04:10 PM
Edwards the Electable?
Chatter among the pundit class today suggest that John Edwards may be even more electable than Mr. Electable himself, John Kerry. The proponents of this theory are looking at exit poll numbers that show Edwards kicking Kerry's can among the Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries.
Writing at Slate this morning, Will Saletan argues that if electability is the prime concern, Democrats should give Edwards a long hard look, because the votes of Independents and crossover Republicans will likely be the determining factor in the national election. "In states where the choices of these groups have been measured," Saletan writes, "Edwards is matching Kerry among independents and beating him among crossover Republicans."
It's a seductive argument, but flawed a one. It assumes more than we can know about those Republicans. Namely that the GOPers who voted for Edwards in the primaries would also vote for him over Bush in a general election.
Given that the voters treked out to the polls in the middle of winter to vote for the North Carolina senator, I suppose this is not an unreasonable supposition. But in primaries like this, voters often cross the isle to register support for the least-worst alternative. I know a number of Democrats, for example, who crossed over to vote for McCain in the 2000 election. McCain was better than Bush they reasoned, but none of them--not one--would actually have voted for the man over Gore.
If Edwards really is the more electable candidate, the numerous national head-to-head polls ought show it him beating Bush by now. And the hard truth for Edwards is, they don't.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:53 PM
Londonistan, Real and Imagined
British lawyer John Upton has written an interesting, highly readable, and deeply worrisome piece in the most recent London Review of Books. Specifically, Upton takes on his country's behavior in the war on terror, particularly the push for broad anti-terrorism legislation. But more generally, Upton considers the overly-broad, overly-hyped, overly simplistic view of terrorism being peddled by both Washington and London: "A black cloud of Islamist terror is said to be hanging over the Western world; and specific causes of violence and discontent have disappeared into it."
"We are told that we face a complex, overwhelming threat, yet we are given the crudest means of deciphering our predicament: caricatures of Saddam, of bin Laden, of suicide bombers and evil imams. These are the cartoon ogres in whose shadows we are encouraged to unite. But the spirit of the Blitz engenders acquiescence in the machinations of a manipulative state as well as the courage to stand up to ogres."
Finally, to his credit, Upton will not let us retreat to the otherwise comforting belief that the threat behind the cartoon ogres doesn't exist (his description of a non-press conference by the radical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun is frankly chilling).
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:14 AM
Who Will Dubya Dump?
Looking for the official Bush-Cheney reelection site? It's actually georgewbush.com -- no "Cheney" to be found. Which probably means nothing at all. Unless Jim Lobe is more than a little prescient, and Team Bush's political strategists are planning on dumping Cheney.
Lobe writes:
"The vice president, whose moderation and 35-year Washington experience reassured voters worried about Bush's callowness and inexperience during the 2000 campaign, is seen more and more by Republican politicos as a drag on the president's re-election chances in what is universally expected to be an extremely close race.The reasons are simple: instead of the moderate voice of wisdom and caution that voters thought they were getting in the vice president, ongoing disclosures about his role in the drive to war in Iraq and other controversial administration initiatives depict him as an extremist who constantly pushed for the most radical measures."
But is Cheney really the likelist person to be voted off the Bush island? While Lobe says that a quiet "dump Cheney" movement is being run by "intimate associates of Bush's father," others on the right are waging far more public campaigns to dump others in the administration. Just a few months ago, Donald Rumsfeld was reportedly on the top of the fall-guy list. Now, that spot is clearly held by CIA boss George Tenet. Frank Gaffney, the main man at the Center for Security Policy and a founder (with Cheney) of the Project for a New American Century, has already set his sites on Tenet. In fact, he even has a replacement in mind: David Kay. Yes, that David Kay.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
5:00 PM
Conservatives in Glass Houses
So these are the fragile threads conspiracy theories are made of.
