wind. It is unclear why two Alaskan politicians--first Rep. Don Young and now Senator Ted Stevens--are trying to block a project that has been approved by the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board, has received a positive Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and, according to the most recent public opinion survey by the University of Massachusetts and the University of New Hampshire is supported by the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts citizens.

Scooter Throws Bush Under The Bus (UPDATED)

2006-04-06T15:48:00.000-04:00

This is the story of the day. Here's what the Washington Post has:

A former top aide to Vice President Cheney told a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity that President Bush authorized him to disclose classified intelligence information about Iraq as a way of rebutting criticism from the agent's husband, according to court papers filed by prosecutors.

However, the former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, testified that although he gave a reporter sensitive information from a secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in a July 2003 conversation with the president's approval, he did not disclose the CIA employment of Valerie Plame. [...]

...[President Bush and Vice President Cheney] have repeatedly criticized the leaking of sensitive intelligence to the news media, and the administration has ordered investigations of leaks concerning a National Security Agency eavesdropping program and the existence of secret overseas CIA prisons for terrorist suspects. [...]

In the court filing, Fitzgerald says Libby met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, "only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE." The prosecutor adds that Libby testified to the grand jury "that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller -- getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval -- were unique in his recollection."

UPDATE: The Hotline links to this National Journal article regarding the court documents that implicate President Bush in the Scooter Libby - CIA leak case.

McKinney: My Bad

2006-04-06T14:37:00.000-04:00

Via AP:

WASHINGTON - Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., expressed “sincere regret” Thursday for her altercation with a Capitol police officer, and offered an apology to the House.

“There should not have been any physical contact in this incident,” McKinney said in brief remarks on the House floor. “I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize.”

McKinney’s comments came after the case had been referred to a federal grand jury for possible prosecution.

I'm sure her Democratic colleagues had nothing to do with McKinney's sudden change of heart:

The incident has embarrassed Democrats, including fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus, none of whom have publicly defended her behavior in the March 29 incident.

Rep. Mel Watt, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, has had no statement on the incident. The caucus’ silence stands in stark contrast to its investigations of past scuffles between the U.S. Capitol Police and members.

It certainly took too long for her to accept responsibility; regardless, let's hope this story goes away.

Another McCain Pandering Quote

2006-04-06T10:41:00.000-04:00

From The Daily Show's Jon Stewart:

"Has John McCain's straight talk express been rerouted to Bull-shit town?"

I do believe so, yes.

'He Who Lives By The Hammer...'

2006-04-06T10:36:00.000-04:00

...gets forced out of his leadership position, implicated in corruption scandal, and resigns in disgrace...

Quote Of The Day

2006-04-05T22:30:00.000-04:00

Re: Sen. John McCain -

"I was impressed with his comedy routine and ability to tap dance without music. But I was impressed with nothing else about him," said John Wasniewski of Milwaukee. "He's supposed to be Mr. Straight Talk?"

Indeed. I can't say that I'm not impressed with anything about McCain, but his transparent pandering to the right wing is insulting to anybody who has followed/admired him since his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid.

The quote came from this AP story about McCain's speech to an AFL-CIO group - a speech during which he was booed.

When I Grow Up I Wanna...

2006-04-05T22:08:00.000-04:00

When you were growing up, did you want to be president. I know I did.

Apparently, today's elementary school age kids want nothing to do with the most powerful position in the world - that is, if you put any stock into an unscientific survey. I don't, but it's still interesting.

Big ol' h/t: Shakespeare's Sister

H.R. 3127

2006-04-05T21:59:00.000-04:00

News Unfiltered has this press release from the office of Rep. Chris Smith regarding H.R. 3127 -The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006. It's unclear what this resolution will actually mean for the genocide occurring in Sudan - my gut feeling is that it will absolutely nothing. However, such legislation certainly can't hurt.

Here's the text of H.R. 3127 with the list of all of the cosponsors (Including Rep. Jim Langevin - my district's Rep.).

Here's what the release says about the content of the bill:

While it does not provide an authorization for use of United States forces in Darfur, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act -- the result of eight months of bipartisan collaboration -- contains the following measures:

-- It confers upon the President the authority to provide assistance to reinforce the deployment and operations of an expanded African Union mission with the mandate, size, strength and capacity to protect civilians and humanitarian operations;

-- It encourages the imposition of targeted sanctions against Janjaweed commanders and coordinators;

-- It calls for the extension of the military embargo established pursuant to UN Security Council Resolutions 1556 and 1591 to include the Government of Sudan;

-- It amends the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 to impose an asset freeze and travel ban against individual perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Darfur;

-- It asserts that existing restrictions imposed against Sudan shall not be lifted until the President certifies to Congress that the Government of Sudan is acting in good faith to: (1) peacefully resolve the crisis in Darfur; (2) disarm, demobilize and demilitarize the Janjaweed; (3) adhere to UN Security Council Resolutions; (4) negotiate a peaceful resolution to the crisis in eastern Sudan; (5) cooperate with efforts to disarm and deny safe haven to the Lord's Resistance Army; and (6) fully implement the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement;

-- It amends the International Malaria Control Act to enable the United States Government to continue providing assistance to southern Sudan and other marginalized areas, and lifts restrictions on imports and exports for those same areas; and

-- It adds a section regarding the preemption of State laws that prohibit investment of State pension funds in Sudan.

Note (10:33PM) - I found the story at News Unfiltered, which linked to the press release from U.S. Newswire (see above link).

WTC Memorial Debate

2006-04-05T21:15:00.000-04:00

There was an interesting op-ed piece in today's New York Times entitled 'Take Back The Towers'. The piece, written by Dennis Smith, a former NYC Firefighter, offers quite a 'modest proposal':

We've reached a stage where the state and local government, so often the causes of delay, are the only players with the ability to move things forward. It is time for them to invoke their trump card: the takings clause of the United States Constitution. [...]

There is only one way to move forward: Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the City Council should send a home-rule message to Albany and demand the confiscation of the World Trade Center site under the eminent domain clause. At a time when counties and municipalities across America are seizing houses and small businesses to build shopping malls just to increase their tax bases, there are plenty of justifiable reasons included lost tax revenues to demand the return of ground zero.

Is taking the site legally practicable? "As long as the land were used for public purposes such as monuments, museums, or other public buildings, it can certainly be condemned under the U.S. Constitution," says Vicki Been, a professor of real-estate law at New York University Law School. "Even if some (or most) of the land were transferred to private parties to build commercial or residential space, the Supreme Court has held that such economic development is a public purpose."

This would certainly be an interesting and I believe, justifiable, use of the eminent domain clause-- if and only if Bloomberg used it to build a respectful memorial.

What's more important, however, is this aspect of Smith's piece:

For example, the memorial must display the names of those who died at ground zero, the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa., as well as those killed in the 1993 attack on the twin towers. But to the consternation of many (perhaps most) of the 9/11 families, the designers seem determined to place the names haphazardly, and without reference to time or place of death.

The debate over the names points to a larger problem: many in the artistic community seem unable to accept the influence that the families of the victims have among the public. Until the designers understand the role of the families and that they are building over a tomb bodies of hundreds of the 2,749 who died there were never recovered the project will languish. As for the museum, the most obvious setback was the disastrous decision to have it house the controversial International Freedom Center, which was eventually reversed by Gov. George Pataki. But since then, another series of seemingly intractable issues has arisen: the footprint space and exhibition areas have been reduced, there are problems with handicapped access, there have been warnings that crowd movement could be dangerous in an emergency and, most important, Alice Greenwald, the director, has yet to say what specifically the museum will contain.

The alternative waiting for the current players to get their act together makes no sense. Even if the project were to regain momentum, the plan is to build 10 million square feet of commercial space that is not only unneeded but will also mostly fail to rent. The Freedom Tower will be an eyesore as well as a terrorist target, and few will want to work there.

Smith is absolutely right - Ground Zero is the grave site for hundreds and treating it otherwise is shameful and unforgivable. This aspect of the debate over what to do with the WTC site has been constantly overlooked.

Would you want the grave site of your loved ones to be used for commercial space and economic development?

Boortz: I Was Wr-Wr-Wrong

2006-04-04T16:21:00.000-04:00

Pigs are flying and Neal Boortz is apologizing for referring to Rep. Cynthia McKinney as a "ghetto slut." He didn't mention anything about his "welfare drag queen" comment though.

Don't worry though, he's not apologizing to the Media Matters ultra liberal crowd that doesn't like him anyway - he's apologizing to the Congresswoman and his beloved audience.

Media Matters has the clip and the transcript of Boortz's apology. Its actually quite humorous to listen to him acknowledge his own foolishness. Go listen to it and have a laugh.

More Delay Reaction (UPDATED)

2006-04-04T16:08:00.000-04:00

Political Wire has a brief interview with DCCC Communications Director Bill Burton about the Delay news. Burton echoes what I wrote in January about TX-22:

PW: Doesn't his stepping down make the district safer for Republicans?

Burton: An open seat is always a better opportunity for the challenging party. Add that to the fact that DeLay actually gave up some of his Republican voters to make surrounding districts more Republican and you have one of the most competitive seats in the country.

UPDATE (4/4/06 - 3:24PM): Chris Cillizza has some more reaction from both sides of the aisle.

UPDATE II: Even conservatives in the blogosphere seem to be relieved with the news of Delay's departure. Speaking of Delay's resignation letter, James Joyner writes:

It’s rather long and sums up his 21-year congressional career and his many accomplishments, real and perceived. It contains no contrition, however, for sowing the seeds of the Abramoff scandal, the K Street Project, and perhaps the loss of the House to the Democrats this November. [...]

Sadly, he sounds remarkably like Cynthia McKinney, except blaming his fall on the evil liberals rather than whitey. One would think he would take some modicum of responsibility for the mess he has created. That he has no regrets and no shame is quite sad, really.

Lest We Forget... (REPOST)

2006-04-04T14:03:00.000-04:00

With our preoccupation with the War in Iraq and domestic issues (deficits, immigration, DHS ineptitude etc.) some important issues often get left under the radar. One of these stories is the genocide in Darfur. The situation in Darfur is as dire as ever and has great potential to spiral even further out of control. As the International Crisis Group reported a couple of weeks ago,

The international strategy for dealing with the Darfur crisis primarily through the small (7,000 troops) African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is at a dead end. AMIS credibility is at an all-time low, with the ceasefire it could never monitor properly in tatters. In the face of this, the international community is backing away from meaningful action. The African Union (AU) yielded to Khartoum's pressure on 10 March 2006 and did not ask the UN to put into Darfur the stronger international force that is needed. [...]

The battlefield now extends into eastern Chad, and the escalating proxy war between Sudan and Chad threatens to produce a new humanitarian catastrophe on both sides of the border. Inside Darfur humanitarian access is at its lowest in two years, civilians continue to bear the brunt of the violence, and political talks are stalled. Fighting is most intense and civilians are at greatest risk in West Darfur along the Chad-Sudan border, where a major invasion by Chadian rebels appears imminent, and in southern Darfur in the Tawila-Graida corridor.

The Sudanese government bears primary responsibility for the deteriorating situation. It is still making little effort to stabilise matters, rein in militias or secure roads from bandits and rogue elements. In violation of numerous commitments, it still uses offensive air power, supports militias and stokes inter-communal violence as part of its counter-insurgency campaign.

And now, the New York Times reports the following:

NAIROBI, Kenya, April 3 - The government of Sudan has blocked Jan Egeland, the United Nations' top emergency aid official, from visiting the western Darfur region this week, prompting Mr. Egeland to accuse Khartoum of trying to hide the dire conditions there.

The Sudanese government offered various explanations for its decision not to allow Mr. Egeland, the under secretary general for humanitarian affairs and the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, to visit Khartoum, the capital, or Darfur beginning Monday.

Jamal Ibrahim, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said the visit was merely postponed because it would have coincided with the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. He also said in an interview with the BBC that it would have been unsafe for Mr. Egeland, a Norwegian, to visit Sudan given the recent controversy over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper.

But the United Nations said that the trip had been planned in advance and that the decision by Sudanese authorities not to approve his flight appeared to be politically motivated.

"They said I'm not welcome," Mr. Egeland said in a telephone interview from Rumbek, in southern Sudan, which operates semi-autonomously and did approve the visit. "My interpretation is that they don't want me to see what I was planning to witness in south and west Darfur, which is renewed attacks on the civilian population."

The BBC adds,

The BBC's Jonah Fisher in Sudan says Mr Egeland is known for his willingness to speak his mind and has been a strong critic of the government's role in Darfur's violence.

Mr Egeland said the rebel Sudan Liberation Army also had some responsibility for provoking the latest attacks in the Janana area.

He said the Sudanese government, guerrilla forces and ethnic militia groups were all responsible for the current instability in Darfur, which had put tens of thousands of civilians at risk.

He was due to meet aid workers and speak to people displaced by the conflict.

Mr Egeland also warned that hopes for peace in the south of the country were being damaged by continuing violence.

A peace deal last year officially ended 21 years of conflict between the northern Muslim government and rebels from the Christian and animist south.

This news is disturbing to say the least. What's also disturbing is that thihorrificic situation will continue to remain virtually uncovered by the media. Our government will undoubtedly continue to drag its feet on this issue. Three years is far too long to remain complacent while a genocide occurs.

Try not to chuckle the next time you hear a government official say "we'll never let this happen again."

For more, go here, here, or here.

Note: I reposted this because I feel it may have been overshadowed by the news of the day (Delay especially)

McKinney Throw Down Update

2006-04-04T12:43:00.000-04:00

One of the most absurd stories coming out of Washington in the last week or so was that of Rep. McKinney's alleged assault of a capitol police officer. First of all, Capitol Police officers should absolutely be able to recognize each member of Congress, whether or not they have their ID lapel pins on. That being said, one officer's failure to recognize Rep. McKinney is hardly grounds for her to layeth the smackdown.

Craig Crawford has some additional info on the case, including a link to a tape that shows Ms. McKinney moving around the metal detector (unfortunately the tape doesn't show the alleged 'encounter' with the officer).

Also, Hotline On Call has some good stuff on the case, including this from an interview on CNN:

"If the members of the United States Capitol Hill Police who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the members of Congress don't know who they are, then what does that say to us about the kind of security that we have? [...]

