MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: April 27, 2008

« April 20, 2008 - April 26, 2008 | Main | May 4, 2008 - May 10, 2008 »

May 2, 2008

RumInt: New Bush Iran Finding?

Counterpunch's Andrew Cockburn reports today that six weeks ago, Bush signed a new Iran "finding" that expands US aid to opposition groups to the Tehran regime:

Bush's secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

Chasing down such a potentially explosive report on one of Washington's first balmy Friday afternoons is a challenge. Asked if the report sounded plausible, one Hill source contacted indicated, no, it does not. A second responded, "I have no information to support or refute this article. However, [the report's] credibility is undermined by the notion that a ship commander, during a moment of crisis that only is of several minutes duration, would have the time and luck to reach the CENTCOM head to solicit his advice and feedback during this short window of time."

Will keep chasing. Stay tuned.

McCain Defends Gas Tax Holiday With More Hackery

John McCain is apparently getting frustrated trying to defend the base political pander he calls the gas tax holiday. (Typical appraisal from those in the know: "It's about the dumbest thing I've heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view." — Michael Bloomberg) Here's McCain responding to a voter's question:

"You'd think that I was attacking Western civilization as we know it. The special interests [say], 'Oh, my God. This will destroy our transportation system in America. This will have disastrous consequences.' Look, all I think is we ought to give low-income Americans, in particular, a little relief."

Okay, first of all, to suggest that opponents of the gas tax holiday are "special interests" is preposterous. Experts and economists of all ideological types have criticized the gas tax holiday as braindead. Second, the special interests, specifically the oil companies, are cheering the idea. If you take an 18-cent tax off the price of a gallon of gas, you allow the oil companies to add 18 cents per gallon in additional profits. That's why the original criticisms of the McCain version of the gas tax called it a giveaway to the oil companies!

And one other note. John McCain seems to think that the gas tax holiday helps low-income Americans the most because they drive the farthest. In fact, the opposite is true.

Republican Attack Dog Burton to Finally Get Ousted?

Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana is a different kind of hard core right-winger. Like any loyal Republican, he has the consistent record against abortion and for guns. But Burton takes things a step further, into crazy-land. In 1990, Burton introduced legislation that would impose the death penalty on drug dealers. (He's lucky it didn't pass, because Burton's son would later be arrested for transporting multiple pounds of marijuana across state lines.) When the House passed a measure prohibiting members from accepting gifts and free trips from lobbyists, the vote was 430-1. Burton was the one. Time once reported that Burton thought the Clinton White House bugged his phones, and that he was "so afraid of catching AIDS that he brings his own scissors to the House barbershop and refuses to eat soup at public restaurants."

But his conservativism and his nuttiness aren't what he's known for. Burton is best known as one of the most vicious attack dogs in Congress when Bill Clinton was president. He led the investigation into Democratic fundraising abuse, even though he has his own questions about fundraising ethics. He called the president a "scumbag" and said "no one, regardless of what branch of government they serve, should be allowed to get away with these alleged sexual improprieties," even though he has fathered a child out of wedlock. In 1998, he released edited transcripts of prison audiotape from Webster Hubbell, an act so partisan and sloppy that it brought rebuke from even Newt Gingrich. And the coup de grâce: Burton was so dogged in his pursuit of the Vince Foster allegations that he shot a pumpkin in his backyard with a pistol, to mimic the alleged murder.

And now, finally, it appears Burton may get the boot. The 13-term Congressman, who routinely wins reelection by wide margins, is facing a Republican primary challenger named John McGoff, who, as a member of the National Guard, flew missions into Iraq and Afghanistan as a flight surgeon. McGoff says that he was once an active Burton supporter, but now he's simply had enough. According to the Indianopolis Star, McGoff's plan to put ethics at the center of his campaign is making serious headway among Indiana voters. It helps that Burton, who has drastically outspent his opponent, has more less validated the strategy by spending $190,000 in taxpayers' dollars on constituent mailings that look suspiciously like campaign advertisements.

Perhaps instead of running a pro-ethics campaign, McGoff can run an anti-blockhead campaign.

Perspective, Please

Can we get a little perspective here? Yes, Jeremiah Wright's statements (and especially his National Press Club performance) damaged Barack Obama. Yes, Obama is a flawed candidate, and he's connected to some sketchy people. But let's be real: the media's portrayal of Obama as the only candidate with questionable associations is ridiculous.