Earlier this week, Christopher Horner published a piece on National Review Online implying that John Kerry's wife somehow paid off the League Conservation Voters to endorse her husband. The piece's sub-headline: "Recipients of Heinz Money Making Strong Kerry Pitch." Which would be a hell of a story -- if it were true. In fact, the connection Horner sketches out is far flimsier than the headline suggests.
Horner's argument is convoluted, but it's essentially this:
Never mind that LCV isn't a "Heinz-funded group." By the conclusion of the piece, Horner happily assumes that he has proven a "Heinz connection", and suggests that voters should keep that connection in mind "when these "independent" voices make their political desires known."
That's a mighty reach -- and it's one Horner and the folks at National Review should know better than to make. After all, it would be just as easy to build a conspiracy theory story out of their funding. Let's see, it would go something like this:
Of course not. That's stupid. Just as stupid as Horner's "Heinz connection". Horner's going after Kerry because Horner's a conservative. And the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Kerry because Kerry has a 96 percent lifetime LCV rating -- unsurpassed by any of the other Democrats. No conspiracies, just politics.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:40 PM
The Dean Disconnection
Anyone doubting that the bottom-up Dean "movement" is fast becoming a conventional top-down campaign should check out a sampling of yesterday evening's blog entries at deanforamerica. The blog (a Trippi innovation) has been at the heart of what made Dean's campaign different: as well as being a great way for Deaniacs to connect and fire each other up, it gave the grassroots a direct line to the management and, at least in theory, a collective say in the campaign's direction.
Yesterday, though, as news filtered in that the guru Joe Trippi was getting booted in favor of Roy Neel -- a (brace yourself) Washington Insider -- it was clear that the Deaniac rank-and-file, at least as represented on the blog, was way out of the loop. Hundreds of postings flooded in, the dominant theme being: "What the ___?"
5:09 PM
What's this about Trippi[?] HQ hasn't said a word. I won't believe it it I hear it from there. Who's the leak?5:11 PM
Can you please tell us about what is going on with Trippi and the campaign staff? The response wasn't just to the message, I feel like you guys are feeding us propaghanda [sic] here. What is going on today?5:12 PM
Can we please get a message from HQ re: Trippi.5:15 PM
Wow, the blog is on fire!5:15 PM
I think the campaign is regretting it's [sic] lack of top down control. Welcome to the dark side.5:15 PM
Please continue to level with the financial and organizational base about what's going on. A lot of trust is being lost because of a failure to communicate with us.5:35 PM
More top down control? NOT!!!
A little later, the media is all over the Trippi story, but still no word from HQ...
5:55 PM
What is going on, how can they talk to AP before talking to the blog. I cannot believe that nothing has been posted yet. Let's hope we keep this internet thing going 'cause if you neglect the blog the whole campaign will come crashing down.5:56 PM
Why isn't the Trippi story here first? Little sad to read that on yahoo before I see anything here.6:15 PM
What's the deal with Joe Trippi being replaced as campaign manager??? Heard it on NPR on the way home tonight.6:18 PM
So has HQ come out yet?
As the news sinks in, the Deaniacs divide: the leading view is that Joe was the bomb, but it was time for a shakeup. (And anyway, his ads "sucked".) There's a lot of hand-wringing of the are-we-selling-out? sort, too. And still no word from on high...
8:59 PM
Can we get a post and e-mail from Roy Neel?9:00 PM
I cant wait to see the first decisions on the new management team. Hope they have spent some time reading our words and recommendations.9:00 PM
Roy-man where's the statement?9:02 PM
A message from Roy Neel would be appreciated.9:02 PM
Roy: (you will find we tend to be a bit informal here) Welcome. Hope you have fun! Remember that the bloggers here will do whatever they can to help...you have but to ask.
And on and on. Until you realize that this has been a night of transformation: a new breed of Deaniac is born!
