Kevin Drum

Fundraising Woes

| Fri Aug. 22, 2008 12:35 PM PDT

FUNDRAISING WOES....Over in GOP-land, it looks like fundraising pleas are falling on deaf ears:

"It has become clear that my call has gone largely unanswered," Sen. John Ensign of Nevada fumed in a statement. "I have no control over the timing or content of (independent) ads, but I have had no choice but to decrease the total budget for our (independent expenditures) unit."

Republican lawmakers contributed $1.1 million to the NRSC through June, while Democrats chipped in nearly $5 million [to the DSCC, presumably, unless Dems are feeling unusually generous this year –ed.], according to FEC reports.

....Ensign had challenged his colleagues to step up back in July by increasing their fundraising efforts or by providing more of their own direct contributions. His statement amounted to a renewed call to arms.

That's a mighty sad state of affairs, isn't it? I wonder why no one wants to give Republicans any money this year?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Biden's Experience

| Fri Aug. 22, 2008 10:31 AM PDT

BIDEN'S EXPERIENCE....Over at the mother blog — a genuinely apt name at this magazine — Jonathan Stein comments on today's paean to Joe Biden from David Brooks:

So Biden is a liberal, not-evil Cheney. I'll agree that's a good thing. I'll further agree that having people like David Brooks on-board with the Obama VP pick is a good thing for Obama. But I won't agree that experience is the primary consideration when choosing a VP. Is Brooks not aware how that undercuts Obama's entire case for the presidency? If we value experience, why settle for a ticket with a VP who has 25+ years of experience in Washington? Why not pick the ticket with the nominee who has 25+ years of experience in Washington?

I imagine I'm probably more sympathetic to Biden than Jonathan is in the first place, but even aside from that I don't think this is right. By picking Biden, what Obama would show is that he's not afraid of experienced colleagues. Think of JFK picking Johnson or Carter picking Mondale as their running mates. It's basically a show of dominance.

And aside from that, there really is some value in Biden's experience. Maybe. All four of the most recent Democratic presidents have chosen their VPs from the ranks of the Senate, and I'll grant that the results have been fairly mixed. Still, the Senate is pretty clearly going to be ground zero for getting Obama's program passed into actual legislation, and Biden has a pretty decent track record of working the legislative process. So on that score it might be genuinely helpful. (Ditto, of course, for Jack Reed.)

My Brooks-related concern would be a little different. Remember how conservatives were singing hosannahs to Obama back before he actually won the nomination? That, um, didn't last long. So call me cynical, but I wonder if Brooks will continue to think so highly of Biden if he gets the nomination? Or will he suddenly discover a column or five's worth of reasons that he's actually a fatal albatross? I'm not saying he'd do that. I'm just saying.

Sunni Awakening Update

| Fri Aug. 22, 2008 10:01 AM PDT

SUNNI AWAKENING UPDATE....A couple of days ago McClatchy's Leila Fadel reported "Key U.S. Iraq strategy in danger of collapse":

A key pillar of the U.S. strategy to pacify Iraq is in danger of collapsing because the Iraqi government is failing to absorb tens of thousands of former Sunni Muslim insurgents who'd joined U.S.-allied militia groups into the country's security forces.

...."We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," said one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue. "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida."

He said the army was considering setting a Nov. 1 deadline for those militia members who hadn't been absorbed into the security forces or given civilian jobs to give up their weapons. After that, they'd be arrested, he said.

This has always been the risk in the bottom-up strategy of arming the former Sunni insurgents in hopes of giving them enough ground-level influence that Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite government wouldn't have any choice but to deal with them. After all, maybe Maliki would decide not to deal with them after all. What then? The New York Times picks up the story today:

West of Baghdad, former insurgent leaders contend that the Iraqi military is going after 650 Awakening members, many of whom have fled the once-violent area they had kept safe. While the crackdown appears to be focused on a relatively small number of leaders whom the Iraqi government considers the most dangerous, there are influential voices to dismantle the American backed movement entirely.

"The state cannot accept the Awakening," said Sheik Jalaladeen al-Sagheer, a leading Shiite member of Parliament. "Their days are numbered."

....The Shiite-dominated government has never been pleased with the continuing American plan to finance and organize Sunni insurgents into militia guards, charging that they will stop fighting only as long as it serves their interests.

"These people are like cancer, and we must remove them," said Brig. Gen. Nassir al-Hiti, commander of the Iraqi Army's 5,000-strong Muthanna Brigade, which patrols west of Baghdad, said of the Awakening leaders on his list for arrest.

That doesn't sound very promising, does it? Gen. David Petraeus, however, says Maliki has promised to get with the program. "This is how you end these kinds of conflicts," he said. "That's why they call it reconciliation. It's not done with one's friends, it's done with former enemies."

This is absolutely something to keep a close eye on. If Maliki continues to believe his own PR and figures that he's strong enough on his own to renege on his promise to incorporate the Sunnis into Iraq's security forces, the tribal leaders are almost certain to start the insurgency right back up. And if they do, Muqtada al-Sadr might decide to rejoin the fight as well. And who knows? Maybe the Kurds would decide that chaos in the south was a perfect cover for retaking Kirkuk.