The GOP knows that Obama is still the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. That's why he's being hit so hard right now while Hillary Clinton is getting relatively fair, issue-based questions and other softballs tossed at her — by Bill O'Reilly of all people. But remember when Clinton was the frontrunner? There wasn't so much of a focus on the skeletons in Obama's closet back then. It was all about Hillary. All the old Right-wing smears were flying: Vince Foster. Whitewater. Cattle Futures. They even made a movie about the Democrat's presumptive nominee. It was named after her, but it wasn't flattering.

It is good and generally-followed rule in American politics that we ignore what our enemies abroad say about our foreign policy — it can be safely assumed that they are operating in bad faith. Democrats would also be wise to ignore their rivals' advice about choosing their leaders. Bill Kristol and Karl Rove are many things, but they are not stupid. They will write and say whatever they think serves their party best. Right now that's attacking Obama, who will almost certainly be the Democrats' nominee. But rest assured that you'd be hearing a totally different tune from the Right and its allies in the media if Hillary Clinton was winning.

(Of course, Democrats do the same thing to Republicans, commenting on and interfering in the GOP's internal politics. Remember that mischief in Michigan?)

Yes, the frontrunner should be subjected to increased scrutiny. But the idea that Barack Obama somehow has vastly more exploitable weaknesses and sketchy associates than Hillary Clinton or John McCain is just silly. In a wonderful column in Politico that I hope will begin to bring some sense of perspective to campaign coverage, Jim VandeHei and John Harris describe what Obama "wishes he could say." (They wrote a similar column, which is also very good, on what Clinton wishes she could say.) From the piece:

In the fantasies of some of his high-level supporters, Obama would peel off the tape to say something like this:

You want to talk hypocrisy? How about piously criticizing me for Jeremiah Wright when you have a trail of associations that includes golden oldies like Webb Hubbell? (‘90s flashback: He was one of Hillary Clinton’s legal partners and closest friends, whom she installed in a top Justice Department job before prosecutors sent him to prison.) It also includes modern hits like Frank Giustra. (In case you missed it: There was a January New York Times story, which did not get the attention the reporting deserved, highlighting how this Canadian tycoon and major Bill Clinton benefactor was using his ties to the ex-president to win business with a ruthless dictatorship in Khazakstan.)

This is not to say that any such accusations are true, or even that they're valid criticisms. It's just to say that every candidate (including, of course, John "Keating 5" McCain) has associations that can be portrayed as sketchy, old acquaintances that can become liability, and sometimes even a bona fide scandal or too. For the media to pretend or insinuate that Barack Obama is uniquely hurt by these kind of problems is totally ridiculous. Hillary Clinton is still Hillary Clinton; if she were the frontrunner, she'd be getting the exact same kind of grief from the Right. But if we can't get the media to ignore these silly, manufactured "outrage issues," can we at least get a sense of balance? Please?

Obama Gets Hit By a Gravelanche

I don't know that Obama rebounds from this devastating attack.

Mike Gravel is the gift that keeps on giving. More Gravel-based video amusement here and here.

Wow, Kentucky, I Don't Know What to Say...

George Packer takes a stroll down Kentucky way.

On Wednesday, I was in Inez, Kentucky, the Appalachian town where L.B.J. declared war on poverty forty-four years ago this month. John McCain was on a tour of "forgotten places," and had come to Inez to let the coal miners and town notables know that he will be the President of all Americans.... After his speech, I left the county courthouse and crossed the main street to talk to a small group of demonstrators holding signs next to McCain's campaign bus. J. K. Patrick, a retired state employee from a neighboring county, wore a button on his shirt that said "Hillary: Smart Choice."

"East of Lexington she'll carry seventy per cent of the primary vote," he said. Kentucky votes on May 20. "She could win the general election in Kentucky." I asked about Obama. "Obama couldn't win."

Why not?

"Race," Patrick said matter-of-factly. "I've talked to people—a woman who was chair of county elections last year, she said she wouldn't vote for a black man." Patrick said he would't vote for Obama either.

Why not?

"Race. I really don't want an African-American as President. Race."

That's a Democrat speaking! More after the jump...

What about race?

"I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That's my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did." He meant that it went Republican. "Now what caused that? Race. There's a lot of white people that just wouldn't vote for a colored person. Especially older people. They know what happened in the sixties. Under thirty—they don’t remember. I do. I was here."

Everyone knows that race is a factor in Obama's low vote among older whites, though reporters say that no one will admit it personally. In Eastern Kentucky, people (and not just J. K. Patrick) admit it personally, without hesitation or apology.