But let me just say that the requirement for pages to become a congressional page at age 16 is to know by face and by name the members of the United States Congress. Don't you think that the United States Capitol Police ought to also know the members of Congress by name and by face?"

The full transcript from CNN is here. Not surprisingly, McKinney continues to play the race card. I'll be honest, I'm a white man. I'm in no position to tell Rep. McKinney what is racist and what isn't, certainly when the details of the case are still fuzzy. Here's more from the interview:

BLITZER: Welcome back. We're continuing our conversation with Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and her two attorneys, James Myart -- he's in Washington, D.C. -- and Mike Raffauf. He's in Orlando. Congresswoman McKinney did you strike one of those Capitol police officers during this incident on Capitol Hill?

MCKINNEY: Wolf, before you bring on my two attorneys, let me just say for the record -- and this is something that you might want to do a little further investigation on. But I'm sure that if you would look, you would find that even inside the Capitol Hill Police Department, there are problems inside with the treatment of -- or the respect for diversity, let me say.

BLITZER: Because you know there are many black officers on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman?

MCKINNEY: I think you should look at some of the proceedings that are going on right now with black officers and white officers inside Capitol Hill Police Department. And you might reach a different conclusion.

BLITZER: We got a statement from Lou Cannon, the president of the D.C. Chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police. It was in "The Atlanta Journal Constitution." He says, "There was no excessive force here. If she's trying to turn this into a racial issue, people should ask, "Why is she doing this?" This is an insult to all police officers." This is an extremely serious charge you're making, Congresswoman.

JAMES MYART, MCKINNEY'S ATTORNEY: Wolf, may I address that?

BLITZER: Well, let's let the Congresswoman respond. And then I'll bring you in James.

MYART: OK.

MCKINNEY: Well, I haven't made a charge. I just asked you to do a little bit of research.

BLITZER: No, no, no. But you are talking earlier about racial profiling and that there was racism involved.

MCKINNEY: Now, Wolf, you know I didn't say that, so don't twist my words.

BLITZER: Well tell us what you said.

MCKINNEY: Don't even begin to twist my words. And whatever it is that I said is already is on the tape. So you can replay the tape. Now, I think it is probably a good time for you to bring in my attorneys. You have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Myart, but you haven't yet spoken with Mike Raffauf.

BLITZER: I want to speak to both of them. And let me ask Mr. Myart, James, to respond because I know you are anxious to weigh into this suggestion there were other police officers there who were watching all of this. There may have been video, surveillance video, as far as we know as well. Although we haven't seen it. Was there actual physical altercation between the congresswoman and the police officer who asked her to stop?

MYART: Well, let me say this, my conversation with the Capitol Hill police individual at the top I understand it there may very well be a video. I have not seen it and probably won't see it unless there is an actual prosecution of this matter.

But, Wolf, I think it is important for you to understand that this issue is really one that is more national, and that is how black individuals are treated throughout this country by law enforcement officials.In addition to that, you should know that over 259 black police officers of the Capitol Police Force have in fact filed a discrimination lawsuit against the Capitol Police Board. There is division in the ranks over there. These are very serious issues that need to be dealt with.

And Congresswoman McKinney is only one person who has been treated like this when thousands of people, literally hundreds of thousands of black people across this country and other people, are racially profiled. If that police officer had known his job, this incident would not even be discussed right now.

No sir, if the Congresswoman hadn't struck a Capitol Police Officer, we would not be discussing this incident. For all I know this particular officer may be a card carrying member of the KKK. However, let's not distort what this is really about - a Congresswoman refusing to accept responsibility for her actions. If she ID'd herself and entered the office building and still felt that she had been racially profiled, she could've written a letter of had her Belafonte-Glover presser. She didn't have to hit the guy.

At the end of the day, this story does not matter. It's a sideshow - a sideshow that will be fun to watch.

Just before I was about to publish this post, I found this story, via CNN: Republicans push to commend cops after McKinney scuffle.

Delay Withdraws (UPDATED)

2006-04-03T23:06:00.000-04:00

Tom Delay has withdrawn from his re-election bid in Texas' 22nd district, reports my friend and yours, Chris Matthews. There aren't many details yet, but it appears that the combination of low polling numbers and the promise of a devastatingly brutal campaign have convinced Delay to withdraw. The country will indeed be better off without this man in the House of Representatives. Plenty more later.

Note (Added at 11:11PM): Here's a post from January where I note the irony of Delay's gerrymandering scheme. Yes, I used the same photo - its so appropriate.

UPDATE (11:23PM): Time's Mike Allen has more. This is definitely one of those stories where every media outlet will claim that they have the real scoop and that they broke it first. Personally, I don't care who broke it first. I'm just excited to hear the news.

Also, Hotline On Call rightly adds this:

According to TX law, the party can fill a vacated nomination. It's why the NRCC desperately needed DeLay to win the March primary so they could find the best candidate to hold the GOP-leaning CD, rather than roll the dice with an unknown. The fact that DeLay's resignation announcement comes just three days after ex-aide Tony Rudy copped a plea is going to provide plenty of grist for the scandal mill.

All The King's Horses...

2006-04-02T23:43:00.000-04:00

Here's an example of the good news out of Iraq that the MSM refuses to report...oh wait, nevermind. It's an example of a failed attempt to rebuild that broken country:

BAGHDAD -- A reconstruction contract for the building of 142 primary health centers across Iraq has run out of money, after two years and roughly $200 million, with no more than 20 clinics now expected to be completed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says.

The contract, awarded to U.S. construction giant Parsons Inc. in the flush, early days of reconstruction in Iraq, was expected to lay the foundation of a modern health care system for the country, putting quality medical care within reach of all Iraqis. [...]

Coming with little public warning, the 86 percent shortfall of completions dismayed the World Health Organization's representative for Iraq. "That's not good. That's shocking," Naeema al-Gasseer said by telephone from Cairo. "We're not sending the right message here. That's affecting people's expectations and people's trust, I must say." [...]

Stuart Bowen, the top U.S. auditor for reconstruction, warned in a telephone interview from Washington that other reconstruction efforts may fall short like Parsons'. "I've been consumed for a year with the fear we would run out of money to finish projects," said Bowen, the inspector general for reconstruction in Iraq. [...]

In January, Bowen's office calculated the American reconstruction effort would be able to finish only 300 of 425 promised electricity projects and 49 of 136 water and sanitation projects.

While this certainly isn't shocking, it should serve as a warning to the administration/administration apologists who insist that there is good news in Iraq, it's just not being reported. Of course there are good things going on there. But, we still have 100,000+ troops on the ground and when 1 dies, the American people deserve to know about it. Furthermore, the reconstruction has clearly fallen short of expectations. First of all, its being paid for by American taxpayers, not oil revenues (or any of our 'coalition of the willing' partners, for that matter). The money that has been allocated for reconstruction either isn't being used efficiently or isn't getting where it needs to.

When searching for 'good' news out of Iraq, reconstruction is a logical area to look. However, three years after the outbreak of war the most basic services (electricity, water, health care) are still not being provided.

Obviously the insurgency and sectarian violence has interfered with reconstruction efforts:

"Security degenerated from the beginning. The expectations on the part of Parsons and the U.S. government was we would have a very benign construction environment, like building a clinic in Falls Church," said Earnest Robbins, senior vice president for the international division of Parsons in Fairfax, Va. Difficulty choosing sites for the clinics also delayed work, Robbins said.

Faced with a growing insurgency, U.S. authorities in 2004 took funding away from many projects to put it into building up Iraqi security forces.

"During that period, very little actual project work, dirt-turning, was being done," Bowen said. At the same time, "we were paying large overhead for contractors to remain in-country." Overhead has consumed 40 percent to 50 percent of the clinic project's budget, McCoy said.

All of this leads to a confirmation of an idea that is almost becoming passe: The Bush administration failed (miserably failed would be more accurate) to plan for ANY post-invasion scenarios. But don't expect to hear any such admission from the administration any time soon.

Finally, all this talk of 'good news from Iraq' has gotten me thinking of a story (over a week old by now) that I never blogged on: Laura Ingraham's disgusting comments about the media's coverage of Iraq.

Okay Ingraham, we understand that you recently returned from Iraq and did some first hand reporting. Personally, I respect and applaud you for that.

However, she needs to remove her fat head out of her ass. To return after a relatively short period of time and accuse actual reporters (not talk show radio hosts) of basically hiding in their hotel rooms is shameful. Keith Olbermann did a wonderful job of summing up Ingraham's asinine comments (via Crooks and Liars):

A note about Laura Ingraham's comments. I've known her a long time. I'll in fact give you the caveat that I've know her socially. But that hotel balcony crack was unforgivable. It was unforgivable to the memory of David Bloom, it was unforgivable in considerable of Bob Woodruff and Doug Vought, unforgivable in light of what happened to Michael Kelly and what happened to Michael Weiskopft. It was unforgivable with Jill Carroll still a hostage in Iraq. And it was not only unforgivable of her; it was desperate and it was stupid."

Quick note about Olbermann: He's been getting a lot of press lately, mainly due to his better ratings and his pissing match with Bill O'Reilly (personally, I think the two are related). I tend to think that Olbermann's ego may be growing along with his ratings. That being said, when he honestly opines about something that he cares about, something that matters, he can send chills up your spine. This was one of those times. Olbermann is absolutely right. Ingraham's deliberate oversight of the sacrifices that the evil MSM's reporters (and their families) have made is disgusting. I could keep going, but I'll spare everyone.

I'll go back to looking for good news out of Iraq...

'Bush Wanted War'

2006-03-30T20:01:00.000-05:00

Its hard to disagree with Richard Cohen's analysis on whether or not President Bush 'wanted war', a subject that reignited after Helen Thomas asked (most likely) her last question of President Bush. Here's Cohen:

There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.

Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.

This is exactly right. While no president enjoys learning of the deaths of American soldiers, this presdient certainly wanted war. President Bush's agenda driven advisors have failed him, miserably. They encouraged this president, who clearly has no real understanding of foreign relations, to start this war. And who could blame Bush - they told him the war would be short, with few casualties, and would dramatically transform the Middle East resulting in a more peaceful world. The buck, however, does stop with the president. To reiterate what Cohen wrote, "Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got."

Larry Sabato Has Crystal Balls

2006-03-30T00:17:00.000-05:00

Here's the latest from Mr. Sabato. He tackles '06 races for Senate and Governor throughout the country. Sabato's stuff is always enjoyable and insightful--go take a look at it.

Fukuyama Watch

2006-03-30T00:01:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to keep up with the reaction from Francis "end of history" Fukuyama's much publicized divorce from neo-conservatism. As such, I recommend heading over to OxBlog to read David Adesnik's thoughts on the subject.

Head For The Bombshelter Kids, There's A War On Christians!

2006-03-29T19:16:00.000-05:00

I don't even want to start. Just read this.

Don't Drop The Soap, Jack (UPDATED)

2006-03-29T18:45:00.000-05:00

Via Washington Post:

MIAMI, March 29 -- Jack A. Abramoff, the once-powerful Republican lobbyist at the center of a major corruption scandal, was sentenced Wednesday to five years and 10 months in prison for his role in the fraudulent purchase of a fleet of casino cruise ships. An associate received the same sentence.

Abramoff still hopes that the Big Guy will forgive him:

Wearing a gray double-breasted suit and appearing somber, Abramoff said he was "very much chastened and profoundly remorseful over the reckless and hurtful things I have done in my life." He added, "I can only hope that the Almighty and those whom I have wronged will forgive me my trespasses."

The Post notes that this was the minimum sentence for Jacko's crime - 5 years, 10 months for a good ol' boy isn't a minimum anything. Furthermore, this sentence was for a crime unrelated to his well publicized lobbying scandals that will surely implicate members of Congress.

One last point - The Fix's Chris Cillizza, on Hardball today, rightly noted that Abramoff isn't going anywhere; the meat of the Congressional end of the Abramoff scandal will be heating up at the same time as the midterms. Democrats can and should use ethics as a MAJOR issue in the election. The Republicans have handed them this issue on a silver platter and they need to exploit it.

UPDATE: I meant to include this in the original posting. It's priceless:

At least he looks good...

Israeli Exit Polling (UPDATED)

2006-03-28T17:07:00.000-05:00

Exit polling out of Israel shows that I was wrong in predicting a larger than expected showing for Likud. I was wrong. I apologize a THOUSAND TIMES. Here's the story, via CNN:

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's new centrist Kadima party was projected to claim the largest share of parliamentary seats in elections Tuesday, according to three Israeli TV exit polls.

The party, formed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon late last year when he broke from the Likud bloc he helped form in the 1970s, snared between 29 and 32 seats, according to the exit polls. If the results hold, Kadima would have the largest bloc of seats in the 120-member Knesset.

However, Kadima's projected showing was weaker than forecast, meaning party leaders will have to look for coalition partners. The top prospect to join forces with Kadima is the Labor Party, for which the exit polls projected a stronger-than-expected showing, at an estimated 20 to 22 seats.

The dark horses in the election were the socialist Pensioner's Party, which was projected to win between six and eight seats, and the Israel Beitenu Party, which is made up largely of Russian immigrants and was projected to take 12 to 14 seats, according to the exit polls. Sharon's former party, Likud, was expected to corral 11 to 12 seats.

CNN is also reporting that Netanyahu has admitted that the elections results are a "body blow" to his Likud party.

UPDATE: More, via Haaretz.

Israeli Elections Today (UPDATED)

2006-03-28T14:12:00.000-05:00

Today, Israeli's will go to the polls and vote in parliamentary elections. Polls have shown the newly formed centrist Kadima party running ahead of the more conservative Likud. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Likud party, now led by Benjamin Netanyahu, makes significant gains in this elections. Consider, via Washington Post:

Israelis will elect a new parliament, and by extension a new prime minister, on Tuesday after a campaign season marked by complacency, disappointment and a sense of betrayal among many voters now searching for new political leadership. The result is that a large number of voters remain undecided, a floating segment that could determine a quarter of the 120-seat parliament, the Knesset. More Israelis than in any past election are expected to sit out the vote.

