Sunday's Times reports that the top US commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., is now, as the article's headline puts it, "Open to Troop Surge."
Says a 'senior Defense Department official': “They are open to the possibility of some increase in force. They are supportive of taking steps to support the Iraqis in their plan, including the possible modest augmentation in U.S. combat forces.”
This is a silly game we now seem ready to play. In theory at least, senior military commanders give frank advice to the commander-in-chief. But the president is their ultimate superior in the chain of command. They work for him. So they do what he says. Period. The only real alternative is principled resignation. But let's not get distracted from the main point. It seems clear that most of the Army brass oppose an expanded troop presence in Iraq. As the Times notes, until recently, Casey himself has "argued that sending more American forces into Baghdad and Anbar Province, the two most violent regions of Iraq, would increase the Iraqi dependency on Washington, and in the words of one senior official, 'make this feel more like an occupation.'"
The premise of this narrative is that the president is slowly persuading the generals of the logic of his position that we should escalate the conflict in Iraq by inserting however many tens of thousands of new troops into the country. But the premise is bogus because it is the duty of the three and four star generals to come around after the president does not accept their contrary opinions. He's in charge. They're not in charge. That is how we all want it to work -- though, admittedly, it is somewhat harder to stomach when the president is a stubborn, serial bumbler.
Perhaps Casey really is changing his mind. But having no choice about the matter has a way of greasing the cognitive skids. And the long sought increase in the size of the Army makes the pill more digestible.
I know that in theory Casey could oppose the president's plan, honestly explain his opposition before Congress when called to testify and then dutifully execute it on the president's order. But that's not the real world. He adopts the president's position, gets Shinseki'd or resigns, with the first overwhelmingly likely, the second a distinct possibility and the third close to unheard of. Why muddy up an already complicated and grave situation by pretending anything else?
--Josh Marshall
Over at TPMCafe, Ivo Daalder says George Bush has taken every foreign policy problem he inherited from Bill Clinton and made it worse. Pretty much. Glenn Kessler outlines the problems facing the Administration in Iran, North Korea, and the Sudan, all places where Bush foreign policy strategies have hit brickwalls. Of course, that's not counting Iraq.
--David Kurtz
Lots of questions remain about the sudden resignation of the Saudi ambassador to Washington two weeks ago, and today's WaPo piece on the whole mess raises more questions than it answers, but it's an entertaining read:
Eighteen months ago, Prince Bandar bin Sultan ended a legendary 22-year career as the face of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Word at the time was that he was bored, preferring his palatial Aspen, Colo., lodge to Washington. As it turns out, however, Bandar has secretly visited Washington almost monthly over the past year -- and is at least as pivotal today in influencing U.S. policy as he was in his years as ambassador.Last week, his successor, Turki, abruptly resigned from the post -- partly, sources close to the royal family said, because of Bandar's back-channel trips to meet with top U.S. officials, including Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.
Turki was kept so out of the loop that Bandar often did not inform him he was in town, much less tell him what he was doing, the sources said. Twice, the Saudi Embassy was told by an outsider that Bandar had arrived -- and the embassy sent someone to the airport to look for his private plane to confirm it, according to the source who provided the tip.
Unpaid bills. Bruised egos. Shadow diplomacy. Internal riffs in the royal family. Why, it could be the Bush White House.
--David Kurtz
Finally some real pushback on the Bush Administration's patronage hiring. Today's profile in courage is of the State Department's George Staples, as reported by Al Kamen:
The career diplomats at the State Department are celebrating a decision this week by the department's director general to overturn the assignment of an aide to Undersecretary Karen Hughes to a top job running the new Public Diplomacy Rapid Response office in Brussels.The American Foreign Service Association two months ago protested the selection of mid-level civil servant Diane Zeleny for the job, calling it a "pre-cooked deal" done by manipulating the process and violating personnel rules. AFSA filed a grievance asking foreign service director general George Staples to "undo this assignment."
. . .
The Zeleny appointment came at a time when career diplomats were seething over jumps by several other lower-level officers with political connections into top jobs that the career folks thought should have gone to more senior officers.
It probably didn't help matters, in this case, that Zeleny, a talented civil servant -- but not a foreign service officer -- who has some experience overseas, is married to prominent neocon Reuel Marc Gerecht, an Iraq war promoter and occasional Bush adviser.
Yeah, being Gerecht's wife probably didn't help matters. By the way, she gets to stay in the post until next summer so it's not a perfect solution. But it's a step in the right direction. Not many of those these past six years.
