March 2008 Archives

Kevin Drum takes apart the Chuck Todd quote to which I linked earlier today:

Let's recap. Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. "Man of conviction" cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

Remind me again: where does all this cred come from? And what window do Democrats go to to get the same treatment the press gives McCain?

I do not believe such a window exists within our so-called liberal media.

Perhaps part of the reason John Yoo could write memos conjuring up a legal rationale for torture includes the apparent fact that he really has no idea what the Constitution means or what actually happened in the debates that led to its drafting and ratification.

I really wonder what the students at the University of California's Boalt School of Law really can learn from someone this mistaken about the nation's fundamental law.

Glenn Greenwald catches NBC's Chuck Todd laying all the media's cards on the table about their crush on Senator John McCain -- and the preferential treatment he receives from our friends in the so-called liberal media.

MR. RUSSERT: McCain had some problems when he was in Jordan, he talked about al-Qaeda being trained by the Iranians.

MR. TODD: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: And then, then Lindsey Graham, who he was with, and then Joe Lieberman both tried to say to him, al-Qaeda is Sunni, not trained by the Shiite Iranian government. Does that kind of stumble hurt a McCain candidacy?

MR. TODD: . . . You know, he's -- because of the age issue, he can't ever look like he's having a senior moment. So instead, he's better off going ahead and saying, you know, OK, so he misspoke. Even if he gets dinged on the experience stuff, "Oh, he says he's Mr. Experience. Doesn't he know the difference between this stuff?" He's got enough of that in the bank, at least with the media, that he can get away with it. I mean, the irony to this is had either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama misspoke like that, it'd have been on a running loop, and it would become a, a big problem for a couple of days for them. (emphasis Greenwald's)

As Greenwald explains, this is not the first time a member of the media has admitted they gave McCain a pass on this issue last week.

Since the media won't do this job, it is up to Sens. Obama and Clinton to do it. As Rachel Maddow has been arguing for a couple weeks now, it is really well past time for the two Democrats to turn their attention in a highly focused fashion on McCain.

From the Associated Press:

As of Sunday, March 23, 2008, at least 4,000 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,253 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

This local memorial, the Crosses of Lafayette, is about two miles from my house.

Buce at the Underbelly directs us to Russell Baker's review of several books about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. It is a portrait of a person who places more stock in personal loyalty to her president than to the duties of her job. As Baker writes:

The Kennebunkport visit may help explain Rice's inept performance at the time of September 11 and the approach to the Iraq war. She had come to the job as, in some sense, a pal who understood the young new president, and while president's pal ought to be an important job in every White House, confusing it with national security adviser is a certain route to trouble. One job calls for improving the president's day; the other calls for spoiling it by confronting him with news he would rather not hear, exposing him to ideas he would rather not think about, and presenting him with decisions he would rather not make.

At its very best, this might mean articulating a coherent philosophy about foreign affairs with which the president is instinctually comfortable. In no case is it work for someone who feels obliged to make the president feel good about himself. Rice's failure to force Bush to focus attention on the now famous warnings of an imminent al-Qaeda attack illustrates the problem.

Too many people have wanted to be President George W. Bush's pal rather than serving the country and the Constitution to which they take an oath. It seems remarkable to me that there are some people out there who believe that, given this record, Rice would make a good choice for Vice President.

James Fallows rightly has some extremely complementary thoughts about Mike Huckabee's recent realistic statements about the Obama-Rev. Wright controversy.

Yes, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught patronizing prostitutes. Which is beyond foolish, and he deserved to lose his office over it.

But, that's not the only important question his case raises.

Given the politicization of the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush, I think we should be more than a bit interested in wondering about the true nature of this investigation.

As Harpers' Scott Norton explains:

This marks a strong shift in position in Justice Department explanations of the case, increasingly bringing into focus the fact that Eliot Spitzer was a target because he was Eliot Spitzer. The comparison of this case with the handling of the “D.C. Madam” case produces a very curious bifurcation. Eliot Spitzer is worthy of being a target, and the dedication of massive resources to nab him. But G.O.P. Senator David Vitter and Bush Administration Director of USAID Randall Tobias are not. What, other than the fact that the latter are Republicans and the former Democrats, provides the basis for distinction? This investigation increasingly looks like a political hit.