It will be interesting to see what effect the rise of Hamas and the party finished Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories will have on these elections. There certainly seems to be a great deal of uncertainty among Israeli's right now and that always makes predicting electoral outcomes difficult. We'll be watching this one.

Heres a good graphic that breaks down the major players in the elections as well as the Knesset as a whole.

UPDATE: AP picks up on the significance of these elections. Do not be surprised if Likud gets a larger share of the vote than polls currently show. Here's what I mean:

About 47 percent of the 4.5 million eligible voters had cast ballots by 11 a.m. EST, the Central Elections Committee said. That was about 7 percentage points lower than at the same time in the 2003 national elections.

Analysts have said low turnout could hurt the prospects of Olmert's front-running Kadima Party.

The election was held the same day the Palestinian parliament overwhelming approved the new Hamas Cabinet, setting the stage for the new administration to take office later this week. Lawmakers belonging to the Islamic militant group chanted "God is great!" after the 71-36 vote. Two parliamentarians abstained. [...]

Pollsters predicted that the centrist Kadima, founded in November by Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon, would finish well ahead of the center-left Labor Party and the right-wing Likud. However, an unusually large number of voters said they were undecided, and pollsters said large fluctuations were possible.

MORE FUKUYAMA!! (UPDATED AGAIN)

2006-03-28T10:52:00.000-05:00

I recomend this piece about ex-neocon Francis Fukuyama. Good read. Interesting stuff.

FUKUYAMA UPDATE (3/27/06 - 4:34PM): Read FUKUYAMA and Adam Garfinkle's piece from he Wall Street Journal on promoting democracy in the Middle East the 'right' way.

FUKUYAMA UPDATE II (3/28/06 - 10:51PM): Charles Krauthammer fires back.

Andy Card Resigns

2006-03-28T10:18:00.000-05:00

Big news of the day: WH Chief of Staff Andy Card Resigns

Via WaPo:

White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. announced his resignation this morning after nearly 5-1/2 years as President Bush's top aide. Bush said Card will be replaced by Joshua B. Bolten, the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Card will serve until April 14 to provide a transition period. The move could presage broader staff changes as Bolten takes over an operation hobbled by political problems heading into a crucial midterm election season. [...]

Card has held the top staff job at the White House longer than any person since Sherman Adams under President Dwight D. Eisenhower and had earned enormous respect within the building and around Washington for his calm professionalism and stamina. But his stewardship of the Bush team had come under question in recent months after a series of mishaps, including the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the bungled federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the slow public disclosure of Vice President Cheney's shooting accident and the unexpected Republican revolt over a plan to turn over management at a half dozen ports to an Arab-owned company.

Bush said Card had approached him earlier this month about the possibility of stepping down, and Bush accepted his offer this weekend, when the two were at Camp David.

"He's been here 5-1/2 years. The average tenure of chief of staff is two years," said a senior administration official, who spoke before the announcement, but refused to be named so as not to upstage the president. "Change can be good and necessary and that's what they had discussed."

The official said the decision was Card's, not Bush's: "Andy initiated it with the president." [...]

Card, 59, has been the focal point of much discussion in Washington about how physically and politically exhausted the White House staff must be in the sixth year of a presidency buffeted by recession, terrorism and war. Card has told interviewers that he gets up every morning at 4:20 a.m., arrives at the White House an hour or so after that and works until 8 or 9 at night.

No big surprises here. He's served his president and now its time for him to relax. This may not be the BIG shakeup that Washington has been buzzing about (replacing one insider with another is hardly giving the administration a 'facelift'). However, it certainly is a start and I suspect there will be more changes to come.

GOP Primary Polling In RI

2006-03-27T16:32:00.000-05:00

It certainly isn't easy to find a big enough sample of registered GOP voters in RI to conduct a reliable poll. Such polling has proven inaccurate in the past and is looked at with skepticism.
Read this piece from the Hotline On Call blog for more on GOP primary polling in RI.

Bush-Blair Memo

2006-03-27T15:37:00.000-05:00

Fascinating piece in the New York Times this morning; although the new information may not be surprising, it is certainly intriguing. Here are the main points:

...[B]ehind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons. [...]

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war. [...]

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." [...]

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected." [...]

Go read the whole article. This is great stuff. The communication between two leaders preparing for war is always remarkably interesting.

Avenging Tom Daschle??

2006-03-26T17:36:00.000-05:00

Political Wire cites a Bob Novak column that reports the DCCC chairman is ready to go after the seat now held by his "Republican counterpart", Rep. Tom Reynolds.

Between this race and Tom Delay's battle for reelection, it appears that the Democrats may be trying to avenge the defeat of their former Senate Leader, Tom Daschle. Just a thought.

Civil War Debate Deepens

2006-03-25T22:15:00.000-05:00

I've heard the following question several times in the last week in various settings (one of them was a PolySci class...): Could civil war in Iraq ultimately be a good thing? Alan Stuart Carl has a piece about the "Meaning of Civil War" over at "Maverick Views" and touches on this subject.

I want to make my position on this very clear: a civil war in Iraq may be catastrophic for the entire region. People out there who essentially say, "if our side wins, a civil war could end well for the U.S." are incredibly naive. First of all, we don't have an actual side in Iraq. Our side, as our president has made clear, is "democracy" and "the march of freedom." Yeah...how's that workin' out for ya?

In other words, our side is abstract and our hands will be tied in a civil war. The foundation for a civil war in Iraq is strong and won't be broken with a "unity government." Civil war may very well be inevitable from this point on, no matter how successful we are in installing a Freedom-friendly government. It may have been inevitable from day 1 of the invasion--we removed the strongman (Saddam) that was keeping a lid on the sectarian tensions that have been brewing for centuries in Iraq (albeit in a disgusting, brutal way).

Furthermore, this is nothing new. Others have tried to impost democracy, or at least friendly governments, at the barrel of a gun. The lack of respect for, or perhaps the ignorance of, the history of not only Iraq but of international relations in general on the part of the Bush administration in disgusting and inexcusable. A relatively small degree of thought could have foreseen a likely post-invasion civil war in Iraq.

Finally, here's a simplified version of what could happen with a divisive civil war in Iraq: a disintegration of the Iraq that we know into Kurdistan in the north, a Shi'a state in the south, and a Sunni state in central Iraq. A Kurdish state in the north would piss of Turkey, a Shi'a state could ally with Iran, and a Sunni state could ally with its ethnic brethren, perhaps Syria. This scenario has been cited many times before. The significance of such a disintegration cannot be overstated - the entire region would be severely destabalized and we would have a much larger problem on our hands. Again, something that could have been foreseen with a minimal amount of thought...

Who Said Hollywood Was Full Of Whackjobs?

2006-03-25T17:14:00.000-05:00

Has Charlie Sheen gone nuts? Maybe. I might have to object to the premise that he wasn't already nuts.

Methinks Sheen's recent musings on the "real" explanations for 9/11 may have come to him after watching this video. Just a thought.

Put A Muzzle On Dick Morris

2006-03-21T18:41:00.000-05:00

Watch this clip from Media Matters and try not to vomit.

I...sort of...understand what he's trying to say, but dear God - the man calls sectarian violence "negotiation, Iraqi style." This statement is disgusting. He's an ignorant moron. Period.

PIRATES!!

2006-03-18T17:43:00.000-05:00

That's right, pirates. Via AP:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Two U.S. Navy warships exchanged gunfire with suspected pirates Saturday off the coast of Somalia, and one suspect was killed and five others were wounded, the navy said.

Seven other suspects were taken into custody after the early-morning shootout, said Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, spokesman for the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.

No sailors were wounded in the battle, which occurred at about 5:40 a.m. local time, approximately 25 nautical miles off the Somali coast in international waters.

In Honor Of St. Patrick's Day...

2006-03-17T18:40:00.000-05:00

In honor of St. Patrick's Day, here's a list of the most Irish congressional districts in the nation, via Congressional Quarterly :

Massachusetts’ 10th (33.4%)
Pennsylvania’s 7th (30.6%)
Massachusetts’ 9th (30.2%)
Pennsylvania’s 13th (26.7%)
Pennsylvania’s 8th (25.9%)
Massachusetts’ 6th (25.6%)
New York’s 1st (24.9%)
Massachusetts’ 7th (24.1%)
New York’s 3rd (24.1%)
New Jersey’s 1st (23.0%)
New York’s 19th (22.8%)
Massachusetts’ 5th (22.4%)
New Jersey’s 3rd (22.2%)
New York’s 20th (22.2%)
Massachusetts’ 3rd (22.1%)
New York’s 21st (21.4%)
New Jersey’s 5th (21.3%)
New Jersey’s 4th (21.1%)
New Hampshire’s 1st (20.5%)
New Jersey’s 1st (19.8%)
New York’s 25th (19.8%)
Rhode Island’s 2nd (19.7%)
Connecticut’s 2nd (19.3%)
Massachusetts’ 1st (19.1%)
Illinois’ 13th (18.7%)

Shout out to RI 2nd - that's my district.

Warner Update

2006-03-16T16:17:00.000-05:00

Here's a bit from the latest update to Mark Warner's Forward Together Blog (his PAC's blog, that is):

[...]Since leaving office, I’ve been to more than 20 cities, in three countries, usually with 7 to 9 events a day. Here in Alexandria, we have held dozens of policy briefings with some of the best minds in the country as we work towards ideas to better address some of our nation's most pressing problems.

I’ve been particularly pleased by the energy everywhere I travel about our ideas on how Democrats can lay out a positive future-focused agenda. While it is essential that we continue to point out where we disagree with the Bush administration, I find that people also want to hear specific ideas on how we will do better.

Mark Warner: Running full speed ahead to 2008.

Line Of The Day

2006-03-15T20:02:00.000-05:00

Line of the day, via Tony Blankley:

Sen. Feingold has all the early indications of being this season's Eugene McCarthy -- without the wit or poetry.

Nice.

Will He Or Won't He?

2006-03-15T19:41:00.000-05:00

Howard Fineman writes about the biggest wildcard facing Republican Presidential hopefuls: Will 'America's mayor,' Rudy Giuliani, run for president in 2008? There's not too much in the article that we don't already know, but a Giuliani candidacy would change everything. Here's Fineman:

The effect of a Rudy run? There are those who think the presence of a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights New Yorker would help McCain by making him seem to be a comparative godsend to evangelicals. But the two men, who are personally close, occupy the same macho shelf space, and the clear hope and expectation among McCainanites is that Rudy will ultimately stand down. [...]

But those who say he'll fold may not know the man, his history or what he is really up to. Decades of jousting with the New York press have left him with a hide of titanium. [...] A few weeks ago in Florida, he did the drop-by of all drop-bys as the "surprise guest" at the annual convention of the Global Pastors Network. He wowed them with his energy and his revival-style witness to his faith in Jesus. Ralph Reed, a godfather of religious conservatives, thinks Giuliani's charisma may help him overcome his social-issues liberalism in the Bible belt. "He can take control of a room better than any politician I've seen," said Reed. The key moment with the pastors was in the private holding room, where he spent quality time among their leaders. Giuliani told them that the key to his final decision on whether to run would be whether he thought he could raise enough cash. But he didn't sound as if he had much doubt and nothing going on in Memphis this week is likely to change his mind.

First of all, if Giuliani runs and wins in '08, it won't be with the help of Evangelicals. That being said, Giuliani, even without the eamaneuveringring and groundwork that other candidates are doing, can still play the role of a spoiler in '08. There's plenty of time for Giuliani to decide to run and win the nomination. Also, the more I think about McCain, the more I think that being the frontrunner two and a half years out might end up biting him in the ass. I generally like McCain and have been pretty high on him for a while; I'm starting to come down, especially after what he did in Memphis.

I haven't yet commented on McCain's much publicized write in campaign for President Bush, so I'll say a bit here. I thought it was foolish and cowardly. While he was right that the president certainly needs the support of his base, the SRLC's straw vote wasn't the right way to do it. The SRLC was going to boost GOP confidence regardless of who won the straw poll. This was a way for McCain, indeed the frontrunner at this early stage, to not embarrassedssed by a third or fourth place showing. McCain knew he wasn't going to win the straw poll and therefore, he didn't want to participate. In practice, straw polls don't mean anything; but for politicians with egos who don't like to lose, straw polls mean a great deal.

UPDATE (3/15/06 - 8:55PM): RUDY!!!!! - "The Fix" weighs in on Giuliani.

Feingold's Folly

2006-03-15T14:47:00.000-05:00

Joe Gandelman has some good stuff on Sen. Feingold's censure resolution. I have to agree with Joe on this one. This proposal is not only going nowhere, its horrible timing for such a move. The Republicans are just coming off a rah-rah session in Tennessee and now Feingold is giving them another reason to unite behind the president. Here's Gandelman:

That's clear, if you look at the chronology of where the White House was, what polls were showing, how Republicans were scrambling to distance themselves from the White House amid signs that the GOP base was starting to sour on Bush, and the not-good-news-for-Bush topics of news cycles.

Feingold's proposal shifted all of that in a way that, in the end, could help Democratic party activists send a message, but could also lose the party votes since it derailed some of the conditions that had seemingly blessed Democrats.

Instead of basking in the glory of the administration's blunders, Feingold is now putting members of his own party in a very difficult position. This is the the problem with the Democratic party - there's no continuity and no message control. Where does the Democratic Party, not Russ Feingold, stand? God only knows. Say what you want about the GOP, but, until recently, Republicans have been very good with getting their message out with a united voice.

While thismeasuree is clearly going nowhere, I will say this about Feingold - he's getting his name in the news. He's putting himself out there as the '08 candidate for liberals disheartened by Hillary's move to the middle. However, I would put 2006 ahead of 2008 on my list of priorities if I were a Congressional Democrat. Feingold's purpose here is transparently selfish. He has no regard for party loyalty or continuity and I'm sure he's gotten a number of phone calls telling him as much.

UPDATE (3/15/06 - 4:48PM): Hotline On Call has a great roundup of reaction to Feingold's censure measure. Here are some highlights:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), known for his "near-daily" news conferences, "made history" by saying: "I'm not going to comment." At a time when Dems "had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, the budget and port security," Feingold "single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush had the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party." [...]