But remember, if you are a politician or a member of the media, you are never, ever allowed to criticize small-town America. Because everything in small-town America is sacred and elemental to our identity as a nation. If that includes the occasional unapologetic racist, so be it.

Nelson Mandela on U.S. Terrorist Watch List

A sign that perhaps things have gotten out of control.

Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.

The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.

The terrorist watch list has been, at times, a comedy of errors. Ted Kennedy was on it, as was civil rights hero and Georgia congressman John Lewis. A Marine returning from Iraq found his homecoming delayed because he was on the watch list. Babies have routinely had problems. The artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam, is famously on the watch list, and Catherine ("Cat") Stevens, wife of Senator Ted Stevens, has had trouble when flying as a result. 60 Minutes once did a segment that featured a group interview with 12 Robert Johnsons, all of whom routinely had trouble boarding airplanes.

The DOJ reported in April 2007 that the terrorist watch list includes 700,000 names, and is growing by 20,000 a month. The ACLU is hosting a countdown to July, when it anticipates the one-millionth name will be added. "Small, focused watch lists," it points out, "are better for civil liberties and for security."

May 1, 2008

MoJo Wins National Magazine Award

Think Academy Awards, red carpet, black tie. In the magazine world, top honors come not as Oscars, but as Ellies, and they're awarded by the American Society of Magazine Editors. At tonight's National Magazine Awards in New York Mother Jones won the 2007 award for General Excellence (100,000 to 250,000 circulation). (Check out the year's issues here.)

We beat out the respectable company of Foreign Policy, Paste, Radar, and Philadelphia. More on the winners and nominees (Mother Jones was also nominated for Lana Slezic's photo essay on the women of Afghanistan) here.

And thanks to all our readers for your support. Expect more excellence to come!

Are Today's Student Activists Lazy?

We want the lowdown on student activism, past and present. Been arrested and regret it? Would your school win the prize for silliest student protest? Was student activism way better when you were in school? Is your cause unique?

Help us put together our best student activism roundup yet. It's our 15th annual! Check out last year's. Answer a few quick questions and you could win some cool prizes.

Click here to begin!

NYC's New Reefer Madness

A new study shows that New York is targeting youth of color for marijuana possession. This offensive is also designed to build a Big Brother database (Think: Counterterrorism, with inner city youth as the terrorists and objects of legitimate fear.) If you weren't already terminally suspicious of society's need to criminalize black and brown youth, read on.

"Marijuana Arrest Crusade," a study by Queens College sociology professor Harry Levine and drug-law-reform activist Deborah Peterson Small paints an ugly and fascist picture of life in George Bush's wiretapping, profiling, presumed guilty-by-association-if-swarthy 2008. From the Village Voice:

More people have already been locked up for misdemeanor marijuana possession during Bloomberg's [an admitted past and proud dope smoker] first six years in office—some 214,300—than during any other administration in city history, including the full eight years of former prosecutor Rudy Giuliani.

More people get arrested for misdemeanor pot possession in Bloomberg's New York—about 35,700 a year, or 97 per day—than in any other city in the U.S. and "almost certainly" the world, says the author of a new study. (For perspective, when Ray Kelly was police commissioner for the first time in 1993, there were 1,600 misdemeanor marijuana-possession arrests, a pretty typical year back then.)

Drug surveys routinely indicate that a higher percentage of whites smoke pot than blacks or Latinos, but Levine found that African-Americans have consistently accounted for about 52 percent of these low-level marijuana arrests over the past decade, even though they're only about 26 percent of the city's population. Latinos, at 27 percent of the total population, account for 31 percent of the arrests. Whites are 36 percent of the population but account for only 15 percent of pot arrests.

That racial breakdown mirrors another set of data that the NYPD has been reluctant to make public: the stop-and-frisk numbers. From 2004 through 2007, police made 1,692,488 stops—ostensibly for suspicious activity. Of those stopped, 51 percent were black, 29 percent Latino, and 10 percent white. A staggering 1,496,100—or 88 percent—of those stopped were never charged.

You have to read the entire alarming piece to understand how devious this plan is. Possession of less than 25 grams, which is what most here had, used to just get you a ticket. It was a non-criminal violation. But, the NYPD has upped its game since all those natural born criminals were 'getting away.' To charge these youths with marijuana "burning or open to public view," (a criminal misdemeanor), cops cruise the streets of Harlem stopping youths of color and intimidate or cajole them into emptying their pockets or backpacks, where the dope, clearly destined for personal use, usually is. The kids don't have to comply....but c'mon. Sean Bell, anyone? Once they produce the dope it's "open to public view." Now they're in the system even though they are by definition not guilty of what they'll be charged with; the dope wasn't in plain view til the cops took a chance on finding some by subjecting random kids of color to a profile-based stop-and-frisk. "Levine's study found that 60 percent of those arrested on misdemeanor pot charges since 1997 didn't have prior criminal records." Injustice corrected.