9:07 PM
To all of my co-bloggers, two words: grow up. I could not be more disappointed in some of the posts I have seen tonight - petulant rants demanding Mr. Neel answer to you "RIGHT NOW!" I, for one, certainly hope Mr. Neel has significantly better things to do than hold your hand. Posts saying that if were our campaign we should have voted on Joe? Please. Did you get to vote to hire Joe in the first place?9:09 PM
I don't think this insider vs. outsider theme is a winning platform. It won't be just Dean's good will that will be able to change politics in Washington. Who hasn't promised this before? Dean will have to work from within to change things. So to alienate those he will have to work with in the future is ridiculous. Furthermore, it alienates many Democrats who think of themselves as respectable centrists. Moreover, it's a loser theme. It does connote non-electability.
To judge from the posts, your average Deaniac is willing to go along with a more traditional, top-down approach to campaigning, if that's what it takes to win. What he or she is less prepared for is the downgrading of the Deaniac that this entails -- from partner in the movement to, well, campaign volunteer.
09:09 PM
Joe Rospars [a staffer at Dean HQ]: If you are really listening, then listen to me now. I am concerned, just because this blog has suffered from a severe lack of attention over the last 12 hours. While I understand a campaign shakeup at the top might be necessary, please reassure those of us at the bottom that even such things as securing this blog have not deteriorated. ... What is happening on this blog, the voice of the grassroots campaign, is making me worry.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:50 PM
Trouble Ahead
Andrew Sullivan thinks George Bush is "in deep trouble."
"The huge turn-out in New Hampshire; the electability factor for Kerry; the passion of the Dean people: all this shows how thoroughly energized the Democrats are to win back the White House. Bush is in the Rove-Cheney cocoon right now. From the SOTU, it looks like he's going to run on 9/11. Bad, backward-looking idea. His coalition is fracturing; his reach out to Hispanics seems to have hurt him more with the base than won him new votes; his spending has independents deeply concerned; Iraq is still a wild card; prescription drugs pandering hasn't swayed any seniors; the religious right wants him to attack gay couples in the Constitution - which will lose him the center. More worrying: I'm not sure he even knows he's in trouble."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:00 PM
The Wages of War
Part of the Army’s appeal is the promise of getting paid to see the world. With recent deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan , and elsewhere, the U.S. Army has made good on the international-travel side of this bargain; but when it comes to paying its soldiers, it isn't always following through. A new General Accounting Office (GAO) report (links to PDF) found $1 million worth of payroll mistakes affecting 94 percent of the soldiers in six mobilized reserve units. Soldiers were paid late or too little; others were slapped with erroneous debts as high as $48,000.
(To be fair, the Army is more than coming through for its troops in many cases: GAO also found instances of overpayment. In one, a number of Maryland reservists were still getting paid 6 weeks after leaving active service.)
One reservist from West Virginia, stationed in Uzbekistan, was forced to travel to Qatar to resolve his unit’s financial problems. Don’t let the reference to Camp Snoopy fool you—this was no pleasure trip:
This trip, during which a soldier had to set aside his in-theatre duties to attempt to resolve Army Guard pay issues, proved to be not only a major inconvenience to the sergeant, but was also life-threatening…. The sergeant left Uzbekistan for the 4-day trip to Kuwait. He first flew from Uzbekistan to Oman in a C-130 ambulatory aircraft (carrying wounded soldiers). From Oman, he flew to Masirah Island. From Masirah Island he flew to Kuwait International Airport, and from the airport he had a 45-minute drive to Camp Doha. The total travel time was 16 hours. The sergeant delivered a box of supporting documents used to input data into the system…. After 2 days working at Camp Doha, the sergeant returned to the Kuwait International Airport, flew to Camp Snoopy in Qatar, and from there to Oman. On his flight between Oman and Uzbekistan, the sergeant’s plane took enemy fire and was forced to return to Oman. No injuries were reported. The next day, he left Oman and returned safely to Uzbekistan.