And as dday asks over at Hullabaloo:

Yeah, I'm wondering why some slimy political operative is all but managing federal investigations in the Bush Justice Department.

That is an excellent question.

Politico's Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen do something odd: they actually look at the delegate math in the Democratic nomination fight.

What they find is, alas, not so shocking: the story being told by most members of our pundit class about a tight neck-and-neck race for the nomination is wrong.

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

In a real world, the fact that Senator John McCain has flip-flopped and adopted the entire Grover Norquist agenda would be major news. ThinkProgress has the details:

McCain has won the heart of far-right tax activist Grover Norquist, who only three years ago was calling McCain “the nut-job from Arizona” and a “gun-grabbing, tax-increasing Bolshevik.” But here’s what Norquist says about McCain now:

"[John McCain] campaigned on being very good on taxes in this election cycle… that he will continue to make [the Bush tax cuts] permanent, that he will veto any tax increase, period, that he wants to cut the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, that he wants to have full expensing, that he wants to abolish the AMT …. In addition to being the Americans for Tax Reform’s entire agenda, that is a very pro-growth set of policies he has put forward, and he articulates why they are important."

Grover Norquist, of course, is a radical conservative activist who believes the size of government should be shrunk until what remains can be drowned in a bathtub. If John McCain has adopted Norquist's radical agenda, then he is not nearly the maverick the media sees.when they gaze upon him.

I could not agree more with these sentiments from E.J. Dionne Jr.:

Never do I want to hear again from my conservative friends about how brilliant capitalists are, how much they deserve their seven-figure salaries and how government should keep its hands off the private economy.

The Wall Street titans have turned into a bunch of welfare clients. They are desperate to be bailed out by government from their own incompetence, and from the deregulatory regime for which they lobbied so hard. They have lost "confidence" in each other, you see, because none of these oh-so-wise captains of the universe have any idea what kinds of devalued securities sit in one another's portfolios.

So they have stopped investing. The biggest, most respected investment firms threaten to come crashing down. You can't have that. It's just fine to make it harder for the average Joe to file for bankruptcy, as did that wretched bankruptcy bill passed by Congress in 2005 at the request of the credit card industry. But the big guys are "too big to fail," because they could bring us all down with them.

Enter the federal government, the institution to which the wealthy are not supposed to pay capital gains or inheritance taxes. Good God, you don't expect these people to trade in their BMWs for Saturns, do you?

If bailouts are necessary for the rich (and like Dionne, I do not fault Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for trying to keep the financial sector from collapsing), then none of us should listen to those who claim that the free market always works best and government never has a role -- and is the enemy to all that is good.

The time for these radical right-wing fictions has long past.

In a story close to home, I want to extend my congratulations to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen on being named a winner of a John F. Kennedy Profile In Courage Award! The Contra Costa Times Lisa Vorderbrueggen posts the press release:

Two public officials who challenged the reliability of electronic voting systems in a bid to ensure the integrity of the vote in their states have been named this year’s recipients of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage AwardTM, it was announced today by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. Debra Bowen, Secretary of State of California, and Jennifer Brunner, Secretary of State of Ohio, will be presented the prestigious award for political courage by Caroline Kennedy and Senator Edward M. Kennedy at a ceremony at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston on Monday, May 12.

This has been important work, and I am extremely pleased that Secretary Bowen has been honored for her efforts and courage in fighting for voting integrity here in California.

Rachel Maddow provided an excellent analysis of the double standard at work in the media's reporting of religious issues.

Senator Barack Obama is compelled to speak about his pastor -- but Senator John McCain is the latest in a line of Republican candidates who are given a virtual free pass about the views of their religious supporters.