This ploy is just the gift that keeps on giving:

"Marijuana arrests are the best and easiest way currently available to acquire data on young people, especially black and Latino youth, who have not previously been entered into the criminal-justice databases," Levine testified last year at a legislative hearing on a proposal to expand the state's DNA database to include all those arrested for misdemeanors.

Levine argues that this costly enforcement strategy ultimately causes only more problems by "socializing" young blacks and Latinos to the jail culture and making a life of crime more likely, because many places where these young might otherwise find employment don't hire those with criminal records.

Presumably, it's mere efficiency that prevents the NYPD from moving their sweeps a few blocks south to the upper west side in the forlorn hope of finding dope in the pockets and backpacks of white kids (with all those lawyer parents). Just try entering some Columbia undergrad into the system and building a database on all those future congressmen and corporate titans.

Just how disadvantaged does America need communities of color to be?

George W. Bush: Most Disapproved of President in History

It's official: George W. Bush is the most unpopular president since pollsters have been able to track presidential popularity.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research poll, 71 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's presidency. Harry Truman hit 66 percent in January 1952. But no president had cracked the 70-percent mark--until now.

The good news for Bush: he has a 28 percent approval rating. Truman fell as low as 22 percent, and Richard Nixon bottomed out at 24 percent. So though he's the most disapproved of president in history, Bush has a ways to go before he's the least approved of president in history. But that's not out of reach. There are nine months left in his presidency.

Obama: Is He Slipping?

Barack Obama has a lead in pledged delegates and in all likelihood will end the primaries with more voter-determined delegates than Hillary Clinton. He's picking up superdelegates at a quicker pace than Clinton. He's ahead in the popular vote. Yet.....If one looks at the recent media coverage and the latest polls, it's hard not to wonder if Obama is losing altitude--and doing so at a dangerous rate. The media narrative of the race in the past month has been dominated by Wright and Bittergate. Do voters care about this stuff? Pundits and analysts argue--and wonder--about this. It's hard to tell how much of a connection exists between what appears on cable news shows--which only a few million Americans watch each night--and how voters view politics and render decisions.

As for the polls, it's always perilous to pay too much attention to them. But the latest polling data from both North Carolina and Indiana all point in a direction troubling for Obama. In early April in North Carolina, he led Clinton by 10 to 23 points in various surveys. Now, he has a 7-point edge. In Indiana, three recent polls have Clinton ahead by 5, 8, and 9 points.

Could Obama be sinking? Does he need a game-changer after the Wright to-do and the bitter "bitter" fuss? For political analysts, it is always tempting to overreact. That's what pundits and commentators do. It makes for better columns and better TV. Perhaps he'll do fine in North Carolina and Indiana, with voters in these states embracing him for the same reasons millions of Democrats elsewhere have done. But what if Obama truly is slipping and manages only to limp across the finish line? That's obviously what Clinton and her crew are betting on. And such an end to the primaries could lead to protracted political warfare within the Democratic Party. One question is, what can she really do if he ends up with more pledged delegates? But the flip side is, can he keep hope alive if he closes weakly?

Gas Tax Follies: Obama and Clinton Camps Spar

On dueling conference calls from the Obama and Clinton campaigns today, the gas tax holiday that has gotten so much play (read: condemnation) in the press was the major topic.

The gas tax holiday would eliminate the 18-cent tax on each gallon of gas over the course of the summer; experts, economists, and editorialists have all pointed out that oil companies can simply add 18 cents to the price of each gallon, making savings for consumers nonexistent or nearly nonexistent. To prevent the oil companies from profiting, Senator Clinton has suggested accompanying the holiday with a tax on the oil companies. Even Clinton backers have admitted that this would simply mean cash would go into one of Exxon's pockets and out the other.

Simply put, the gas tax holiday is a pander to cash-strapped voters who want to hear a presidential candidate sound like he or she cares about their burdens. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe called it a "metaphor for the entire campaign." It's a short-term fix — even if oil companies don't negate the tax cut by raising prices, the estimated savings is under $100 for the summer — which Plouffe claimed would distract Americans from the long-term solutions that will constitute a legitimate energy policy. The whole situation, said Plouffe, is "emblematic of what we need to change."