--David Kurtz
The White House declines to condemn the anti-Muslim comments of Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) and conservative commentator Dennis Prager:
White House officials said they were aware that some Democrats and Muslims were urging President Bush to admonish Representative Virgil H. Goode Jr., Republican of Virginia, and Dennis Prager, the conservative commentator, for suggesting that the first Muslim elected to the House had no place in Congress. “We’re aware of the situation,” said Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, “but no judgments have been made.”
I might quibble with The Times' characterization of Goode's remarks. He didn't just suggest Muslims have no place in Congress. He said they have no place in the United States.
--David Kurtz
The Roanoke Times, on Rep. Virgil Goode's "macaca" moment: "He shouldn't apologize for his beliefs because that would just pile the sin of hypocrisy onto the heap of bigotry."
--David Kurtz
Democrats' earmark moratorium: short-term pain for long-term gain.
Late update: More here on the scope of the moratorium.
--David Kurtz
Many if not most Americans have repeatedly expressed an underlying doubt that either party can still serve the public interest. Those feelings are especially prevalent among the independent voters whose support was critical to the recent Democratic victory. To dispel such cynicism and fulfill the expectations raised by their anticorruption campaign, the new Democratic congressional leaders must quickly deliver real government accountability as well as substantial reorganization of their own institutions. While voters may understand that major changes in healthcare, education and environmental stewardship will be difficult to enact under this administration, they will not have much patience for any evasion on reform of Congress.Whether Democrats can overcome the old habits that have often made them inarticulate and inert, however, remains to be seen. To put it kindly, the signs are mixed.
--David Kurtz
Justin's racing against the clock to save (his) Christmas. The latest is that he at least got a roundabout buzz-off from Rep. Aderholt's (R-AL) spokesperson when asked for a comment on the Goode-Koran imbroglio. "We haven't seen the letter."
--Josh Marshall
Not hard to see that one coming. Todd Shriber, communications director for Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), just got canned.
Shriber's the one who rather haplessly tried to hire a 'hacker' to change his GPA on his alma mater's mainframe and also went around DC trying to photograph a squirrel to confirm his identity. Don't even get me started. You can read what happened here.
--Josh Marshall
Breaking: In our on-going search for a Republican member of Congress to comment on the No-Goode-Koran story, a spokesperson for Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) promises to look into it!
--Josh Marshall
Can you help us?
We're trying to find what I guess is the December 2006 equivalent of the needle in the haystack: any Republican who will give us a comment on Rep. Virgil Goode's opposition to the Koran and people from the Middle East in general.
I've got Justin Rood putting in calls to everyone. And you can see the rather meager results so far here.
I've told Justin that he can't leave work today or even celebrate Christmas until he gets some GOP leader to comment or say anything about Goode. So if you know any GOP leader, or really any Republican member of Congress who's spoken out or willing to give a comment about Goode's fears that Congress is going to be overrun by Muslims, let us know.
Do it for Justin.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, here it is: Over at Election Central, we've compiled a massive guide to all the staffers and advisers hired thus far by all the 2008 Presidential campaigns.
We'll be updating the list constantly with new hires -- and firings -- throughout the campaign. These people will play a key role in determining the shape and storylines of the 2008 contest, so why not know who they are?
--Greg Sargent
Curt Weldon got a letter from the government the other day. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Lovely.
According to Network World's Paul McNamara, the communications director for U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Todd Shriber, hired two 'hackers' to break into the computer of his alma mater, Texas Christian University, and change his college grades.
He went trolling for the law-breaking 'hackers' on a computer security website. But instead of finding anyone to do his dirty work he came across a couple non-criminally minded techies who proceeded to chat him up about his scheme, draw out in explicit detail that what he was asking them to do involved mulitple felonies and then posted their complete email correspondence on the site, attrition.org.
This all happened back in September. But it was apparently only this week that McNamara, who has a blog at the Network World site, figured out who Todd Shriber was and started trying to get the guy on the record about what the hell he was thinking.
After what was apparently a good deal of prodding, Shriber told McNamara: "I did something that's greatly out of character for me and it's a mistake that I regret." Asked why he attempted this criminal enterprise: ""I would rather not get into that at all. I just got a little too far ahead of myself thinking about things down the road."
I'm tempted to stop there. But the correspondence is just too good in comedy terms and shows that not only does Shriber probably lack the ethical fiber to serve in Congress (I guess that can mean more than one thing) but may also be the stupidest person on the planet.
Here's Shriber's first solicitation ...