In case that’s too much to keep track of, the GAO report includes a handy map of the soldier’s travels (travails?). No doubt stories like this are making some reservists think twice about re-upping. As the GAO puts it, with characteristic understatement, “pay-related problems can have an adverse effect on the Army’s ability to retain these valuable personnel.” It’s one thing to pay soldiers to get shot at; it’s another for them to get shot at so they can get paid.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:31 PM
Fool Me Once...
This past weekend, Sen. John Kerry told CBS' '60 Minutes' that he voted to give George W. Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq because "I believe we should have stood up to Saddam Hussein, I thought it was important for our nation's security." But Kerry also said Bush misused the power Congress granted him, declaring "if anyone believes that I would have used that authority the way George Bush did, they should not vote for me, period."
John C. Bonifaz, the author of 'Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush,' isn't buying it. In a commentary on TomPaine.com, Bonifaz argues that Kerry and others are glossing over a vital point: Bush should never have been given the authority. Period. The invasion of Iraq wasn't just mistaken, Bonifaz declares, "It was unconstitutional."
"It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:42 AM
Still the Economy, Stupid?
The economic recovery, such as it is, was said to have robbed Democrats of an edge over George Bush; but there are signs that the economy is still very much in play as a election issue. For a start, a Commerce Department report out today shows that the pace of new-home sales slowed last month and that orders for big-ticket "durable" goods were flat in December, "raising questions," the AP says, "about how firm a grip manufacturers had on their own recovery." Economists had forecast a 2 percent jump in durable goods sales. "I think it is a two-month pause. But having said that, I am a bit puzzled we didn't see better numbers," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.
Bush had better hope this is a blip, because as the war on terror and Iraq recede as voter priorities, lunch-bucket issues will come to the fore -- and Bush looks vulnerable on these. Consider: a recent New York Times/CBS poll showed that many voters, while giving Bush high marks on national security, doubt the president's economic and domestic policies; and voters exiting the polls in New Hampshire (bear in mind, a sizeable chunk of these voters are Independents, not Democrats) cited the economy and health care — rather than the Iraq war — as the issues that most affected their vote.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:30 PM
Justified Concern
A new report from Human Rights Watch argues that the war in Iraq should not be justified as a defense of human rights because, as there was "no ongoing or imminent mass killing" when the conflict began, the war was not necessary to stop such atrocities.
The 400-page report's keynote essay, written by HRW director Ken Roth, makes the case that what Bush has done will make further (and more pressing) humanitarian interventions more difficult to justify.
"The result is that at a time of renewed interest in humanitarian intervention, the Iraq war and the effort to justify it even in part in humanitarian terms risk giving humanitarian intervention a bad name. If that breeds cynicism about the use of military force for humanitarian purposes, it could be devastating for people in need of future rescue."
HRW is rightly ticked off that humanitarianism was given as a justification before the war only in the most off-handed way, and after the war as a cynical fallback when the primary justifications (Saddam's terror links, WMDs) collapsed for lack of evidence. Clearly the invasion wasn't humanitarian in intent.
But was it humanitarian -- or humanitarian enough -- in its effect? And if so, does that change how we weigh it morally? Slate recently rounded up prominent "liberal hawks" to tackle the question of whether, knowing what they now know (no WMDs, oversold intel, postwar chaos, Arab resentment), they think the war justified; all but one said yes, and a number said so on humanitarian grounds, notwithstanding the Bush administration's obvious bad faith on that score.
Jacob Weisberg: "To me, the liberation of 25 million Iraqis remains sufficient justification, which is why I don't think the failure to find weapons of mass destruction by itself invalidates the case for war (though it certainly weakens it)."George Packer: "[t]he slaughter and misery of Iraqis (and their neighbors) justified the war; it would have justified it going back to 1991, or 1988."
Christopher Hitchens: "[T]here is politics again in a serious country, and we have seen the tree of liberty being watered in the traditional manner, which is an event that not every member of every generation can take pride in."