Joe Andrew, a former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee who endorsed Hillary Clinton early in the campaign, was on the call announcing that he is switching his support to Barack Obama. After explaining that it is time for Democrats to unify so they can face John McCain, Andrew added, "it's also important to point out when someone is pandering." He highlighted global warming and the energy crisis. "We can't be serious about addressing those things if we're just seeking short-term political gain." Clinton's gas tax holiday was the "straw that broke the camel's back."

The Obama call primed the issue for the Clinton folks. The aides on the Clinton conference call — chief strategist Geoff Garin, communications director Howard Wolfson, and deputy communications director Phil Singer — tried to focus on poll numbers that show Clinton stronger against McCain than Obama in key battlegrounds like Ohio and Florida, and show the economy, Clinton's seeming strong suit, emerging as the central issue of the campaign. Wolfson tried establish the campaign's frame for why Clinton has momentum. "In the two months since Ohio and Texas, Americans have really gotten to see the measure of Senator Clinton. They've gotten to see her with her back up against the wall, and they have seen her under fire," he said. "And they are increasingly coming to the conclusion, we believe, that the strength and fortitude she is displaying in this process is the strength and fortitude they want in a president."

But reporters wanted answers on the gas tax holiday. How, one asked, did the campaign respond to the fact that just about every columnist and economist who has written the on the idea has panned it?

"People are hurting today," said Garin. "Our calculations are for the average driver, it would save $70 and most households have more than one [driver]. For people who rely on their trucks and cars for their work, it would save more. We are seeing in our polling that working people appreciate that Senator Clinton understands the incredible strain" everyday Americans are under. "They like the idea that she is going to provide them with relief."

The response made it clear that the real relief being provided for voters by the tax holiday is tied very closely to the psychological relief that comes with knowing someone powerful cares about them. Put another way, the Clinton campaign realizes that this issue is working on the ground and that the criticism of newspaper columnists isn't penetrating.

The Clinton campaign claimed that there is a class/geographical tinge to the reporters' incredulity on the issue. "If you live in the center of a city, it may not seem like that big a deal," said Garin, referring to the largely Washington- and New York-based press corps, which has access to public transit for their commute. But if you live far away from where you work, or you live in a rural area and your truck is integral to your livelihood, Garin said, 18 cents on the gallon makes a difference.

The Clinton campaign also noted that Clinton wants both long-term and short-term approaches to the energy crisis. She has a plan to reduce emissions standards, invest in energy research, and retrofit homes, factories, and offices. But, added Garin, "people need relief now." You can't tell a working man in Indiana with a two-hour commute that help is coming down the road, when everyone owns a Prius. Thus, the summer-long fix.

But reporters continued to push. Weren't Clinton's claims to economic expertise undercut by the fact that economists from varying backgrounds and ideologies think her gas tax holiday is a silly idea?

To this, Howard Wolfson had a decidedly Bush-esque response. "The presidency requires leadership," he said. "Sometimes the president will do things that the quote-unquote experts will agree with, and sometimes the president will do things that experts quote-unquote don't agree with." The president, he said, hears the experts and then has to decide if he or she will follow their advice. The implication was that this is a case in which the experts need to be ignored.

Sometimes, the panderists overrule the economists.

Play the Veepstakes Game!

The good folks at CQ Politics have assembled a list of the 32 politicians most likely to be John McCain's VP choice and have put them in a bracket. You can vote on who advances from each round. If you have no problem with momentarily trivializing one of the most important choices we make as a country (and quite literally turning politics into a game), go try it out. I did.

By the way, the 32 candidates include four women, five people of color, and 24 white dudes. Considering the state of the modern GOP (no African-Americans in Congress), that's not bad. The fact that Condi is involved really boosts their diversity numbers.

Lawmakers Push for National Same-Day Registration

There has been bad news on voting rights lately, so this is particularly welcome:

Minnesota and Wisconsin lawmakers are seeking legislation that would require states to let people register to vote on the same day that a federal election is held.

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, along with Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, plan to introduce the bill on Thursday. The lawmakers, all Democrats, say that same-day registration will encourage more people to vote.

Here's Feingold's comment:

"Election Day registration has worked well in Wisconsin for more than 30 years and is a major reason why Wisconsin is a national leader in voter turnout. By allowing people to register in person on Election Day, we can bring more people into the process, which only strengthens our democracy."

This will probably go nowhere in Congress, for obvious reasons: every time voting gets easier, more young voters, minority voters, and low-income voters turn out. And that means more Democratic votes, something Republicans will find all sorts of phony reasons to reject.