I came across Attrition.org for the first time. I enjoyed the site though I am not an expert
with computers. That brings me to my next point: I need to urgently make contact with a hacker that would be interested in doing a one-time job for me. The pay would be good. I'm not sure what exactly the job would entail with respect to computer jargon, but I can go into rough detail upon making contact with a candidate. Thanks for your help.
After he gets the first nibble he assures the 'hacker' he's talking to that ...
the job wouldn't be anything like invading a government mainframe for classified documents or stealing money from a bank. Rather it'd be a modification of some personal data.
Then he puts his cards on the table ...
OK here it is: I need an adjustment to my college GPA. Is this an absurd request?
It pretty much goes down hill from there, with the highlight probably being the request for pictures. The 'hackers' ask for pictures of the campus with squirrels and pigeons to make sure he's 'legit'. He says he doesn't live near campus anymore. Remember, he lives in DC, not Texas. So they tell him any picture of a pigeon or squirrel will do. Don't ask. You've got to read it to believe it.
Here's the picture of a squirrel (looks like near the Capitol) that this imbecile Shriber sent in ...
The whole thing is so amazingly ridiculous that I would be sure the whole thing was a hoax, except a reporter for a legit computer trade publication looked into it and it checked out and he even got the congressional staffer to 'fess up.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader MT, who solicited no criminal acts, for the tip.)
--Josh Marshall
In case you missed Rep. Virgil Goode's appearances on Fox News today in which he discussed opposition to the Koran and refused to say whether he thought there were already too many people from the Middle East in the US, you can see it here.
--Josh Marshall
As Paul Kiel reported earlier today at TPMmuckraker, in Friday's paper the New York Times has taken what I imagine is the unprecedented step or printing an oped piece with the redactions demanded by the White House actually included as blacklines in the text. Here's the redacted Oped. Here's Paul's piece from this afternoon. And here's authors' explanation.
--Josh Marshall
Last week, we discovered that the Bush administration was refusing to declassify data on violence in Iraq. Soon after that the Pentagon released a report which cut the data in its own ways but didn't provide raw numbers. Unfortunately, the violence is so bad there's no way to hide it. Still, we know that numbers showing the real levels of violence in Iraq aren't available.
It made us wonder: how many times has the administration attempted to suppress government studies, statistics or other forms of once-public information that don't jibe with its policy? We put out the call -- and readers responded.
We've tallied over 20 examples so far from the past six years, and we'll likely break two dozen by the end of the day. Suggestions keep coming in. In areas as diverse as unemployment, health, climate change and the Iraq war, the administration has defunded, classified, or otherwise killed the release of facts that run contrary to its endorsed policies.
Do you know of others? Let us know.
--Justin Rood
Mitt Romney's efforts to prove his die-hard conservatism took a couple of pretty major hits today.
First we learn that back in 1994 Romney said that he hoped "moderates of both parties" would control the Senate, "not the Jesse Helmses."
Now it's emerged that Romney voted for liberal Dem Paul Tsongas in 1992.
--Greg Sargent
There's been a debate on the progressive blogs about whether we should be eschew the administration's favored word "surge" in favor of the more appropriate and (let's be honest) more charged term 'escalation'. The new member of TPMCafe's America Abroad blog, political Islam scholar Vali Nasr, now weighs in on why 'escalation' is the only appropriate word for what we're discussing. The new troops aren't going there to quell the violence; they're being sent to go to war with and destroy al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
Good policy or bad, the only word for that is escalation. Take a look.
--Josh Marshall
For you New Hampshire phone-jamming fanatics, here's the final mystery of what happened, absolutely, positively, conclusively and forever solved: Did Abramoff pay for the scam?
--Josh Marshall
Okay, a key update on the battle in Florida's 13th District. The voting machine company's own expert says that voting problems cost Democrat Christine Jennings the election -- he just says the company itself is not at fault.
--Josh Marshall
Finally, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) to hit the air today about his anti-Muslim comments.
--Paul Kiel
New poll: two-thirds of registered voters got a robo call this past election.
--Paul Kiel
Missing Atrios? Here's his temporary URL until the main one gets fixed.
Late Update: He's back to his normal URL.
--Josh Marshall
Former White House national security adviser Sandy Berger gives a lesson in slapstick humor. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
Here at TPM we spent a good part of the day trying to find out where the congressional leadership in both parties and in both houses stand on President Bush's to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 30,000 to 50,000. The basic story was pretty clear: The Democrats are united against it; and the Republicans won't say one way or another. See the details here in our tally.