A Dem aide: "[Feingold has] forced Democrats into the impossible position of trying to talk tough on the issue [of nat'l security] but voting against a stern censure. It was premature and basically about Feingold's ego. The rest of us pay the check his political capital can't cash" (Roll Call, 3/15). [...]

There is also a "long line of more senior" Dems who want to drag out Bush's agony for months. "Wiser" Dems understand that "political dis-utility of going after" Bush to stop him from doing the "wildly popular act of monitoring terrorist communications" (3/15). [...]

The censure resolution is receiving a "warm welcome" from the WH and the GOP, who have "seized" on the issue after "weeks of bad news" in Iraq, defeat on the UAE port deal, and "plummeting" approval ratings. Instead of attempting to block the resolution, Frist "sought a quick vote" on the issue, and VP Cheney, during a 3/13 WI fundraiser, used Feingold's measure "as a rallying point." [...]

In an email to supporters, RNC Chair Ken Mehlman writes, "after months of searching, Democrat leaders are finally beginning to find their agenda: take away the tools America needs to fight terror."

UPDATE II (3/15/06 - 6:03PM): I just found this post which Hugh Hewitt used the title "Feingold's Folly." This is a coincidence - my bad Hugh.

UPDATE III(3/15/06 - 8:34PM): Text of Feingold Resolution

Line Of The Day

2006-03-12T19:40:00.000-05:00

I'm sitting here reading the New York Times Magaizine article on Mark Warner and I'm feeling the need to share this particular line from the rather lengthy article:

As of the end of 2005, [Sen. John] Kerry had more than $15 million in contributions stashed away for another bid, as well as a handful of major fund-raisers who remain loyal to him, but the general assessment among Democratic insiders is that his Swift boat has already sailed.

I can't possibly be the only person who finds this funny.

More on the whole article later.

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

2006-03-12T16:29:00.000-05:00

Yeah, that's right - bong hits...4 Jesus...

Biden On Iraq

2006-03-12T15:51:00.000-05:00

Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE) and George Allen (R-VA) were on Meet The Press this morning talking about a number of issues, most important of which, the War in Iraq. We're going to focus on what Biden said, for he actually spoke candidly.

Biden did a good job of driving home the incompetence of the Bush administration, particularly the civilian defense personnel (yeah, you Rumsfeld). Consider:

[Biden]: It has stunned me, the incompetence and way in which they pursued the war, what they’re doing now. [...]

I think it [war planning] was mishandled. I didn’t ever think they [the Bush Administration]would be as incompetent as they were. If I’d known that, I wouldn’t have voted for it [war authorization]. [...]

I—when I got back from Iraq a little while ago, I went down to see the president, and I sat with the president, and he kept talking about terrorists. And I said, “Mr. President, if every single al-Qaeda personality, every single al-Qaeda operative or anyone like him tomorrow were blown away, you still have a war, Mr. President. This is well beyond terrorists.”

There’s an insurgency, Tim, a gigantic insurgency that has nothing to do with terrorists. It’s a big deal. And there’s no serious—we put these military guys so far behind the eight ball, because we didn’t go in with the 5,000 police trainers that I talked about on your show two and a half years ago and others did, because they said we didn’t need it, because we said we had all the oil we needed when in fact the oil companies told us we needed $30 billion dollars in. These guys are about two years behind the curve. The civilians have done a disservice, in my view, to the military on the ground. We said we needed more troops. Remember on your show, I called for more troops the year we went in? Then John McCain called for more troops. What were we told? “No, the folks on the ground don’t want the troops.” Now what’s coming out, including Bremer? “Yeah, we needed more troops, we wanted more troops.” This has been a debacle. This has been a debacle. The president, literally, this is a test of his leadership. He’s got to unite the international community to bring every pressure possible on these guys or it’s not going to get done.

As I've stated before, the incompetence card is a good one for the Dems in '06. In lieu of having alternative ideas, they might as well kick the president while he's down. Highlighting the incompetence, however, is more than a shameless attack - it drives home a point that many Americans, I suspect, already believe: The Bush Administration can't get the job done. Its not that they're just pursuing the wrong policies; rather, there's a general lack of ability and leadership that is damaging this country. If the Democrats keep driving this home, the public will respond.

Besides criticizing the Bush Administration, Biden also spoke the truth about Iraq. Here's what I mean:

[Biden]: And I think, by the way, General Pace [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who was on MTP last week] is very, very wrong in his assessment. I think we’re in, we’re at a point where in the next six to eight weeks, we don’t get something moving in terms of a government—and that’s just the first step, by the way. The idea that once a government is formed here that somehow things are going to begin to roll is, is really another misrepresentation.

MR. RUSSERT: But finish that statement. If they don’t get another government in the next six to eight weeks, what happens?

SEN. BIDEN: I think what happens is you’re—we have to decide how we’re going to deal with, it’s going to be a different circumstance. It’ll be closer to a civil war. We’re going to have to have a different function for our troops. You’re going to have to have a plan B. You’re going to have figure out how to contain rather than how to, how to build. And that’s a very much tougher circumstance to be in. [...]

But, look, we, we have vital interests that are there. We—it’s bad enough it’s a civil war. It’ll be a lot worse if it’s a regional war. [...]

SEN. BIDEN: We can’t want peace in Iraq more than the Iraqis want it. We can’t want it more than they want it, and if they don’t step up to the ball we’re going to be gone. The—no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people.

MR. RUSSERT: And what do you leave behind?

SEN. BIDEN: You leave behind chaos. You traded dictator for chaos, open civil war, and the concern of a regional war. Worse off than we were when we had him sitting there. It’s good he’s gone, but what are you trading him for? What are we going to trade him for?

MR. RUSSERT: Is this a distinct possibility?

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely, it’s a distinct possibility. And you even have our generals on the ground saying it’s a distinct possibility. [...]

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, if they don’t get a government together, and we do get out, and we leave chaos behind, is that not a foreign policy disaster for the U.S.?

SEN. BIDEN: It is an absolute foreign policy disaster. What I said was that we’re going to have to have a different deployment of the troops. We’re going to have to figure out a containment policy, Tim. You may find a debate begins to ensue: Do we help the Badr Brigade and the Peshmerga deal with the Sunnis? Do we decide to cordon off the north? Do we decide—it’ll be a different policy. We’re not going to just be able to walk away. It will be a disaster.

That's a lot of text, I know. But its all important and hasn't really been talked about before today. Biden is right to point out the potential for an Iraqi Civil War sparking a broader regional conflict with dire consequences. This is, more than any other so called 'tipping point' in Iraq thus far, a most pivotal moment for Iraq's future. If a viable, legitimate government (or 'unity government') does not form in the coming weeks, disaster is likely.

Biden is also right to note the hard realities of removing Saddam Hussein, as despicable as he was. Morally nobody can dispute the fact that Iraq is better off with Saddam out of power. However, the reality is his brutal, iron fist kept a lid on the sectarian tensions within Iraq. As Biden put it, we've "traded a dictator for chaos" - and by the way, our troops are in the middle of that chaos.

Feingold Calls For Censure

2006-03-12T13:21:00.000-05:00

On this mornings This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he would introduce a Senate Resolution that would censure President Bush over the domestic spying scandal:

But in a copy of the censure resolution obtained by ABC News, Feingold asserts the president, "repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States."

I've noted before [1] that in order for the Democrats to be taken seriously on this issue, they would have to, in essence, walk the walk. However, I've never actually advocated censuring/impeaching President Bush on this issue. I think its rather useless for a basic reason - this is not a winning issue for Democrats. Despite his plummeting poll numbers, he still polls relatively well on this issue. There's a lot of time between now and November for the President to get his sea legs and appear strong, once again, on national security.

Feingold is certainly attempting to walk the walk with this stunt. He knows its going nowhere. However, I suspect he doesn't care. This is not about actually holding the president accountable; this about Feingold's own Presidential ambitions. He's trying to cozy up to the liberal wing of the Democratic party. He's essentially telling them, 'I've been against the Patriot Act since the beginning, I want to censure this President - I'm your guy for '08.' Feingold may very well be the ultra-liberal choice for the Democratic nomination in '08 - but he won't get the nomination.

I'd love to say that I admire Feingold's backbone on this issue, but I can't. He, just like every other presidential hopeful, is positioning themselves for '08 and trying to develop a base. This is nothing more than a nod to the liberal 'Deaniac' wing of the Democratic party.

Quick Note: I do feel that the NSA program is, most likely, illegal. However, I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about politics.

[1] Here's me from February 15:

Some Republicans (especially those in moderate-liberal districts/states) have been eager to distance themselves from the president on many issues, including domestic and foreign policies. However, the NSA controversy is a different beast entirely - while certainly controversial, Republicans have begun to frame this debate as one of essential national security vs. liberal whining over legal technicalities. Rove and company have made it clear what the GOP national security platform will be (it should sound familiar): Democrats have a pre-9/11 world view and will not protect you and your family in these dire times. The NSA spying controversy is actually a relatively strong issue for the President - he has come out swinging from the beginning and will continue to do so. [...] As Iowa Gov. Vilsack recently implied(and I predicted soon after the program was revealed...), the Democrats are falling right into this trap and are once again allowing the GOP to frame this debate. Unless Dems start talking seriously about sanctioning the administration (i.e. censure, impeachment) for this abuse, they will look like a bunch of whining softies. Obviously, without a majority in either house of Congress, talking about censuring/impeaching the president is useless. Most Americans (including myself) aren't very well versed on the inner workings of the FISA Court - thus, citing abstract, legal objections to the program may not be wise.

SRLC Straw Poll Results

2006-03-11T21:24:00.000-05:00

Here they are, the results of the Hotline's Straw Poll from the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. Frist comes in first (no surprise, the event was held in his home state of Tennessee) and a surprise second place finish by MA governor Mitt Romney (at least I was surprised).

Hotline has a good breakdown of the results at their site - go check it out.

Another Gem From Bill O'Reilly

2006-03-11T12:28:00.000-05:00

Check out this clip from Media Matters.

In it, Bill O'Reilly places North Korea on a pedestal for its success in keeping foreigners out (and, in addition, its citizens in).

If you don't feel like going over to Media Matters, here's the quote:

[O'Reilly:] ...You're not gonna solve the illegal immigrant hordes coming in here by having an effective guest worker program because the criminals aren't gonna sign up for that. The criminals are still gonna get in here in a furtive way. And unless you put stringent -- and you can go to any country in the world and watch how they do it. It's doable. Nobody gets into North Korea, all right?

Just when you thought Bill O'Reilly couldn't be more absurd...

Sabato On Portgate: A Godsend

2006-03-11T12:13:00.000-05:00

Larry Sabato, of Sabato's Crystal Ball, had this to say about the Congressional Republican response to the Dubai Port controversy, via Reuters:

"In a way, the port deal was a godsend to them," Sabato said. "It allowed them to put a lot of daylight between themselves and a very unpopular president.

"I'd bet you that most Republicans on the ballot this year end up citing their opposition to the port deal to show how independent they are -- that they are independent Republicans, not 'Bush Republicans."'

He's absolutely right. This was a great opportunity for members of Congress to distinguish themselves from the president. While this type of split may not be good for the party in general terms, for vulnerable Republicans up for reelection this was indeed a "godsend."

In a way, the visceral reaction by fellow Republicans was also a bit of a godsend for the President as well - it allowed him to see the light without his normal partisan blinders. If Republicans had hesitated and weren't so openly against this deal - if they tried to pretend that this was good for the country, as the president did - they would've handed this issue (and possibly national security issues in general) to the Democrats. If this had happened, the President would've battled with Democrats and lost; his approval ratings would be even worse than they are now. I wouldn't be surprised if, privately, the President thanked Congressional Republicans for kicking his ass on this one.

ABSURD CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL!!!! - A MUST SEE

2006-03-10T21:36:00.000-05:00

I was just about to close up the old laptop for the night when I saw it. It was the most ridiculous attempt at a campaign commercial I've ever seen.

A BIG hat tip to Shakespeare's Sister for this guy...

Here she is: Absurd Commercial

Please, if you're reading this, do yourself a favor and watch the commercial - its worth you time.

This guy, Vernon Robinson, is trying so hard to convince people that he's a 'real conservative.' Here's a bit from the bio on his website:

My political heroes are Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia. That should give you a pretty good idea of where I stand. [...]

My concept of family is the same as the one God ordained in the Garden of Eden thousands of years ago -- one man, married to one woman, with so many children as God should see fit to entrust to their care. [...]

I put my trust in God, not my finger to the wind, and my record proves it. [...]

Dueling with the Left's talking sock puppets on television will not be a new experience for me. On our local equivalent of the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" (a program called "One on One"), I ably played Sean Hannity's role as the conservative television talk show host (opposite a radical feminist).

My family attends First Assembly of God in Winston-Salem. I believe my single greatest qualification to be a Congressman is that my mother raised me in a Christian home and taught me right from wrong.

Robinson is running against Rep. Brad Miller in North Carolina's 13th district. I couldn't find any polling data, but I would sure be interested in seeing some.

If Looks Could Kill...

2006-03-10T20:55:00.000-05:00

Okay, its not that bad - but take a look at what The Hotline has about the New York Times Magazine's upcoming feature article about former VA Governor Mark Warner. Apparently, Gov. Warner doesn't photograph that well.

Regardless, he's still the leader in my mental straw pole...

Byron York Echoes The Last Polka's Sentiments

2006-03-10T17:44:00.000-05:00

That's right - you Byron York. I know you read this post (Dems Chances In '06) before you wrote your recent column for The Hill (link at bottom). Obviously I'm being facetious, Byron. But, I have been ragging on the Dems for a little while. They don't have a message and their national leadership is incompetent (we're looking at you Dr. Dean, Sen. Reid, and Rep. Pelosi).

York's column is entitled, "The Democrats are the real party of arrogance," based on the fact that "Democrats believe they can ask voters to give them control of the legislative branch without revealing any sort of policy or plan to deal with the most pressing issue before the country today: the war in Iraq." Can't say I disagree with you, Mr. York.