As Maddow explains:

Rich stuff, right? Very upsetting to the political applecart – Senator Obama wrote a piece on Huffington Post, which went up on Friday in which he called those remarks inflammatory and appalling - he said that he vehemently disagreed with and strongly condemned and categorically denounced and rejected outright; those words. Big controversy, right? Will Barack Obama be able to get past this controversy of his pastor, even with his vehement disagreement and strong condemnation and categorical denouncing and outright rejection so clearly stated? Regardless of all that, will he be able to get past this? Is this a fatal political blow to Barack Obama? Let me tell you this about the double standard. Not only has John McCain paid no political price for seeking and getting and being honored by the John Hagee endorsement. Not only has he yet to pay a political price for seeking and getting and being honored by the endorsement of the perhaps even more disgusting Rod Parsley – who McCain has campaigned with in Ohio – Rod Parsley, a pastor who I think not only is stomach-churning in his extremism, but who actually could generate enough of an international outcry that there could be national security implications of that endorsement for us as a country. Not only is McCain getting a free pass on both Hagee and Parsley but if you want to see the double standard at work here on religious issues?"

Click here to read more or listen to the segment of Maddow's radio show.

It looks like the Republicans think they have finally found a way to attack Obama. I wonder if they realize that by attacking Obama's pastor, they will (finally?) open the door to a frank discussion about the extreme religious views of some of the religious right's leaders.

After all, do you think this nation was founded, in part, to destroy Islam? No? Well, a man with whom John McCain campaigned, a man whom McCain actively courted for his endorsement, has revised the work of our founding generation to make such an argument. David Corn exposed what the Reverend Rod Parsley wrote in his 2005 book, Silent No More. As Maddow explained on her show, such sentiments have potential national security implications. Rev. Parsley writes:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

How do you think that's going to play in the Middle East? You think some people may be upset about it? You think some of our soldiers may get killed as people there learn that an advisor and supporter of the Republican presidential nominee thinks this way?

I do. If we are going to focus on the extreme comments of religious leaders, let's make sure we expose what both sides are saying. These klieg lights need to point more directions than left.

Sometimes a picture tells a story best. Calculated Risk has a photo from the Bear Stearns building today.

The Washington Post's Cameron Barr writes:

Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

The general's comments appeared to be his sternest to date on Iraqis' failure to achieve political reconciliation. In February, following the passage of laws on the budget, provincial elections and an amnesty for certain detainees, Petraeus was more encouraging. "The passage of the three laws today showed that the Iraqi leaders are now taking advantage of the opportunity that coalition and Iraqi troopers fought so hard to provide," he said at the time.

Let us remember that the entire point of the surge -- the reason it was sold to the American people -- was to provide a space to allow the Iraqi government to meet these political objectives.

The "surge" has now been in effect for more than a year. Will it have to last John McCain's 100 years in order to get it to do what it was designed to do?

Six years ago today, on March 13, 2002, President George W. Bush told the nation what he felt about Osama bin Laden.

And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

Remember, this is just six months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Six months after bin Laden presumably became our most significant enemy.

Perhaps it is this attitude that has led to the president's failure to capture the leader of Al Qaeda the past six years.

Here's the video, and a transcript of the president's reprehensible remarks.

It's now been six years. When will the president have a personal accountability moment about bin Laden and our foreign policy failures since then?

Are we really supposed to believe that Iraq is improving and everything is going great when no U.S. political or military leader can make an announced trip there, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can visit and be given the red-carpet treatment?

The supporters of our continued occupation of Iraq must really think we are idiots.

Ezra Klein takes a necessary shot at the disgraceful Mark Penn, who used to demand acknowledgement as Senator Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist:

In general, I'm very, very hard on Mark Penn. I think his politics are odious, his business dealings reprehensible, and his professional work shoddy beyond measure. And now, watching him desperately try and squirm away from the Clinton campaign while it's still going on, I wonder if I've been too easy on the guy.

Klein does the work of contrasting Penn's attempt to minimize his influence on the Clinton campaign with his former master-of-the-universe description.

I hope Democrats learn from this. Penn should not be allowed anywhere near a Democratic campaign again. In the future, Penn will be on my list of campaign consultants whose hiring will make it impossible for me to support the candidate. Penn's association would simply cast that much grave doubt about the candidate's judgment.

Senator Clinton deserved much better than Penn and the campaign he mismanaged for her. For him to try to duck responsibility for his failures now just adds to the pollster's infamy.

The Big Picture noted the price of oil at one point yesterday broke through its all-time high price, when adjusted for inflation.