HRW is in the awkward position of disapproving of a war that seems to have delivered humanitarian benefits on the grounds that the administration's motives were impure and its commitment to humanitarianism opportunistic. Liberal hawks look to the ends and tolerate the means. The disagreement, at its core, is over what qualifies as humanitarianism. HRW has taken its (categorical) stance; liberal hawks (a term that testifies to the degree to which Iraq -- and Afghanistan before it -- have scrambled old alignments) are less sure -- and more likely to hold that some things are right even if George Bush says they are. The debate continues.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:10 PM
Dumping on Dennis
Hatchet jobs are hardly rare in journalism. But when a piece as patently ugly and dismissive as Andrew Cline's savaging of Dennis Kucinich crawls into the light, it's worth examination. Cline's commentary, published today on National Review Online, begins with this particularly lovely line:
"Stepping into the Dennis Kucinich rally at the University of New Hampshire on Sunday night, the first thing to hit you is the stench of male body odor. Not the 'man, it's hot on the dance floor, I think I'll take my sweater off' kind of odor, but the 'I use organic deodorant' kind."
And it gets nastier from there. Cline sweeps up the crowd at the Manchester, New Hampshire Kucinich rally he attended as "a mix of deadheads, granolas, stoners, peaceniks, and the occasional UNH student who stopped by to check out the music before quickly leaving."
So, who exactly is Andrew Cline, and why is he taking such obvious glee in ripping into Kucinich and his supporters? Cline is the editorial page editor of the Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News, the famously conservative papers best known for front-page editorials excoriating their enemies (they called Nelson Rockefeller a wife swapper, labeled George Bush a "wimp", and suggested that Elizabeth Dole brought nothing but an X chromosome to the GOP primary contest in 2000). Still, even by his own paper's standards, Cline's NRO piece is particularly mean-spirited. True, the Union Leader made news last week with a front-page editorial endorsing Joe Lieberman for the Democratic nomination, but it also ran an editorial offering grudging praise for Kucinich:
"Most people, if they have paid attention to Kucinich at all, have written him off as a flake. After all, his ideas are so far out of the mainstream that Willie Nelson has endorsed him. But Kucinich is not crazy. We’ve found him to be intelligent, thoughtful, clever, and more in touch with reality than he lets on."
And no mention of marijuana smoke.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:32 AM
The Next Pentagon Papers?
Daniel Ellsberg has written a poignant and timely essay for The Guardian, observing the eerie parallels between his experiences in Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq ("I believe American and British soldiers will be dying, and killing, in that country as long as they remain there."). With Washington and London refusing to admit that they invaded Iraq under false pretenses, Ellsberg contends the only hope is for a new him, a US or British official willing to expose their leaders' lies about the war.
"I have no doubt that there are thousands of pages of documents in safes in London and Washington right now - the Pentagon Papers of Iraq - whose unauthorised revelation would drastically alter the public discourse on whether we should continue sending our children to die in Iraq. That's clear from what has already come out through unauthorised disclosures from many anonymous sources and from officials and former officials such as David Kelly and US ambassador Joseph Wilson, who revealed the falsity of reports that Iraq had pursued uranium from Niger, which President Bush none the less cited as endorsed by British intelligence in his state of the union address before the war."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:53 PM
Amid the Pork, Principle
Turns out that the federal budget bill approved by the Senate last week, while chock full of political pork and partisan riders, also contains some little-noticed nuggets of good news.
Among other things, Congress has cut $600,000 in proposed US aid to the Indonesian military. The provision, sponsored nearly a year ago by Sen. Russ Feingold, prohibits the US from extending any aid to Indonesia under the International Military Education and Training program until the White House can show that Jakarta has suspended and is prosecuting any officers and soldiers "who have been credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights, or to have aided or abetted militia groups."
The Senate action is a clear setback for Bush, who for more than two years has been lobbying hard to restore the funding pipeline -- so hard, in fact, that White House spinners were forced to clean up after the president in October when he told Indonesian TV that Congress had "changed their attitude" on military aid and that the US was ready to "go forward with" new aid for military training.