York notes the same Washington Post article that I did in the aforementioned post (yeah, I know - its suspect). Here's how he sees the Dems' dilemma:

Questions that were unanswered many months ago are still unanswered. Should they come up with their own version of the Contract with America? Some say yes, and some say no. Right now, “no” is winning. Tomorrow, maybe “yes” will be winning.

And how about a slogan? Surely that’s simple enough that everyone can agree, right?
Well, it took Democratic leaders months to come up with their big, catchy sales pitch: “Together, America can do better.” But now the Post reports that “there is an effort afoot to drop the word “together.” It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect.”

Ouch. After all that work, they’re still looking for a few words to summarize what they stand for.

Well, if “together” tests so well, how about “Together, together, we can’t get our act together”?

Here's the whole thing from The Hill : The Democrats are the real party of arrogance

Bad Blood At The SRLC

2006-03-10T16:59:00.000-05:00

According to CNN, Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) took a bit of a shot at the current Senate Leader Bill Frist today, the opening day of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. After referring to the Hotline's straw pole as a "rigged deal," Lott reportedly said the following:

"Frist is bussing people in," Lott said, referring to Senate Majority Bill Frist (R-Tennessee), whose political organization is working to ensure he wins this unscientific early test of election viability. "These are not real delegates. These are people being bussed in to produce the results.

Here's more on the tension between the two senators:

Lott's preemptive strike on Frist is not surprising, given that the two Senators have been estranged since December 2002. That is when Frist announced he would run for Majority Leader after Lott came under fire for declaring the U.S. would have avoided "all of these problems" if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Lott tried to apologize for the remark made at Thurmond's birthday party, but public pressure forced him to step down as GOP leader just as Republicans were weeks away from taking back control of the Senate.

And Lott indicated to the Grind earlier this week that he would support Sen. John McCain for the GOP nomination should the Arizona Senator run for president in 2008.

"Lott is plotting his revenge for four years now," said a Frist confidante. "He is not interested in promoting John McCain. He is more interested in taking pot shots at Bill Frist."

I love intra-party bickering.

h/t: Political Wire

Russo-American Relations: At A Crossroads?

2006-03-10T13:36:00.000-05:00

Over at The Reaction Michael Stickings picks up on a piece by Newsweek's Michael Hirsh about U.S. relations with Russia in the current international environment. Hirsh notes Russia recent involvement is several areas that the United States would normally take a lead:

Now Bush is having trouble keeping up with all of Putin's diplomatic initiatives: talking with Hamas, seeking a middle ground with Iran and organizing the G8 summit, which Russia (once a barely tolerated observer nation) will host for the first time in St. Petersburg in July.

Here's more on Russia's talks with Hamas, from The New York Times (March 4, 2006):

MOSCOW, March 3 - Russia greeted the leaders of the militant Palestinian group Hamas on Friday with a pointed warning that the organization had to recognize Israel and dismantle its militias or face isolation.

As Hamas officials began a high-profile, three-day visit here, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said that Moscow would convey to them a position shared by the United States and other international mediators in the Middle East conflict, as well as "most of the Arab capitals." He said Hamas, which won control of the Palestinian parliament last month, needed to transform itself into a legitimate political movement on the model of the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland. [...]

The invitation from President Vladimir V. Putin, announced last month during a visit to Spain, surprised and angered Israeli and American officials, who had tried to isolate Hamas after its victory in Palestinian elections. Russia has since sought to reassure its sometime partners that it did not intend to diverge significantly from international efforts to resolve the conflict. [...]

Though Hamas delegations have visited Iran and Turkey since the election, the trip to Moscow is the first outside the Islamic world. It has given the group, classified by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization, an international legitimacy it clearly desires, much to Israel's chagrin.

Clearly Putin is trying to reestablish Russia as a major player on the international scene. Indeed, Russia's role with both North Korea and Iran is crucial to any progress made in those crises. Russia's role is even more important now that the United States is bogged down in Iraq. Our involvement in Iraq basically makes any threat of the use of force against Iran unrealistic. Therefore we must hope that Russia (and other states - China, India etc.) will work towards the greater good and not merely try to fill perceiveded "vacuum of global leadership left by Bush," as Hirsh put it.

Our relationship with Russia is crucial in the current global environment and has recently caused divisions within the Bush administration.

Consider this Washington Post article, from February 26, 2006:

The Bush administration is quietly exploring ways of recalibrating U.S. policy toward Russia in the face of growing concerns about the Kremlin's crackdown on internal dissent and pressure tactics toward its neighbors, according to senior officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Vice President Cheney has grown increasingly skeptical of Russian President Vladimir Putin and shown interest in toughening the administration's approach. He summoned Russia scholars to his office last month to solicit input and asked national intelligence director John D. Negroponte to provide further information about Putin's trajectory, the sources said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has sought to balance worries over Russian democracy with a pragmatic partnership on mutual issues such as Iran's nuclear program, responded by calling her own meeting with outside advisers a week ago. Some involved in the administration deliberations saw the move as an attempt to counter Cheney. Senior officials deny any split but describe the views of Cheney and Rice in different terms. [...]

Another person close to the discussions said Rice, a Russia scholar, privately believes that pushing Putin too hard on democracy would be counterproductive, and views the issue as a distraction from higher priorities. "You get the impression it was annoyance more than anything else -- 'we got so many other things to think about, we don't need this,' " the person said.

This split within the administration is fascinating. I tend to side with Sec. of State Rice, being that she is a Russia scholar. This will be interesting to watch play out, both domestically and internationally.

UN Staff To Annan: No Confidence

2006-03-09T21:20:00.000-05:00

Via AP:

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Staff Union overwhelmingly voted no confidence in Secretary-General Kofi Annan Thursday over his proposal to radically overhaul U.N. operations.

The union, representing over 5,000 staff at U.N. headquarters, said it was dismayed at many proposals in Annan's blueprint, especially the call to consider outsourcing a variety of U.N. services from translations to billing.

The disappearance of permanent appointments and a new policy on job mobility without job security implied a "fundamental attack against the international civil service," it said.

The resolution said "in the future, all staff may be at risk" and expressed "a statement of no confidence in the secretary-general and his senior management team."

Oh dear. Good thing his term is up in the relatively near future. Here's a taste of how bitter this has gotten:

[...] Annan and his senior team faced strong objections from U.N. staff, especially about outsourcing and job security, at a raucous and contentious meeting Tuesday afternoon.

The resolution was adopted at an emergency meeting of the Staff Union attended by over 500 U.N. employees. Union leaders said it was approved overwhelmingly, with two people voting "no" and fewer than 10 abstentions.

Facing Political Realities: Dubai Deal Is Dead

2006-03-09T17:35:00.000-05:00

This afternoon, Dubai Ports World , as the AP reported, "signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports." The company announced that it would 'transfer' operations of our ports to a "U.S. entity." The announcement came a day after the House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to approve an amendment to an appropriations bill that would block the deal. It also came hours after a closed door session between GOP Congressional leaders and the President:

Washington Post:

Warner's announcement came just hours after Republican leaders from the House and Senate met with President Bush to tell him Congress appeared ready to block the deal.

The GOP leaders gave Bush their assessment of where the deal stood at a private meeting at the White House, according to Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). [...]

Less than an hour after Warner's announcement, critics of the Dubai takeover continued to press their point and forced a Senate vote on the issue. The Senate voted 51-47 to clear the way for a vote on blocking the takeover. [...]

A knowledgeable Senate aide said the GOP leaders told Bush today that they would not be able to stave off a vote.

More, from AP:

"This should make the issue go away," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The Tennessee Republican was one of several GOP leaders to tell President Bush earlier in the day that Congress was ready to ignore his veto threat and scuttle the deal.

Several Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Frist and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had been privately urging the firm to give up its plans.

After weeks of controversy and White House veto threats that spokesman Scott McClellan renewed at midmorning Thursday the end came unexpectedly.

This is fascinating. First of all, this was the only way that the White House could cut their losses and kill this deal. The President needed DPW to 'voluntarily' back out of the deal. The White House would've had an awful time defending this deal through weeks of Congressional abuse. Also, I don't believe that President Bush would have actually vetoed any Congressional action on this issue. If he did, he and his party would've suffered dearly, politically speaking. Killing these deal before a veto showdown was the only real option.

While Senator Frist may hope that this issue will just go away, the Democrats (if they're smart) will not let it go away. This issue is illustrative of the President's incompetence. This should be a key issue in '06 and '08. Democrats should nationalize these midterm elections and ride this anti-Bush wave. They don't have many ideas of their own and they have not developed a coherent message. Until (or if...) they do develop some sort of strategy, Democrats should keep hammering away at the president.

Finally, what ultimately made the president face the political realities of this situation was the Republican response. This was not a partisan issue, and the White House couldn't save it.

UPDATE (3/9/06 - 5:38PM): Look at this AFP headline: "DP World pulls out of US ports to rescue Bush from firestorm."

Indeed.

Friedman On Iran: Risk Of A "Nuclear Middle East"

2006-03-09T00:13:00.000-05:00

In keeping with our 'Friedman Watch' series here at The Last Polka, let's take a look at what NY Times foreign affairs columnist had to say about Iran's nuclear ambitions on today's "Good Morning America." (Note: The whole transcript hasn't been posted yet, so I'll be quoting from the video and ABC's story about the interview)

If Iran successfully develops a nuclear bomb, Friedman warned, "Saudi Arabia is going to want one, Egypt is going to want one. We're going to have a nuclear Middle East." At first glance, it seems a bit premature to be jumping to this conclusion. However, Friedman is correct to note the long term implications of a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran would not just be a threat to the United States and Israel - it would destabilize the entire region and make it easier for other Middle Eastern countries to develop nuclear technologies.

Friedman also notes the role of Iranian nationalism tied to its nuclear endeavors. While many Iranians are thirsty for democracy and dislike the current regime, "The idea of Iran getting a bomb is very popular with the Iranian people." Again, I think that Friedman is correct to note this. A nuclear weapon would completely change the way the world deals with Iran, regardless of the regime in power.

I will take issue with one of Friedman's comments: After being asked about what type of 'harm' that Iran could inflict upon the U.S., Friedman commented, "If they cut off oil and it went to $100 a day, that would make my day because then we'd get everybody in America driving hybrid cars fueled by corn and ethanol and I think that would be a great thing." Let's be serious Tom. While having the country driving hybrid, electric, or ethanol fueled cars is admittedly your wet dream, I don't think the best way to achieve this would be allowing Iran to get a nuke. I hope you feel the same way.

Here's the story from ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=1703960

The video can be found at www.abcnews.com or at Yahoo News.

UPDATE (3/9/06 - 8:11PM): For more on the Iranian public's support of a nuclear Iran, see: http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/noteworthy-thus-tgamillions-of.html -

P.S. OxBlog is a great site.

Dems Chances In '06

2006-03-07T20:37:00.000-05:00

I saw an article in today's Washington Post, and the headline really says it all: "Democrats Struggle To Seize Opportunity." This has been the story of the Democratic Party for some time now and I don't see it changing much for the upcoming midterms. I've devoted much time here at The Last Polka to the troubles of the GOP (Iraq, Katrina, Ethics etc.) and I truly believe that the Democrats can make significant gains in 2006. Polls are showing, at the very least, a great opportunity for the Democrats to tip the balance in Congress. However, with Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid running the show, my expectations are lower than they probably should be. Without a unified message and effective organization (not to mention $$$$$$) the Dems will be disappointed. If they get their act together, they can make significant gains - picking up seats in either House of Congress would certainly be significant, even if the Dems fall short of a 1994-style shift.

Here's what I mean:

[...]On Feb. 27, [Sen. Harry] Reid and [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi appeared before the Democratic Governors Association. At one point in the conversation, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, noting that the two leaders had talked about a variety of themes and ideas, asked for help. Could they reduce the message to just two or three core ideas that governors could echo in the states?

According to multiple accounts from those in the room, Reid said they had narrowed the list to six and proceeded to talk about them. Pelosi then offered her six -- not all the same as Reid's. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said later: "One of the other governors said 'What do you think?' and I said 'You know what I think? I don't think we have a message.' "

Here's more:

[The Democratic] slogan -- "Together, America Can Do Better" -- was revived from the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry. It was the last line of Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's response to President Bush's State of the Union address, and Reid, Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have used it in speeches. But there is an effort afoot to drop the word "together." It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect.

Governors privately scoff at the slogan. They also say the message coming from congressional leaders has been too relentlessly negative. "They want to coordinate. They want to collaborate. That's all good," said one Democratic governor who declined to be identified in order to talk candidly about a closed-door meeting. "The question is: Coordinate or collaborate on what? People need to know not just what we're against but what we're for. That's the kind of message the governors are interested in developing at the national level."

This account is just a small example of why the Democrats have failed time and time again since 2000 - they actually think that the slogan is their biggest problem. They're spending too much time on things that, in the long run, don't matter. If you run solid candidates and actually have something to say, the slogan won't matter. This sort of thing should have been worked out long ago, certainly not during the midterm primary season.

Bottom line: The Democrats can't sit back and wait for the public to respond to Republican failures. They need to campaign for change, aggressively. They need to stop talking and actually say something. They will not take back Congress by crossing their fingers and hoping for the Republicans to screw up enough for the public to vote for Democrats. You need to give the people a reason to come out and vote for you - being the 'anti-Bush' or 'anti-GOP' candidate is not enough (remember '04?).

UPDATE (3/7/06 - 8:43PM): The Carpetbagger Report is blogging on the same Post article. They offer a slighly more optomistic view of the circumstances.

SI: The Truth About Barry Bonds And Steroids

2006-03-07T13:14:00.000-05:00

(A little detour from our regular discussion of politics...)

For the record, I can't stand Barry Bonds. He's a phony, a cheater, and a lying, smug, SOB. It will truly be a sad day if he breaks Hank Aaron's HR record.

So if you feel the way I do, you may also get a kick out of this blockbuster from Sports Illustrated (www.si.com - it's right on the front page). The print edition will apparently have an excerpt from an upcoming book, Game of Shadows - this story from the website, however, has enough to keep the public going for quite some time.