In a more perfect country we would do everything we could to get as many people involved as possible, regardless of age, race, or income. That means we would vote on weekends, over the course of a week, or on a national holiday. Registration would be allowed at the polling site. Absentee voting would be allowed without cause. And maybe, just maybe, we'd be able to vote online.

On Michigan/Florida, Kucinich to the Rescue?

Deep-pocketed Dennis Kucinish is a man with a plan...

Former Democratic presidential candidate Dennis J. Kucinich has proposed a plan to seat delegations from Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention based on the results of a fresh round of polling in the two states...

The plan would base the distribution of delegates on polling conducted by three firms, one selected by each campaign and a third chosen by the other two companies. Delegates would be apportioned based on the composite findings of the three polls. None of the firms could have previously been employed by either campaign.

Democrats are at a point now where even an ad hoc plan like having polling substitute for actual voting sounds reasonable. But you know what would probably be a better solution? If Dennis Kucinich, who is a superdelegate, actually endorsed somebody and then got all the other superdelegates to endorse somebody, too. Because after one of the two candidates gets the requisite number of delegates for the nomination, he or she can seat the Michigan and Florida delegates in a way that doesn't change the outcome of the race. And if that happened, oh, two months ago, that would be awesome.

Update: Another potential solution here.

McCain Had His Own "Mission Accomplished" Moment

Five years ago today, George W. Bush got all gussied up and landed a jet on an aircraft carrier floating off the Southern California coast, where he declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq. Roughly 97 percent of American military deaths in Iraq have come after that moment.

Less well known is the fact that John McCain also prematurely declared a win in Iraq. In the congressional record on May 22, 2003, he declared "massive victory":

"We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens."

Biggest Political Liability of the Campaign Season? George W. Bush

For those who may be getting overheated on the Jeremiah Wright thing. From NBC New's First Read:

...according to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, the biggest political albatross heading into November is — drum roll, please — George Bush. In the poll, 43% say McCain being too closely aligned to Bush and his policies is a major concern. That's compared with 36% who say that about Clinton's apparent flip-flops; 34% who say that about Obama's bitter-guns-religion remark; 32% who say that about Wright and Bill Ayers; 31% who say that about Clinton's honesty and trustworthiness; 27% who say that about Bill Clinton having too much influence on policy decisions; 17% who that about Obama not being patriotic enough; and 16% who believe McCain might be too old.

April 30, 2008

Freedom's Watch Finds Its Inner Mother Theresa

Conservative advocacy group Freedom's Watch, funded by billionaires such as Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a famously fierce critic of labor unions (see core issue area three here, "Standing up to Big Labor's radical agenda"), revels in its newly discovered economic populist streak.

Yesterday, it launched an ad attacking House Democrats and speaker Nancy Pelosi for "doing nothing" to reduce high gas prices.

Today, it sends out emails attacking Congressional Democrats for being responsible for the housing crisis, the bad economy, and more high gas prices. And it's rebranded itself as "mainstream," too: "'It is truly astonishing that two years after assuring the American people they possessed a ‘commonsense plan’ to combat high gas prices, Congressional Leaders are still struggling to put one together,' said Ed Patru, spokesman for Freedom’s Watch, a mainstream conservative issues advocacy organization," the group emails.

What's next? After all, with Adelson's fortune valued at $28 billion by Forbes this year, an expressed commitment by the former Boston cabbie to donate $200 million a year to charitable causes he favors, and given the fact that that, according to a recent column by George Will, Adelson's casino empire is now the single largest foreign investor in China, Adelson alone would be in a position to make a meaningful contribution to those Americans losing their homes in foreclosures and consumers hurting at the gas pump. Stay tuned, as they say.

Iran Picking Sides in Iraq?

From Juan Cole, via Kevin Drum:

Sadr spokesman Salah al-Obeidi (al-Ubaydi) in Najaf bitterly attacked Iran, accusing it of seeking to share with the US in influence over Iraq. He pointed to the Iranian's regime's failure to condemn the long-term mutual security agreement being crafted by the Bush administration and the al-Maliki government. Al-Obeidi's angry denunciation suggests that Iran is backing PM Nuri al-Maliki and his current chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim against the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr.

This could be misinformation or it could be the beginning of something major.