--Josh Marshall
A TPM Reader makes a pretty good point ...
Am I the only one who is bothered by the way the pundits continually point out that Edwards’s or Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience is a genuine weakness, while Guiliani’s lack of foreign policy experience is never mentioned? Unlike Guiliani, at least Edwards and Obama have served in a national office.
Pretty much.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader KT on our man Rudy ...
Another great line from the bio: "After surviving the fall of the Towers, Mayor Giuliani immediately began leading the recovery of his city as it faced its darkest hour." Now, I credit Rudy for his handling of this situation and I would never make light of the horror that it was to be in New York that day, especially close by in the financial district as Rudy was. But this line about his "surviving the fall of the Towers" seems designed to give the uninitiated the impression that Rudy escaped from within the Towers that day. It's another case where the truth is impressive enough, so why stretch for some Superman-like attributes?
For what it's worth, my recollection is that Rudy and maybe a small group of other city leaders like Kerik perhaps the fire chief did almost get caught in a collapsed or obstructed building shortly after the attacks. (Who can refresh my memory on this?) But, still, yeah -- 'survived'? It's a bit much.
--Josh Marshall
AP: "The Pentagon wants the White House to seek another $99.7 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to information provided to The Associated Press. The military's request, if embraced by President Bush and approved by Congress, would boost this year's budget for the wars to about $170 billion."
--Josh Marshall
Okay, the first member of the congressional leadership we've heard back from: Steny Hoyer is anti-surge.
So far we seem to be getting some pretty wishy-washy responses from members of the GOP leadership. More on that shortly.
--Josh Marshall
Feds conclude investigation of the alleged hack of Lieberman's campaign website... and find no evidence of a crime.
--Paul Kiel
Et tu, Brooke?
This is interesting. Brookings is still often considered the centrist-liberal prestige think tank in Washington. But Brookings actually played a pretty key role in building support for the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003, particularly through Brookings scholars Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon. (ed.note: Full disclosure, at the time I favorably reviewed Pollack's book and interviewed him, I believe twice, for TPM.)
Now, however, Brookings is hosting an Iraq policy briefing on possible ways forward in Iraq in which the one speaker is AEI 'scholar' Frederick Kagan, who's pushing his study Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq. Here's the blurb from the Brookings email ...
The war in Iraq has reached a critical juncture. With the mission faltering, popular and Congressional pressure on the administration to redefine US objectives and commit to reducing troop numbers in Iraq is growing. This approach has taken on added impetus with the recent release of the Baker-Hamilton report, whose suggestions parallel public opinion. In contrast, a group led by Frederick Kagan under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute has recently released a study proposing a radically new approach for stabilizing Iraq, titled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq. The report proposes shifting the focus of the American military from training Iraqi forces to securing the Iraqi population and containing the escalating violence and increasing American combat forces in Iraq by roughly 30,000 troops. The report lays out why the AEI team believes such an increase would be useful and sustainable for the American military over the long-term.Frederick Kagan, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, will present the recommendations elaborated in the AEI report and Michael O’Hanlon, Director of Research for the Brookings 21st Century Defense Initiative will provide commentary. Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research of the Saban Center at Brookings, will moderate.
The discussion will take place in the Stein Room on the second floor of the Brookings Institution at 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, December 21, 2006 from 2:00-3:30p.m. We look forward to seeing you there.
I don't know off-hand what other Iraq confabs Brookings is holding on Iraq this month. But highlighting the one truly nutball idea about what to do in Iraq -- and none of the more sane ones -- seems an odd stance for Brookings.
I also hear that this is kicking up some controversy within Brookings itself. So maybe some of the friends on the inside there can drop me a line and let me know what they're hearing.
--Josh Marshall
2008 only two years away.
Sen. Coleman is anti-surge ...
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said today after a two-day trip to Iraq that he would not support an increase in the number of soldiers in Baghdad.He said he would "stand against" any effort to send a surge of more troops to Baghdad unless there's a clear vision that it will help end sectarian violence in the city.
"I think it would create more targets. I think we would put more life at risk," he said in a phone call with reporters from Bahrain. Coleman visited Baghdad, Fallujah, Taqaddum and Talil.
A number of TPM Readers had called Coleman's office this morning, looking to find out where he stood. And they were told a statement would be forthcoming shortly.
Call your rep. or senator too.
--Josh Marshall
Never want to be a member of a group that would have me as a member?