Of course, Bush might be excused for the slip. Congress may have blocked direct aid to Indonesia's military, but the Bush White House has still managed to funnel tens of millions of dollars in deadly assistance to Jakarta via a War on Terror back-door.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:45 PM
Cheney's Guerrilla War
According to a new biography of Tony Blair, Dick Cheney "waged a guerrilla war" against attempts by the British prime minister to get U.N. backing for the invasion of Iraq.
The Financial Times reports that "Mr Cheney remained implacably opposed to the strategy even after George W. Bush ... addressed the U.N. on the importance of a multilateralist approach," and quotes one Blair aide as saying, "Cheney fought it all the way - at every twist and turn, even after Bush's speech to the U.N."
(Consider that Cheney emerges from Ron Suskind's book about Paul O'Neill as the White House's puppeteer-in-chief, shaping policy on everything from defense to deficits, and you begin to understand why we hardly ever see the veep in public: he's too busy running the country.)
The Blair book, which was written by a Financial Times reporter, also reveals that British foreign secretary Jack Straw "privately opposed going to war in Iraq without the prior support of the U.N." This is a big deal, because Straw certainly didn't publicly oppose going in without the U.N. In this he resembles his U.S. counterpart: Colin Powell was likewise a great proponent of multilateralism and U.N. backing -- until, suddenly, he wasn't. Perhaps they both saw some rock-solid intel that changed their minds.... Or not.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
1:18 PM
CBS's Warped Ad Logic
Have we all managed to work up a healthy head of outrage over CBS's decision to reject the winning ad from MoveOn's 'Bush in 30 Seconds' contest?
Forget that the spot, 'Child's Pay', focuses on an issue that should be of importance to every American -- Bush's record-breaking federal deficit and the way it puts our kids at risk. Forget that CBS seems particularly willing to cave to conservative pressure these days. Forget the appearance of appeasement, given that Republicans in Congress and on the FCC board handed CBS and all the other networks a multi-billion dollar gift last year. What should be of real concern is that the "policy" CBS cited in turning down the MoveOn ad is patently bogus. And CBS isn't alone. Every network has some sort of guideline prohibiting controversial "issue ads" -- guidelines they have repeatedly referred to when rejecting ads from such groups as PETA, True Majority, Human Rights Campaign, and other left-leaning groups.
Meanwhile, the networks accept ads from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (remember the 2002 Super Bowl ad linking drug use to terrorism?) on the grounds that there isn't a 'pro-drug use' side to the debate. Which, of course, is either stupendously naive or grotesquely ignorant. The debate which CBS can't seem to recognize isn't over drug use, it's over Washington's nine-decade-long war on drugs, and the resulting bottomless pit of failed policy.
Of course, if any group out there actually wanted to air a spot suggesting that the war on drugs was failing, I imagine CBS would simply deem it "too controversial" and toss it aside. For its part, MoveOn is doing its best to keep the heat on the big eye.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
1:10 PM
Pharma Subsidies
Ho hum, another key lawmaker is about to take a lobbying job with an industry whose interests he was recently pushing in Congress. According to the Washington Post, Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), a principal architect of the Medicare overhaul bill, is close to a decision to leave Congress to head the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main pharmaceutical industry lobby group, in what the Post says would be "the biggest deal given to anyone at a trade association."
Tauzin, who as a congressman got major money from the pharmaceutical industry, helped push for provisions to vastly expand the market for prescription drugs among the elderly, adding hundreds of billions of dollars for drug benefits and barring the federal government from directly bargaining down the price of drugs -- all of which was music to PhRMA's ears.
The hop from Congress to industry is now apparently so routine that the Post doesn't even bother to wonder if there might be some kind of, you know, conflict of interest here -- not even after noting that Tauzin wouldn't be the first key public official involved in the Medicare legislation to leave for the private sector: "In December, Thomas A. Scully, an author of the bill, resigned as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, to join an Atlanta law firm that represents drugmakers, hospitals and other health-care businesses."
Just business as usual.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this