Hawks Try To Throw Mylroie Overboard

Former American Enterprise Institute Iraq hand Laurie Mylroie wrote a book alleging that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was really behind the 1993 Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center. In the wake of 9/11, Mylroie's book and theories were highly influential on the thinking especially of then deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former CIA director James Woolsey, who wrote a blurb for her book. Indeed, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Woolsey was reportedly dispatched to the UK to pursue one of Mylroie's theories.

Now, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, the authorized biographer of Vice President Dick Cheney and like both the Veep and Mylroie, a proponent of the theory that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda worked closely together, tries to throw Mylroie overboard:

Mylroie comes up In several of the books written about the Iraq War as a terrorism analyst who led the Bush Administration into making questionable claims about Iraq and al Qaeda. (George Packer, the New Yorker writer and author of the otherwise well-reported book, "The Assassin's Gate," makes this mistake.) This vastly overstates her role. Although her emails may have occasionally made their way to Bush administration officials, no one I know took her arguments very seriously. For good reason. Mylroie has seen an Iraqi hand behind virtually every terrorist attack on American interests. Indeed, in our one brief conversation, she faulted me for failing to understand that al Qaeda is little more than an Iraqi "front group." That's crazy. Iraq was an active state sponsor of terror and, as the recent Pentagon report confirms, a willing sponsor of al Qaeda leaders, their terrorist associates, and a wide variety of jihadist groups.

Hey, at least the hawks are still loyal to Chalabi.

Siegelman Speaks

We've covered former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman around these parts before. You can learn about him here or here. Suffice to say, it appears that Alabama Republicans couldn't find a way to beat the Democratic Siegelman, so they stole an election from him and then gamed the legal system until they were able to throw him into prison. Below, you'll find an hour-long interview he did with Air America (Siegelman is out of prison now) in which he puts a large share of blame on Karl Rove and suggests that Rep. John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee, is going to do something about his situation. Settle in.

Fox News: Stephen Douglas and Frederick Douglass, What's the Difference?

Lately, Hillary Clinton has been calling for a "Lincoln-Douglas style" debate, in which she and Barack Obama would speak directly to one another without moderators, in response to the Obama campaign's refusal to do any further televised debates.

Of course, the reference is to the famous series of debates held between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas when both men were campaigning for an Illinois senate seat in 1858.

Fox News apparently didn't get the memo.

I suspect a debate between Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln wouldn't be all that exciting.

Douglass: We should abolish slavery.
Lincoln: I dunno.
Douglass: It's the only way to save the Union.
Lincoln: Okay.

And scene.

Update: Oh, I almost forgot. More Fox hilarity here.

Citing Fort Bragg Conditions, U.S. Army Broadens Barracks Inquiry

In case you haven't seen it, check out the video to the right for a look at the conditions of the 82nd Airborne Division's barracks at Fort Bragg. The footage was taken by Ed Frawley, the outraged father of one of the soldiers living there—a soldier who, along with the rest of his unit, had just returned from a 15-month deployment in Afghanistan, most of it spent at a remote firebase in the mountains. I hazard to guess that upon their return to North Carolina, some of the soldiers may have experienced pangs of nostalgia for the relative comfort of a combat post.

In response to the controversy brought on by the Fort Bragg video, the Army has announced an audit of all its barracks worldwide. According to Brigadier General Dennis Rogers, the officer in charge of barracks maintenance, initial inspections were carried out last weekend. The results have not yet been released. According to the Associated Press:

Rogers said it was too soon to know whether the Fort Bragg problem was an isolated incident. He acknowledged the revelations from a video shot by the father of an 82nd Airborne Division soldier showing poor conditions such as mold inside the barracks, peeling interior paint and a bathroom drain plugged with sewage...

"We let our soldiers down, and that's not like us," Rogers told reporters. "We let our soldiers down. That's not how we want America's sons and daughters to live. There's no good excuse for what happened."

He said the problems in that building have been fixed and that a final paint job is in the works. It is one of 24 barracks at Fort Bragg that were built in the 1950s and are scheduled for demolition by 2013. The barracks singled out by Frawley had been remodeled in April 2006, Rogers said.

Rogers said the Army's standard procedure is to inspect a barracks building to verify that it meets Army standards before it is occupied by soldiers returning from an overseas deployment. For reasons he was unable to explain, that apparently did not happen in the Fort Bragg incident.