Here are some excerpts from the website:

For instance, the authors write that by 2001, when Bonds broke Mark McGwire's single-season home-run record (70) by belting 73, Bonds was using two designer steroids referred to as the Cream and the Clear, as well as insulin, human growth hormone, testosterone decanoate (a fast-acting steroid known as Mexican beans) and trenbolone, a steroid created to improve the muscle quality of cattle. [...]

According to the book [forthcoming Game of Shadows by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams], Bonds gulped as many as 20 pills at a time and was so deeply reliant on his regimen that he ordered Anderson to start "cycles" -- a prescribed period of steroid use lasting about three weeks -- even when he was not due to begin one. Steroid users typically stop usage for a week or two periodically to allow the body to continue to produce natural testosterone; otherwise, such production diminishes or ceases with the continued introduction of synthetic forms of the muscle-building hormone.

Bonds called for the re-starting of cycles when he felt his energy and power start to drop. If Anderson told Bonds he was not due for another cycle, the authors write, Bonds would tell him, "F--- off, I'll do it myself.'' [...]

The authors describe how Bonds turned to steroids after the 1998 season because he was jealous of McGwire. Bonds hit 37 home runs in '98 -- a nice total and the fourth most of his career at that point -- but he was ignored by fans and the media who were captivated by McGwire's 70 home runs and his duel for the record with Sammy Sosa, who hit 66 that year.

According to the book, Bonds, in comments to his mistress, Kimberly Bell, often dismissed McGwire with racially-charged remarks such as, "They're just letting him do it because he's a white boy." But Bonds looked at McGwire and his hulking physique and decided he needed to dramatically increase his muscle mass to compete with him.

[...] In 100 days, Bonds packed on 15 pounds of muscle, and at age 35 hit home runs at the best rate of his career, once every 10.4 at bats. But he also grew too big, too fast. He tore his triceps tendon, telling Bell that the steroids "makes me grow faster, but if you're not careful, you can blow it out."

[...] [T]he authors write that in 2002, when Bonds won his fifth MVP Award and had a .700 on-base percentage in the World Series, he was fueled by meticulous three-week cycles in which he injected growth hormone every other day, took the Cream and the Clear in the days in between, and capped the cycle with Clomid. The cycle was followed by one week off. The authors write that Anderson usually administered the drugs to Bonds at Bonds' home, using a needle to inject the growth hormone and a syringe without a needle to squirt the Clear under his tongue.

In addition to detailing the drug usage, the excerpt portrays Bonds as a menacing boor, a tax cheat and an adulterer given to (probably because of the rampant steroid use) sexual dysfunction, hair loss and wild mood swings that included periods of rage. [...]

But how credible is this story?

The authors compiled the information over a two-year investigation that included, but was not limited to, court documents, affidavits filed by BALCO investigators, confidential memoranda of federal agents (including statements made to them by athletes and trainers), grand jury testimony, audiotapes and interviews with more than 200 sources. Some of the information previously was reported by the authors in the Chronicle. Some of the information is new. For instance, in an extensive note on sourcing, the authors said memos detailing statements by BALCO owner Victor Conte, vice president James Valente and Anderson to IRS special agent Jeff Novitzky were sealed when they first consulted them, but have been unsealed since.

Oh boy.

UPDATE (3/7/06 - 6:27PM): Here's link to the actual excerpts from Sports Illustrated

UPDATE (3/7/06 - 7:06PM): A photographic display of Bonds' 'growth,' also from SI

Conservative House GOPers Unveil Alternative Budget Proposal

2006-03-07T11:11:00.000-05:00

From today's NY Times:

WASHINGTON, March 6 — With Congress heading into a politically perilous budget season, influential House conservatives plan this week to propose an austere alternative spending plan that would pare more than $650 billion over five years, balance the budget and drastically shrink three cabinet agencies. [...]

But House conservative leaders would go far beyond the president's own budget proposal, illustrating the difficulty the White House and the Republican leadership have had in persuading the caucus to speak with one voice on the matter.

Senior aides say the conservatives' plan would wring about $350 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs and save $300 billion partly through a major reorganization of the Education, Commerce and Energy Departments. [...]

The new budget proposal is certain to be assailed by Democrats who accuse Republicans of forging ahead with tax cuts that benefit the affluent and add to the deficit while reducing support for those most in need. [...]

Under the proposal, expected to be introduced by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, and Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, military spending would continue to rise, administration tax cuts would be protected and Social Security would be spared. But many other programs and foreign aid would be greatly scaled back.

The authors of the proposal describe it as a sequel to the Contract With America, which helped catapult Republicans to power in 1994. An outline of the plan says the proposals require "tough choices, but members have expressed a serious desire to do the hard things to save America."

Nothing new here. Conservatives plan to "save America" on the backs of the most vulnerable among us. Cutting Medicare, Medicaid, protecting tax cuts for the wealthy, and cutting foreign aid...Yeah, I think they've hit all the major targets. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, with Boehner as the new leader. At this point, this seems to be more of an attempt by Republicans to show how fiscally conservative they really are. This will get some play in the news; I wouldn't be surprised to see further cuts in some of the social programs mentioned above. However, the cuts will be much less harsh than the Pence Plan.

Democratic Weekly Address During A Bad Week For Bush...

2006-03-04T20:39:00.000-05:00

The last week and a half or so have been bad for the Bush Administration - the Dubai Ports controversy was as hot as ever, Iraq remained on the edge of a sectarian civil war, and the Katrina videos. Clearly, the Democratic Party would take advantage of this opportunity by having a strong, credible voice speak on its behalf. Right?

Via AP:

WASHINGTON - Democrats used their weekly radio address Saturday to scold the Bush administration over the Dubai ports management deal.

The address also gave a national stage to the party's candidate to replace former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison for corruption.

Francine Busby, a school board member in a San Diego-area district, said Democrats want an immediate vote on the controversial ports deal, an increase in the screening of arriving cargo and more resources for the Coast Guard.

Ms. Busby is surely good at what she does. However, in such a critical week in a Mid-term election year the party needs to speak with a strong, united voice. Someone with substantially more influence and credibility should be provide that voice. They need to focus the public's attention on the importance of the Mid-terms and possibly swinging the balance in the Dems favor.

I don't know about these Democrats...

DUKE!!!!!

2006-03-03T18:27:00.000-05:00

Oh dear God...

Via AP:

Former U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress, was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison, the longest term ever meted out to a congressman.

Cunningham, who resigned from Congress in disgrace last year, was spared the 10-year maximum by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns.

God speed, Duke.

Perspective...

2006-03-03T16:23:00.000-05:00

If you want a taste of how bad this past week has been for the Bush Administration, consider this, from The Carpetbagger Report: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6763.html

It's worth a look...it's got some good links to.

Senate Candidate (RI) In Sticky Situation

2006-03-03T16:16:00.000-05:00

Democratic Congressional Candidates who hope to use the corruption of the Republican Majority may have to turn a blind eye the race for the Senate seat currently held by Lincoln Chafee. Sen. Chafee faces a tough primary bid against Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey, and several Democrats are vying for their party's nomination. One of these Democrats, RI Secretary of State Matt Brown currently finds himself in campaign finance controversy. From Stu Rothenberg, via yesterday's Political Wire :

[Matt] Brown is in the center of a huge controversy, first reported by Roll Call reporter Lauren Whittington, with political opponents and journalists questioning whether he used Democratic state parties in Massachusetts, Maine, and Hawaii to launder funds that he otherwise would not have been able to accept. [...]

With many national and state party insiders already preferring [Sheldon] Whitehouse[former RI Attorney General and Brown's major competition for the Democratic nod], Brown may well be forced to spend his time and resources defending himself during an embarrassing Federal Election Commission investigation that will likely ensue. His outsider/reformer message is at least compromised, and much of the good will that he created from his initial wave of ads is likely to dissipate.

How does Brown respond to these allegations? He accuses his opponent, Whitehouse, of going negative and tries to raise more money. Here's the text of an e-mail he sent to supporters yesterday:

Dear [Supporter],
At a time when Rhode Islanders are looking for leaders who will focus on solving the problems people are facing and getting results, Sheldon Whitehouse has decided to go negative with personal attacks on me and my campaign.
Yesterday, Whitehouse's top campaign consultant made false, negative and personal attacks on my character that should have absolutely no place in this campaign.

It's clear why he has decided to go negative -- recent polls show I've gained 25 points since last fall and am now leading Whitehouse and am tied with Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee. In 2002, Whitehouse promised not to run a negative campaign -- but broke that promise and attacked another Democrat in the primary. This year, he made the same promise -- and he just broke it.

I need your help to defend myself against these negative attacks.
So, while Sheldon Whitehouse is launching personal attacks against me -- let's fight back and show him there is no place for that in this campaign. He didn't get away with running a negative campaign against other Democrats in 2002. Let's not let him get away with it this year either.

Please consider contributing $10, $25, $50 or more to my campaign today so we will have the resources to fight back and win in September and November.

Volunteer to help reach out to Rhode Islanders.

We need to stand up and work harder than ever to win this election. Whitehouse touts his political insider support but we know that does not win elections -- people win elections!

Thank you for your outpouring of support over the past two days condemning Whitehouse's actions. Let's fight back and show him we will not stand for it.
Thank you,

[Matt]

This assures the Democratic primary to be as nasty as the Republican, so long as Brown can keep raising enough money to stay in it. If the Democratic primary is as nasty as it could be, and Chafee wins the GOP primary, its going to be tough for the Dems to take this seat.

-->For more of my thoughts on this race: Chafee Challenger Lands Club For Growth Endorsement

UPDATE (3/3/06 - 6:09 PM): Here's a breakdown of the contributions in question: http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/x_ptytoc.exe?DoFn=S6RI00213BROWN,$MATTHEW$A06

AP: Iraqi Politicians Clashing Over Minister's Post

2006-03-03T08:47:00.000-05:00

I found this in the print edition of the Providence Journal (I couldn't find it online though...sorry, no link):

Iraq's prime minister [Ibrahim al-Jaafari] and his radical Shiite backers vowed yesterday to fight a bid by Sunni Arabs and Kurds to oust him, threatening to plunge the country into political turmoil, delay the formation of a new government, and undercut U.S. plans to begin withdrawing troops this year. [...]

Many Sunnis blame al-Jaafari for failing to rein in commandos of the Shiite-led Interior Ministry...Kurds accuse al Jaafari of dragging his heels on resolving their claims around the oil rich city of Kirkuk. [...]

Al Jaafari won the nomination by a single vote during an election Feb. 12 among Shiite lawmakers who won seats in the Dec. 15 parliamentary election. He defeated Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi in large part because of the support of radical, anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

This is bad for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the U.S. government's recent rhetoric regarding the importance of a "national unity government." Not surprisingly, this prospect seems more bleak with each passing day.

NBC News - I'm Losing Faith

2006-03-02T18:52:00.000-05:00

Am I the only one who's disgusted with NBC's series of 'exclusive' interviews with former FEMA Director/current jackass Michael Brown? The week began with a two-part exclusive with the disgraced bureaucrat, and just minutes ago Campbell Brown scored a live exclusive, during which she asked Brown about the Katrina Tapes. That's at least three times in the last week that viewers have had to look at Brown's monkey ass when they're trying to learn about the days events. Giving this fool a platform to play the victim in this mess is disgraceful. Consider:

[Brian] Williams: Why was yours the only head to roll after Katrina?

Brown[ie]: Part of being a presidential appointee is that you have to be willing to fall on the sword for the president of the United States. And, clearly, I either fell on the sword or was pushed on the sword. I'll leave that for others to make that judgment. And so, I think that I was made a scapegoat, in that regard. Most always, though, really, they never leave their wounded or their dead on the battlefield. And, in this case, I'm willing to take the fall for the president, but I wish I hadn't been left on the battlefield.

You wish you hadn't been left on the battlefield? You must be joking. Left on the battlefield? Brownie, tell me you haven't already forgotten the images of hundreds upon hundreds of people, including women, young children, and the elderly who were literally left for dead in the New Orleans Convention Center and the SuperDome? You truly are a moron, Brownie - even if that was just an unfortunate metaphor. (And so are the producers who insist on giving this buffoon a platform).

UPDATE (3/2/06 - 7:46 PM): Add CNN to list of networks showcasing Brownie and his fat mug. WHAT IN HELL MAKES THESE NETWORKS THINK THIS MAN HAS ANYTHING TO OFFER?

More PortGate Commentary

2006-03-02T10:09:00.000-05:00

Here's some of what the Dallas Morning News' columnist Mark Davis has (via www.RealClearPolitics.com):

Welcome to 45 days of positioning on both sides of the Dubai Ports World controversy. Since the issue heated up last week, those of us who have chosen to stand up for port security have been rewarded with a wide variety of insults.

We are racists, as if only hatred of Arabs could spur opposition to Islamic control at U.S. ports;

We are isolationists, as if such opposition means we have no tolerance for foreign investment in America:

We are panicky nervous Nellies, as if strong negative reaction can only be born of paranoia and prejudice;

And, my favorite, we are idiots, as if we have not grasped all the comforting spin proponents have been offering up. But a lot of their arguments have been peppered with irrelevancies.

They seem driven to tell us the United Arab Emirates will not run security. Anyone paying attention knows that. The problem is not that the UAE will take over security, but that its involvement makes security harder.

Indeed. I for one have no problem being labeled any of these things if it means that our ports will be that much more secure. As I have said before, national security takes precedence over any macro-level, globalization argument. Its interesting that the same individuals (cough, cough, Thomas Friedman) who are bitching over the perceived 'overreaction' to this deal (i.e. the security concerns are 'bogus') are quick to cry wolf about the implications of blocking this deal. Blocking a government with a spotty (to say the least) record on terrorism (indeed, a government with some reportedly close ties to Osama bin Laden) from operating our ports won't halt the wave of globalization; nor will it prevent the most powerful nation, economically and militarily, from participating in the global village. Anyone who thinks otherwise is terribly mistaken.

WaPo: U.S. Reviewing 2nd Dubai Firm

2006-03-02T09:30:00.000-05:00

A front page story from today's Washington Post discusses yet another UAE owned company with hopes of buying a British company that "make[s] precision components used in engines for military aircraft and tanks." The British company currently owns and operates plants in Georgia and Connecticut. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. is now reviewing this deal for possible security concerns. Get this: the administration has apparently notified some members of Congress about this deal.