Roll Call (sub.req.) this morning brings us the borderline parodic story of Sen. Joe Lieberman's defection from the Senate Centrist Coalition in favor of former a new bipartisan group with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) ...
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) has relinquished his position as co-chairman of the Senate Centrist Coalition, halting talks with co-chairwoman Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) over the future of the organization in favor of creating his own bipartisan group with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).Snowe, meanwhile, has begun working with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) to refashion the Centrist Coalition into a group that includes more than just ideological centrists and which they hope will appeal to Senators from all over the political spectrum.
As recently as early December, Snowe and Lieberman had said that they and their staffs were in talks over how to refashion the Centrist Coalition into a broader alliance of Republicans and Democrats who would work to end the vitriolic partisanship that has characterized Capitol Hill the past few years.
More recently, Lieberman suggested to Snowe that she work instead with Landrieu, Snowe spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier confirmed.
Lieberman spokesman Marshall Wittmann disputed the notion that Lieberman had cut off talks with Snowe about the Centrist Coalition.
“You can continue working with one group while [creating] another,” he said. However, he did confirm that Lieberman would no longer co-chair the centrist group or its new incarnation.
Lurking in the background appears to be a question of whether some senators may be put off by the word 'centrist' thus creating an inhospitable environment for conservatives. No mention of liberals, but presumably they wouldn't be comfortable either.
As for the Lieberman-Alexander group ...
While still in the preliminary stages of development, the goal for Lieberman and Alexander is to create a group of Republicans and Democrats that primarily get together to socialize. However, Wittmann said legislative issues would likely be discussed as well. They plan to call it the Bipartisan Members Group.Wittmann said the “important difference” between the two groups is that people attending the Lieberman-Alexander gathering “would not necessarily come into the group to come to agreement on issues.”
Okay then.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Goode (R-VA) channels Paul Revere: The Muslims are coming, the Muslims are coming!!!
--Josh Marshall
Another dodge from this morning's press conference, this one a more protracted performance.
Bush doesn't know or just can't remember if there's an investigation of the leak of Stephen Hadley's memo to the New York Times late last month. And really, what's the point of investigating?
--Paul Kiel
Rudy willing to go any way the wind blows?
After we posted a link to Rudy Giuliani's presidential exploratory committee website last night, a number of TPM Readers wrote in to point out what appears to be a subliminal openness to flipflopping message built in to his 'I'm a natural-born leader' website.
If you look at this clipped section here from the top of Rudy's sites, half the flags seem to be blowing in wind to the right, and the other half in wind to the left.
Rudy: Proven (***Available for Blowing with the Prevailing Wind***) Leadership.
--Josh Marshall
Kids? What kids?
Rudy's brand-new Presidential exploratory committee web site bio deep-sixes his two kids from a previous marriage.
--Greg Sargent
Another gem from the president's press conference this morning: Bush spins last week's "identity theft" immigration raids.
--Justin Rood
Yesterday, I posted a question: are congressional Republicans going to support President Bush in his plan to send a 'surge' of US troops into Baghdad?
Well, let's find out.
We're calling the Minority Leaders and Minority Whips in both houses of Congress. We'll call the Dems too. But help us. Give your member of the House and Senate a call and see what they have to say. Are they pro-surge or no? Be polite and straightforward and all that but don't settle for any mumbojumbo. Do they support adding troops to the current number in Iraq or no. If they have no position or won't tell you what it is, that's fine. That's means they have no position. Let us know what you find out and we'll report back the answers we're getting.
--Josh Marshall
One of the most telling moments from this morning's presidential press conference -- Bush's dodge on whether he'll overrule the Joint Chiefs of Staff if they oppose his plan to "surge" the troop levels in Iraq.
--Paul Kiel
I'm comin' home! A former Iraqi official jailed on corruption charges busts out of prison with the help of private contractors, then phones The Chicago Tribune to say he's coming back to Illinois. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
Can we hear more about this? From WaPo ...
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who enjoys strong credibility among Democrats and Republicans, has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to talk about restructuring Social Security, emphasizing that there are no preconceptions.
Would love to hear from some of our Hill staffer TPM Readers on this.
--Josh Marshall
In a front page story in Wednesday's Post, President Bush makes major news by moving from a completely delusional to a semi-delusional stance on the progress of the War in Iraq.
Says Bush, In Iraq, "we're not winning, we're not losing."
Bush also embraces long-standing Democratic position that the US military must be expanded.
--Josh Marshall
Top New York Republican, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, being investigated by the Feds.