On that note, the mystery of how things do or do not happen within the Pentagon bureaucracy is the subject of a piece by Scott Paltrow in the May issue of Portfolio magazine. In a nutshell, says Paltrow, the Pentagon can't keep track of its money, leaving billions of dollars of expenditures undocumented... every year. An excerpt from the piece:

Since 2004, the Pentagon has spent roughly $16 billion annually to maintain and modernize the military's business systems, but most are as unreliable as ever—even as the surge in defense spending is creating more room for error. The basic defense budget for 2007 was $439.3 billion, up 48 percent from 2001, excluding the vast additional sums appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to federal regulators and current and former Pentagon officials, the accounting process is so obsolete and error prone that it's virtually impossible to tell where much of this money ends up. While the department's brass has made a few patchwork improvements, billions are still unaccounted for. The problem is so deeply rooted that, 18 years after Congress required major federal agencies to be audited, the Pentagon still can't be...

For the first three quarters of 2007, $1.1 trillion in Army accounting entries hadn't been properly reviewed and substantiated, according to the Department of Defense's inspector general. In 2006, $258.2 billion of recorded withdrawals and payments from the Army's main account were unsupported. It's as if the Army had submitted multibillion-dollar expense reports without any receipts.

With problems like this, is it any wonder that someone in the Army's sprawling infrastructure forgot to inspect the Fort Bragg barracks before populating it with weary combat veterans?

It's a Boondoggle: the Gas Tax Holiday

Everybody who knows anything about energy policy and/or tax policy is calling the gas tax holiday a cynical political pander by Senators McCain and Clinton. Here's the usually Clinton-friendly Paul Krugman:

John McCain has a really bad idea on gasoline, Hillary Clinton is emulating him (but with a twist that makes her plan pointless rather than evil), and Barack Obama, to his credit, says no.

Why doesn't cutting the gas tax this summer make sense? It's Econ 101 tax incidence theory: if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.

Here's economist Dean Baker:

...almost all economists would agree that the tax cut proposed by Senators Clinton and McCain would save consumers nothing. With the supply of gas largely fixed by the capacity of the oil industry (they claim to be running their refineries at full capacity), the price will not change in response to the elimination of the tax. The only difference will be that money that used to go to the government in tax revenues will instead go to the oil industry as higher profits.

Tom Friedman:

[The idea] is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer's travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

Here are the Washington Post, Robert Reich, and the Los Angeles Times. Here are Grist and Vanity Fair. Here's Newsweek, maybe the best of the bunch.

At worst, the gax tax holiday pads the pockets of the oil industry (McCain's version). At best, it accomplishes nothing at all (Clinton's version). So why propose it? Because voters are struggling with gas prices and by suggesting we chop 18 cents off the price of every gallon, a candidate sounds like a populist champion. But it's nonsense and a pander and the candidates know it.

Hillary Clinton has TV ads up in Indiana and North Carolina that attack Barack Obama for saying no to the idea. Awesome.

Carbon Offsets For Tummy Tucks?

Plastic surgery has long posed serious risks for many of its vain victims: death from infection, bursting boobs, migrating silicone and the like. But who knew it was also bad for the environment? The Washington City Paper reports that disposing of all the fat sucked out of people during liposuction and tummy tucks puts 1,000 tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, largely because the fat (which is 78 percent carbon) is incinerated.

Since belly fat as biodiesel is a tough sell, a local upscale plastic surgery practice is now buying carbon offsets to cover disposing of its nips and tucks. The surgeons tell CP that while jogging would be a healthier alternative for shedding all that fat, it wouldn't make much difference on the environment because the exercise would still "liberate" carbon into the atmosphere. I find this claim somewhat dubious (especially given the self-interest of the source), but since I'm too science challenged to work this out on my own, I'll put this to you, dear readers: Are joggers really the human versions of farting cows, huffing out more carbon that fat incinerators?

April 29, 2008

Ex-Gitmo Prosecutor Lays Politicization Bare

Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who used to be the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay and a defender of the Bush Administration's military tribunal system, took the stand Monday on behalf of a man alleged to be Osama bin Laden's former driver in order to disseminate the truth about Guantanamo.

Davis was cross-examined by the Army officer who replaced him after his resignation last October, Col. Lawrence Morris, in one of the most dramatic challenges to the first American war-crimes tribunals since World War II...

Davis said he resigned hours after he was put in a chain of command beneath Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes, one of several officials who had encouraged the use of evidence even if it was gathered through waterboarding... "The guy who said waterboarding is A-OK I was not going to take orders from. I quit," Davis said.

More after the jump...

[Davis] alleged, among other things, that Haynes appeared shocked when Davis suggested in a 2005 meeting that acquittals, however disappointing, could boost the credibility of the system.

"He looked at me and said 'We can't have acquittals, we've been holding these guys for years,'" Davis testifi