Surge supporters have long been eager to play down everything that's happened in Iraq other than the surge, and even Petraeus isn't immune to that. Yesterday he spoke about the Sunni tribal leaders who teamed up with American forces before the surge to kick al-Qaeda out of Iraq. "They have made an enormous contribution," he said, before catching himself: "or a very significant contribution, to improved security." If Maliki continues to stonewall and the Sunni leaders finally get tired of it, I suspect that "enormous" is going to turn out to have been the proper adjective after all.

Endless Smears

| Fri Aug. 22, 2008 8:57 AM PDT

ENDLESS SMEARS....When Daniel Kurtzer, an occasional advisor to the Obama campaign, said recently that he hoped Israel could make some progress in negotiations with Syria, the McCain campaign pounced. "If one of Senator Obama's advisers has been to Damascus," said Michael Goldfarb, in a show of classiness that's become his trademark, "we just wonder how many have been to Tehran."

Yuck yuck. Heather Hurlburt comments:

When the McCain campaign goes after an Orthodox Jew, former dean of Yeshiva U., career diplomat who was the Bush Administration's ambassador to Israel on 9-11, was caricatured in anti-Semitic cartoons in the Cairo press during his tenure as Ambassador to Egypt, where he bravely was a public face of Orthodoxy, and is the Commissioner of the Israeli Baseball League (you can't make this stuff up), for doing something the Israeli government is already doing (talking to Syrians), will someone please tell me exactly how this country is supposed to have a diplomatic establishment?

Goldfarb decided to smear the commissioner of the Israeli Baseball League? Nice work there. But I guess if it plays with the rubes, McCain's team figures it's all's fair.

The Modern GOP

| Fri Aug. 22, 2008 8:24 AM PDT

THE MODERN GOP....You know, in its own way this may be greatest political lead ever written. It comes from Jonathan Weisman and Robert Barnes in the Washington Post:

Sen. John McCain's inability to recall the number of homes he owns during an interview yesterday jeopardized his campaign's carefully constructed strategy to frame Democratic rival Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist....

There's something about the bland, nonjudgmental way that it describes both the standard modern GOP smear campaign strategy against all Democratic contenders and the perverse but deliciously fitting way in which it's finally been turned against them this year that just might sum up all of current American politics in a mere single sentence. Congratulations, guys!

As for McCain himself, he huddled yesterday with his campaign advisors to work on some strategery to restore his regular guy image. But first he had to fuel up:

A nine-car motorcade took him to a nearby Starbucks early in the morning, where he ordered a large cappuccino. McCain otherwise avoided reporters.

Jeez, couldn't he just send his valet out instead?

Welcome

| Thu Aug. 21, 2008 11:33 PM PDT

WELCOME....If you're looking for Kevin Drum's new home, you've found it. Welcome! Has Obama chosen a vice president yet?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

2011

| Thu Aug. 21, 2008 11:08 PM PDT

2011....The Washington Post has confirmed yesterday's WSJ report that the Bush administration has agreed to a 2011 pullout of U.S. combat troops from Iraq:

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here.

...."We have a text," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said after a day-long visit Thursday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

....U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have [] agreed to a conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011, a date further in the future than the Iraqis initially wanted. The deal would leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops inside Iraq in supporting roles, such as military trainers, for an unspecified time. According to the U.S. military, there are 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, most of whom are playing a combat role.

This sounds like exactly what I've been expecting: Maliki gets a pullout date; Bush gets a little more time than he'd get if Obama wins the election and sets his own withdrawal schedule; and several thousand combat troops will stay around for an unspecified period after the main pullout. (A bad idea, I think, but one that practically everyone in Washington seems to support.)

So will this be good news for the Obama campaign, as I argued last night? Megan McArdle is skeptical:

My first instinct was the opposite. McCain gets to claim that the Surge worked, the war issue is off the table, and McCain gets the credit for steely resolve without people fearing their sons will end up in Iraq. I'm puzzled by war opponents who think that voters will suddenly love Obama for having been "right all along". Assuming arguendo that this is true, the psychological logic is off. Most Americans supported the war. Do you become more endeared of your spouse when it turns out that you really should have taken that left fork thirty miles ago? Most people prefer folie à deux.

Actually, I think this is right to the extent that it means Obama has to be careful about dancing a victory jig and taking credit for his uncanny prescience. But then, he's not going to do that, is he? Rather, he'll be thoughtful and low key, as usual, allowing surrogates and the press to do the heavy lifting for him. It's true that you never know how these things will go, but Obama's judgment has been so spectacularly vindicated by this that it's hard not to see it helping him in the long run.

Kevin's New Blog Home

| Mon Aug. 18, 2008 7:48 PM PDT

KEVIN'S NEW BLOG HOME....Hi everyone. If you're looking for my upcoming new home at Mother Jones, this is it. There's nothing here yet, but if you bookmark the site now you'll be ahead of the game. Blogging will officially begin here on Friday, August 22.

And just so you know: the design is temporary. Mother Jones is in the middle of a major site redesign, and in a couple of months the blog will look entirely different. So no complaints yet, OK?