Here's a bit from the story:

Dubai International Capital's acquisition of Doncasters could present some of the same political problems created by Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Once again, a state-controlled Dubai company with deep pockets is purchasing a British firm with U.S. holdings. Doncasters has operations in nine U.S. locations and manufactures precision parts for defense contractors such as Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. [...]

In the case of Dubai International Capital and Doncasters, an acquisition that ordinarily may have been whisked through the process without objection is now under security investigation, administration sources said. Dubai International Capital is the financial arm of Dubai Holding, an investment conglomerate that is the third-largest shareholder of DaimlerChrysler Corp. and is a major investor in Holiday Inn Express in the Middle East.

Did Old Europe Aid Our Invasion Of Iraq?

2006-03-02T09:10:00.000-05:00

According to a NY Times report, German intelligence officials provided information being gathered in Baghdad to American officials, including CentCom Commander Tommy Franks:

The German liaison officer made 25 reports to the Americans, answering 18 of 33 specific requests for information made by the United States during the first few months of the Iraq war in what was a systematic exchange between American intelligence officials and the Germans, according to the German report.

The decision to install the officer was planned and approved at the highest levels of the German government, including by Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the chief of staff for Gerhard Schröder, then the chancellor, and by the foreign minister at the time, Joschka Fischer. Mr. Steinmeier is now the foreign minister. [...]

The German government was a vocal critic of the Bush administration's decision to use military force to topple Saddam Hussein and has long insisted that it provided only limited help to the United States-led coalition. But in recent months, news reports of greater German involvement prompted the parliamentary review, which indicates that German-American cooperation during the war was continuing, systematic and regular. [...]

Much of the information concerned the location of sites where bombing should be avoided, including embassies and the place where it was thought that a missing American pilot was being held. But in eight of the reports, the German intelligence officer provided information on Iraqi police and military units in Baghdad. According to the report, German officials provided the geographic coordinates of some units, but the report asserts that they did not direct airstrikes against Iraqi leaders or forces.

And for good measure...

Germany had already decided that if war broke out, it would close its embassy, which led to an interesting sidelight: the Germans also arranged that, once the war broke out and the German Embassy was closed, the two German intelligence agents in Baghdad would take refuge in the French Embassy.

They did exactly that after the beginning of the invasion on March 20, 2003, moving into offices of the French intelligence agency and thereby giving the French, who also vociferously opposed the American war in Iraq, an indirect role in supporting the German-American intelligence exchange.

A HA! It seems that the German government is having some problems with the leaking of sensitive information to the press. Interesting.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear the Germans or the French boasting about a united European effort to counterbalance American hegemony.

Here's the article from The New York Times

More Port Politics

2006-02-27T23:15:00.000-05:00

The UAE-U.S. Port Management controversy (i.e. Portgate) has taken some interesting turns since the story exploded into the media last week. After (once again) proving that President Bush is an out of touch, lame duck, the administration seems to have reached a deal with Congressional Republicans (at least the leadership) to delay the deal for 45 days in order for a more 'thorough' review to occur. I don't need to say this, but I'm going to anyway: The President grossly misjudged the Congressional reaction to this deal and, more importantly, the reaction of the American public. This issue has disaster written all over it, unless the president gives in now and moves on (much like he did with Harriet Miers). He has virtually no political capital left (and hasn't since his reelection, by the way) and cannot waste it on a long, drawn out battle over this foolish deal. Another element to this is the fact that this is an election year--an election year that is going to be bad for the GOP anyway, in spite of this controversy. Democrats should not let up on this issue; they need to drive home the competence factor--and the administration's lack of said competence. The Bush administration is continuing to govern without regard for the interests of the American people; they feel no obligation to keep the public informed about its actions.

Also, from The AP:

Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard raised concerns weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.

The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to assume significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. It also clouded whether the Bush administration's agreement to conduct an unusual investigation into the pending takeover's security risks would allay lawmakers' concerns.

For the administration to pretend as if there are absolutely no security concerns is ludicrous. This deal was reviewed in secret with, once again, no Congressional oversight. Furthermore, for anyone (including Administration apologists) to 'play the race/ethnicity card' is laughable. The same people that have recently tried to justify torture as a viable policy option are apparently now very sensitive to the feelings of Arabs and Muslims across the globe. Wake UP. This is a national security issue. God forbid this deal happens and something awful happens at one of these ports...I don't want to think about.

More, from Thomas Friedman (who I have a great deal of respect for):

But while I have zero sympathy for the political mess in which the president now finds himself, I will not join this feeding frenzy. On the pure merits of this case, the president is right. The port deal should go ahead. Congress should focus on the NSA wiretapping. Not this.

As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic profiling, looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked for commies. If we do, if America, the world's beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road, we will take the rest of the world with us. ...

If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist.

Wow. I'm not going to lie...I'm a little sad. I though Friedman would be a bit more pragmatic with this one. Friedman makes himself look like a fool. Here's a brief memo, Tom: Not everything can be explained away by globalization. Having the UAE royal family operate our ports isn't going to lead to a pro-America wave in the Middle East. NATIONAL SECURITY TRUMPS GLOBALIZATION AND ECONOMICS EVERY TIME. It's a fact that we all need to accept. The security concerns are not 'bogus,' Mr. Friedman. At the very least, they need to be examined further. At this point, nobody (no matter how big their ego, Tom) can honestly claim to have enough information to categorize these concerns as bogus. Again, Friedman makes himself look foolish with these statements. I'm not even going to tackle the "borderline racist" aspect of the column. I think you know how I feel.

Note: This isn't the first time Friedman has been off his game in recent months (see: http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2006/02/friedman-on-sotu-bush-makes-strides.html )

Finally, this from The Hill:

A bipartisan group of senators pressed ahead yesterday with a bill giving Congress power to block a Dubai-government-owned ports company from assuming control of several U.S. ports, despite the Bush administration’s agreement to initiate a second review of the deal.

The senators’ move, as well as several congressional hearings on the ports deal planned for this week, signals that the company’s consent to delay the takeover may not be enough to sate Congress’ growing appetite for oversight. While some lawmakers hailed the request from Dubai Ports (DP) World for a longer executive-branch investigation as a good first step, Democrats continued to question whether the administration panel that already cleared the deal would be able to reevaluate it independently.

...But Schumer’s bill, co-sponsored by GOP Sens. Rick Santorum (Pa.), Susan Collins (Maine), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine), would give Congress the authority to reject the ports deal after completion of the new 45-day review.

Santorum signed on to the bill late Friday, adding conservative heft to the unlikely partnership of ports-deal skeptics. Santorum did not hesitate in joining such Democratic co-sponsors as Schumer and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), said Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham.

Schumer?...Santorum? Co-sponsoring the same legislation? I think a pig just flew by my window...more later.

Portgate, Civil War And Such...

2006-02-25T21:47:00.000-05:00

I recently heard someone refer to the last week as a "slow news week." Obviously, I was shocked at that statement. This past week was full of fascinating stories (especially when compared to the previous weeks 'Cheney-shotgun-gate').

First of all, the UAE port controversy has given us yet another example of the Bush administration's second term fatigue. Consider, a) this deal was done in secret and Bush claims he had no idea that the deal was going through, b) the absurdity of the Bush administration's lack of political savvy, c) the news broke in a week when Bush needed to get back on message and talk about his domestic agenda. These factors, among others, have led to a National Security/PR nightmare for the administration. Fellow Republicans are running scared and, for once, have to be honest with themselves and their constituents: the Bush administration is WRONG. They were wrong to not keep Congress abreast of the situation (especially their allies) and they were wrong in their knee-jerk rebuttal to the criticism they received. This story has already spun out of control and the administration is on the wrong side of it. They cannot hope to reframe the debate on this one - they're going to have to retreat. Bush's threat to veto any legislation that would delay or put a stop to the deal was foolish and empty. He cannot spend what little remains of his political capital, in an election year, defending this ridiculous decision.

Also happening this week: Iraq may be spiraling into a disastrous sectarian civil war. The attack on a 1200 year old Shiite mosque may prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back in this fool's errand. Strikingly relevant is a piece in the latest Foreign Affairs: Written by Joel Rayburn (a former history instructor at West Point), "The Last Exit From Iraq" compares the British Mesopotamian Mandate (1920's-1930's) to the current U.S. occupation. Here's a taste:

...In fact, Washington's current position bears a strong resemblance to London's in the late 1920's, when the British were responsible for the tutelage of a fledgling Iraqi state suffering from immature institutions, active insurgencies, and the interference of hostile neighbors. Eventually, this tutelage was undermined by pressure from the British Parliament and the press to withdraw -- forces quite similar to those in the United States now calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. Building a better understanding of the United Kingdom's mistakes -- and of the consequences of that country's ultimate withdrawal from Iraq -- could thus help illuminate the present occupation and provide answers to when and how to end it. If the British record teaches anything, it is this: costly and frustrating as the fostering of Iraqi democracy may be, the costs of leaving the job undone would likely be far higher, for both the occupiers and the Iraqis. This is a lesson the British learned more than seven decades ago, when their premature pullout in 1932 led to more violence in Iraq, the rise of a dictatorship, and a catastrophic unraveling of everything the British had tried to build there.

Good stuff, if you ask me. Rayburn goes on from there to draw some fascinating comparisons. Needles to say, an Iraqi civil war would be disastrous. Some conservative pundits are trying to downplay the significance of the raging conflict in Iraq. Don't be fooled. Sectarian violence is possibly the worst kind. And the fact that over 100,000 U.S. troops are stuck in the middle of all of this is disturbing, to say the least. I'm reminded of Lebanon in the 1980's - we were there, trying not to take sides and suffered because of our perilous position. The violence in Iraq has the potential to make Lebanon look like a picnic.

Note: Joe Gandelman ("The Moderate Voice") is all over both of these stories. Go check out some of his stuff: http://themoderatevoice.com/

Scandals And Midterms

2006-02-15T20:14:00.000-05:00

I'd like to warn those Americans who are sick of beltway 'politics as usual' and vicious partisan bickering - you ain't seen nothing yet. The 2006 midterms will be every bit as partisan (maybe more) as the 2000 and 2004 election cycles. With Democrats thirsty to return to power in Congress and incumbent Republicans hoping merely to survive, I expect to see tremendous amounts of money spent and some bitter exchanges between candidates. Particularly important in the 2006 election cycle will be the various scandals occurring in Washington (Plamegate-->Libby/Rove Gate; NSA domestic spying/'terrorist surveillance'; Abramoff/lobbying scandals). For this post I'm going to focus on the political maneuvering around the NSA spying scandal, an issue that members of both parties seem to be eager to address. (I have posted on the politics of domestic spying; these comments were an initial reaction and many of the main points are still relevant: http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2005/12/politics-of-domestic-spying.html ; http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2005/12/more-on-politics-of-spying.html)

"Terrorist surveillance program" - NSA Spying and GOP Strategies

Some Republicans (especially those in moderate-liberal districts/states) have been eager to distance themselves from the president on many issues, including domestic and foreign policies. However, the NSA controversy is a different beast entirely - while certainly controversial, Republicans have begun to frame this debate as one of essential national security vs. liberal whining over legal technicalities. Rove and company have made it clear what the GOP national security platform will be (it should sound familiar): Democrats have a pre-9/11 world view and will not protect you and your family in these dire times. The NSA spying controversy is actually a relatively strong issue for the President - he has come out swinging from the beginning and will continue to do so. He recently spoke about declassified information regarding an attempted attack in LA; it seems that this foiled attack had nothing to do with the NSA program, but that doesn't matter. The main point is the same - this president and the Republican party are committed to protecting you and yours. As Iowa Gov. Vilsack recently implied(and I predicted soon after the program was revealed [1]), the Democrats are falling right into this trap and are once again allowing the GOP to frame this debate. Unless Dems start talking seriously about sanctioning the administration (i.e. censure, impeachment) for this abuse, they will look like a bunch of whining softies. Obviously, without a majority in either house of Congress, talking about censuring/impeaching the president is useless. Most Americans (including myself) aren't very well versed on the inner workings of the FISA Court - thus, citing abstract, legal objections to the program may not be wise.

Ethics/Corruption

Here's a scandal that might actually work well for the Democrats. Self described "independents" and "moderates" don't respond well to corruption. Since the Democratic leadership seems...reluctant to offer actual alternative policies (see "Oh Howard..." from November '05 [2]), they should hammer home this Republican-corruption angle. They've been handed several high profile corruption cases and they should not sit on them. Why not go after the deficit and pork barrel spending while you're at it (Remember the "Bridge to Nowhere" - that might make a good DNC ad...just a thought).

Cheney Shooting

Okay, this incident will not have any impact on the midterms, but I felt like I should mention it. On that note, I hope Cheney's victim will recover fully from this unfortunate accident. (More on the politics of VP Assault With Deadly Weapon later).

[1] From The Last Polka, 12/18: "I expect the Democrats to run, full speed ahead, into this trap; they will once again be painted with the 'weak on defense' brush."

[2] I like citing myself, so here's part of what that post said:

[Dean]: "Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate."

And here's what I said: "What? It's not your job? It's not your job to tell voters what you would do differently? Its not your job to articulate specific policy differences between the Administration and the Opposition?... The head of the National Democratic party said those very words on Meet The Press on 11/13/05. Russert asked him about specific Democratic plans on Social Security, the deficit, Iraq, energy prices, and other issues, and that is how the DNC chairman responded. PITIFUL. EMBARRASSING."

Yeah, I don't like Howard Dean

WaPo: Warner's High Hopes Meet Low Rating In NH

2006-02-12T13:25:00.000-05:00

There's a headline that upsets me. The basis of this headline is a garbage "presidential preference" survey taken recently:

A lot has changed for Mark R. Warner since he left behind the Virginia governorship and his 80 percent approval ratings to begin mulling a presidential campaign.

But perhaps nothing more than this: At just 3 percent in a recent poll asking Democrats nationwide to rate their presidential preference, Warner has become an unknown overnight.

Are you kidding me? No responsible journalist would put any stock in such a poll. Over 2 1/2 years out from the '08 election, and this guy's citing a presidential preference poll? Ridiculous.

What about the gross amounts of money that Warner has raised in recent months? What about the fact that he is "unemployed" and can concentrate on real campaigning (i.e. meet and greets, small settings where he can talk to people). That's how early campaigning in NH is done.

I'm not including a link to the story because its not worth your time. It' awful. Don't bother.

Friedman On SOTU: Bush Makes Strides, But He's Still A Long Way From China

2006-02-06T02:34:00.000-05:00

I'm going to make a confession - I love Thomas Friedman. Alright, I said it. That feels better. For the record, if you want to learn about why the Middle East (or at least the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) is the way it is, read his From Beirut to Jerusalem. Anyway, I read his analysis of last week's State of the Union (SOTU from here on). After Friedman's work on globalization and the undeserved publicity the President's comments on energy independence and competing in the global marketplace, its not surprising that Friedman focused on those aspects of the SOTU. For Friedman, the president's change in tone on some key aspects regarding these issues show that President Bush might mean what he says. Here's Friedman:

I heard the president use language about the necessity of breaking our oil addiction through innovation on renewable technologies-without mentioning drilling in Alaska-which I've never heard before. When the president changes language on an issue like this in a sustained manner (and we still have to see if it will be sustained), the whole country and bureaucracy starts to talk differently.

I said before that I love Friedman and his work - However, he is reading too much into the President's rhetoric on energy independence. He didn't mention ANWR for a simple reason: its a dead issue and its not going to be revived in an election year. Sen. Ted Stevens was recently embarrassed after trying and failing to sneak ANWR drilling onto an Appropriations bill. That was also a defeat for the President and, with approval ratings still hovering in the low 40's, he wasn't about to remind people of that embarrassmentent. The absence of ANWR from the SOTU was due to political realities, not a change in philosophy.

Here's more:

The technology we need to make a huge reduction in our gasoline consumption is already here, hybrid cars that run on flex-fuels. No great breakthrough is required. What's needed are more buyers. While enticing Detroit to make these more fuel-efficient vehicles is a good idea, we also need a gasoline tax to entice every consumer to buy one. The president rejects a gasoline tax. He's wrong. He can't end our oil addiction unless he ends his tax-cutting addiction.

Friedman is right on this one. He is also right to note that if you think that a gasoline tax will be signed into law under this administration, you're crazy. Even when everything else goes down the shitter, conservatives can still look at this president and say, "At least taxes are low." Again, the President would never risk this by accepting something as controversial as a gas tax. So basically, if we assume that Friedman is correct (that one of the only things holding us back from breaking our "addiction" to Middle Eastern oil is incentive to invest in alternative energies) we can conclude that the new SOTU rhetoric is EMPTY. Here's a bold prediction: this president, despite his new catch phrases (i.e. 'addiction to foreign oil'), will do nothing to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Even after his apparent misguided optimism, Friedman seems to accept this conclusion:

And if he fails to carry through with this energy initiative, I'll be the first to rip him for it. In the meantime, I prefer to give him a new reputation to live up to. You never know. And by the way, pal, you got a better horse to ride right now?

No Tom, I don't.

There's Still Hope...

2006-01-30T17:12:00.000-05:00

The recent Palestinian election, which saw the militant Hamas organization (best known for its calls for the destruction of Israel and terrorist attacks) win a decisive majority of parliamentary seats, have led many in the international community and the media to leap to conclusions regarding the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Hamas has supported/carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Israelis, their recent foray into electoral politics could be interpreted as a hopeful sign, not necessarily a doomsday scenario. It appears that if Fatah's leaders want to have any say in the direction of the Palestinian cause, they must do several things: First, this was a classic protest vote - the results may be interpreted as more anti-Fatah than pro-Hamas. As such, Fatah's leaders need to clean their own house and settle the internal bickering that has significantly weakened their position. Secondly, Fatah needs to remain open to any type of partnership that Hamas is willing to accept. According to shear numbers, Hamas doesn't need Fatah to form a majority coalition--they won enough seats to stand alone. However, as the AP notes, "But Fatah could help Hamas by serving as a a conduit for talks with Israel" - that's assuming that Hamas will eventually recognize Israel and both sides will even consider negotiating with each other. However, their willingness to even participate in the political process is a hopeful sign. With a taste of actual power, rather than the illusion of power that terrorist actions create, Hamas may see it in their best interest to lay down their arms and work for the good of the Palestinian people. Am I ignoring the fact that they have an ugly past full of heinous actions? Does my recognition of certain political realities make me a sissy liberal Israel-hater? I don't think so. Leaders on both sides have had innocent blood on their hands for decades. Hamas is no different.

History has seen similar movements turn to legitimate political means in other areas of the world (more on that later). If the relatively moderate elements of Hamas (or perhaps just the power hungry ones) choose to recognize Israel - something polling shows a majority Palestinian voters support - and can marginalize the radical elements, this will indeed be a relatively positive occurrence. This marginalization of the radical elements will require significant help from the international community; as a report (pre election) from the International Crisis Group suggests, "[T]he international community's best remaining option is to maximizee the Islamist movement's incentives to move in a political direction through a policy of gradual, conditional engagement."

One final point: this election was never going to speed up the peace process, especially with Sharon in the state that he is in and thsubsequentnt power vacuum. At the same time, if Hamas does moderate and engage in legitimate politics rather than a continued terror campaign, it too will take time. Nothing is going to happen fast. However, the road to peace has not been blocked with the election results. There still is hope...More of my thoughts later.

Corruption Is Delicious

2006-01-14T00:38:00.000-05:00

There's nothing more entertaining and comical than watching members of Congress from both parties vow to clean up Washington. With Jack Abramoff, fedora in hand, ready to sing to the feds like a mocking bird on crack, our nation's legislators are returning campaign contributions and doing everything they can to distance themselves from this one 'bad apple.' The fact is, Abramoff is just one piece to an extremely corrupt beltway puzzle. Republicans will draft a loophole filled piece of legislation, maybe the "Clean Government Act of 2006;" when its all said and done, it will create more problems than it solves and Washington will remain as corrupt and money-driven as it has always been. For members of Congress to feign amazement at the level of corruption in D.C. is at best, funny and at worst, disgusting.

One more note: Delay is going down. The admittedly partisan prosecution at home is the least of his problems. He will be implicated in Abramoff-gate and may not even be reelected in '06. The Democrats will be pouring a lot of money into efforts to defeat him, much like the Republicans did to Tom Daschle in '04. Fellow GOPers are already staying far away from Delay; he had already temporarily resigned his Majority Leader post and will not be seeking the intra party reelection. Finally, in an ironic twist of fate, Delay will have difficulty keeping his seat. In the controversial Texas gerrymandering effort that Delay spearheaded, he made his own district more Democratic under the assumption that his seat was safe. It certainly doesn't appear to be safe now. Goodbye Congressman Delay. Your fat head will certainly be missed on the Hill.

Here's a roundup of the race for Majority Leader: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/weeks_end_blunt.html#more

More On Politics Of Spying

2005-12-24T15:03:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking about this in the week after the NY Times domestic spying story. This story was certainly groundbreaking, especially when the secret nature of the information included in the story is considered. To think that (presumably) somebody or several people within the scariest, most secretive organization in the country, the NSA, leaked that type of information to reporters is amazing. Furthermore, the way that this story instantly changed the news cycle is a testament to its magnitude. FISA courts and wiretaps have become worthy of water cooler conversation. While the scope of the story is interesting, one cannot be that surprised that this administration has been involved in this type of power grab. This a great example of an executive vs. legislative/judicial power struggle that will certainly be studied further.

That being said, I have to suspect that Republicans are furious that they have been put into a position where they have to defend the administration's actions. Republicans in Congress have already begun to show their willingness to break with the administration on some domestic issues; Republicans who are generally skeptical of the administration or those who live in vulnerable districts are now finding themselves being identified with the president and/or having to defend unwarranted domestic wiretaps. While the president had shown signs of recovering from the approval rating rock bottom of his presidency, he is once again stuck in a partisan mud throwing contest with Democrats. Aside from any one issue, Democrats will now begin attacking the entire philosophy behind his presidency and certainly his leadership style/capabilities. '06 Republicans need to separate themselves from this president and define themselves to their constituents; they must appear to be above the Republican culture of abuse, corruption, and power hunger.

2008: Secretary Of Defense Reed?

2005-12-21T19:08:00.000-05:00

It's obviously way too early to predict election results in 2008. But that doesn't stop me. Should a Democrat get elected in '08, I'm prepared to make an admittedly premature and bold prediction about a possible Democratic cabinet level position (probably one I have no business making - again, that's not going to stop me). Should a Democrat get elected President, I would not at all be surprised if you see Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) nominated to the top civilian position in the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense. Here's a disclaimer: I'm from RI, am familiar with Reed's work, and have met him several times - so am I biased? Yeah, probably. But I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Here's some biographical info on Reed: He's a West Point graduate (the only one currently in the Senate), reached the level of Captain while serving with the Army Rangers, and currently serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee (he is the ranking member on the Armed Services Emerging Threats Subcommittee). While many outside of Washington and/or Providence may not be familiar with his work, those who are know that he is the real deal.

I've noted his rising stature within the Democratic party, particularly after Rep. Murtha unveiled his proposal to gradually draw down our presence in Iraq. After Murtha's revelation, the Democrats needed a person to speak on behalf of the party that could not labeled as a defeatist and could speak realistically about Iraq. And who have they turned to, time and again since mid-November? Sen. Reed.

Reed has been described as a "go-to guy on all matters of policy," particularly military/national security related issues. In a recent Rhode Island Monthly article, local journalist Jim Taricani describes a scene from the Armed Services Committee:

Three senators are clumped together: Democrats Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Clinton of New York, and Republican John McCain of Arizona. The senatorial huddle is waiting for its quarterback. When they spot Reed walking in the room, the huddle loosens, and three of the nation's most powerful politicians welcome the go-to guy on defense issues. Reed counsels his players. They listen attentively, nodding their heads as if agreeing to the plan.

If that account doesn't convince you, consider this, from the same article:

There are many people in and out of Washington who think that Reed's steady climb up the public career ladder has only just begun. Retired General Barry McCaffrey is one of them. This hard-nosed Army officer, who is still consulted by the Pentagon, has the utmost respect for Reed, and [says the following]..."I think that Jack Reed is one of the five people in the United States who ought to be President."

Yeah, that's right. One of the five people; not one of the five Democrats, but people. Whether a liberal from Rhode Island could get elected is another issue entirely. But that's not what McCaffrey was talking about. Based solely on merit and not political realities, he thinks that Reed would make a superb candidate.

In addition, many of Reed's West Point classmates and Annapolis contemporaries are now serving as the nation's military leaders in the Pentagon. Reed has unique contacts and therefore insight into all matters military and therefore, as Sen. McCain has said, "Jack sees things in Iraq that a lot of us don't get to see." Here's more, from The Hill:

But Democrats say his mix of military background, dedication to policy and lack of any obvious ambition for higher office lend credibility to his arguments on Iraq. It is a combination that sharply contrasts with the personas of many Democrats who have chosen to engage in the debate over the war.

That analysis is spot on. Reed has repeatedly denied any desire to move up the career ladder, proclaiming his satisfaction with his job in the Senate. Compare this with, oh I don't know, Sen. John Kerry (and his ego) criticizing the President and his Iraq policy. Reed not only knows what he's talking about, but he even looks like he knows what he's talking about.

Bottom line: Reed is for real, he knows what he's talking about, and people within the Pentagon already have tremendous respect for him. If the Dems can get their act together and take back the White House, don't be surprised to see Reed's name in the running for Secretary of Defense (if he's not already on the ticket...)

Note: That picture is of former Sen. Pell (D-RI), Reed, and former President Clinton on Air Force One in 1994.

The Politics Of Domestic Spying

2005-12-18T18:53:00.000-05:00

A quick word on the politics behind the revelation of President's Bush's authorization of unwarranted domestic spying...

I'm not going to get into the legality/extralegality of this issue...I'll leave that to the "experts." When there is a special secret court within the Justice Department with the specific purpose of issuing warrants for domestic wiretapping, it does seen suspicious (to say the least) that the President would deliberately circumvent this process. But lets talk about the politics behind the upcoming battle over this domestic spying program:

First, on Saturday the President offered a strong and fairly compelling defense of his authorization of domestic spying. Simply put, this is really his only option. If he's learned nothing else from the Plamegate fiasco, its that repeatedly saying "there's an ongoing investigation" and therefore the White House has "no comment" only hastens the fall of his approval ratings and undermines what little political capital he has left. His approval ratings seem to have turned the corner and he cannot afford to get bogged down in damage control and a 'no comment' policy. Instead of dancing around the issue, he has attacked it head on, admitting he authorized the spying at least 30 times since 9/11 and proclaiming that he continues to do so for the remainder of his presidency. As he did with remarkable success during both his presidential campaigns, he has claimed ownership of the issues and now has the ability to define them as he pleases. If the president is successful, which I think he may be, it will not be a debate over the legality of his decision; rather it will be a choice between the best national security that he can provide vs. sissy liberal civil liberties complaints. The White House (yes, probably Rove and company) is banking on the fact that the American people will choose national security over civil liberties every time. I expect the Democrats to run, full speed ahead, into this trap; they will once again be painted with the 'weak on defense' brush.

One last point: I get the sense that President Bush is PISSED about the fact that this information was leaked. Do I think that he truly cares about civil liberties? I don't know - he certainly doesn't care as much as he claims to publicly. However, no president should have to deal with such highly sensitive things leaking to the media. He should be careful, though, not to develop a Nixon-like paranoia about such things. Let's sit back and watch this one play out...it's going to be fun to watch.

UPDATE (12/18/05 - 8:58PM): This WaPo story relates Friday's NY Times revelation to the pseudo-fillibuster of The PATRIOT ACT renewal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701113.html?nav=hcmodule

Decking The Halls In New Zealand

2005-12-18T18:30:00.000-05:00

From AP: Apparantly 40 drunks dressed as Santa Claus wreaked havoc in New Zealand. Merry F***in Chrismas...