--Josh Marshall
Understanding your enemy watch ...
President Bush Monday night at the White House menorah lighting: "'Terrorists’ can’t be God-believing people."
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh, the Rudy presidential exploratory committee website. Years of entertainment.
--Josh Marshall
Newsweek editor Jon Meacham responds to all the criticism of those missing Hillary poll numbers.
--Greg Sargent
A long-time TPM Reader, who's got a pretty good handle on Republican congressional politics, poses a really interesting question -- maybe the question. Let's say President Bush gives in to the urge to surge, as now seems increasingly likely. What do the Republicans on the Hill do? What do the leaders in each House do? Remember, they're the ones with the new word "minority" tacked on to the front of their titles, courtesy in large part to their previous lockstep support of Bush's debacle in Iraq. The president is, after all, the Commander-in-Chief, much as the country may now regret it. So I think he can sustain the policy in the face of Democratic opposition. But what if his own party deserts him? What do Messrs. McConnell and Boehner have to say?
--Josh Marshall
This is really a beaut. VA Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) tells his consituents that a new congressman holding his swearing in ceremony with a Koran is the first step to the USA getting overrun by Muslim hordes.
You'll wanna see this one.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader MD games out the Bush strategy ...
It hit me the other day that what the surge is going to accomplish for Bush and Cheney is to take them through these next two years. By the time they can claim to have the extra troops in Bagdhad it's gonna be May or June. They'll be there a few months till everyone has to admit that it isn't working (though in the interim I would predict the first really horrendous event in which our troops suffer a big loss, like 200 men in one blast), then it will be the end of 2007 and the argument will be about whether we should remove some of the surge troops. That will take a few months, at least, and we'll be in the throes of a presidential election. Bush won't want to do anything too "political" at that point, of course, so he'll happily leave it to the new prez to make shitcakes out of shit. And Bush and Cheney will spin it for all it's worth for the rest of their lives...
--Josh Marshall
Comedic highlight of the day: Donald Trump doing a symoblic laying on of hands to impart morality forgiveness/absolution to Miss USA pageant winner who did some underaged drinking.
Go forth and whore no more!
--Josh Marshall
From TPM Reader I ...
You are so right on about McCain's erosion of support. Two years ago I probably would have chose McCain over Kerry, had he been running. I'm a straight ticket kinda Dem so it was huge for me to come to that decision. I respected the man. I'm ex-military and so McCain's bravery and independence was absolutely appealing to me. I also appreciated his ability to work with his Democratic colleagues...he seemed a wise rebel and a real kind of patriot.No so anymore. The very last straw for me was the "agreement" on Military Tribunals that McCain tried to front end. He bailed and obviated a principled position on an issue he should have owned. Cozying up to Bush was hard enough to bear. During the last Presidential campaign, McCain looked sleazy and weak during those "man-hugs" with the President.
As 08 evolves I'll be, as you say, watching that slow disconnect and "lookin' for a leader" (props to Neil Young).
--Josh Marshall
How quickly things change ...
"Republicans do understand it is political suicide to keep this red-state, blue-state thing going any longer," said Barry Wynn, former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party and a recruit to Giuliani's banner. "We need someone competitive in all 50 states."
But, but, just those little islands of blue and so much red ...
--Josh Marshall
WaPo floats the friggin' obvious in the 'some people say' package: "Despite that lead, conservative party strategists and activists in key primary states are skeptical and warn that the socially liberal Republican faces a difficult campaign. They question whether a Republican who has had one marriage end in annulment and another in divorce, and favors abortion rights, gun control and immigrant rights, has much retail appeal in the evangelical and deeply conservative reaches of the GOP."
--Josh Marshall
Just for the sake of discussion.
Say we 'surge' up 30,000 or 50,000 troops into Baghdad. And then after 3 or 6 or 9 months, nothing has changed or, more likely, the security situation is even worse. If both those things happen, will we then be told that ramping back to the pre-surge levels is something we can't do for fear of showing weakness to the enemy or admitting defeat?
In other words, is this a surge or a ratchet?
--Josh Marshall
That should do the trick. From the AP: "The Defense Department is thinking about a major buildup of U.S. Navy forces in the Gulf as a show of force against Iran, a senior defense official said Tuesday."
--Josh Marshall
As we noted at Election Central yesterday, Newsweek's big cover story on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama mysteriously failed to contain any mention of a poll the mag had commissioned showing excellent numbers for Clinton. Rather than putting the numbers in the piece, the mag inexplicably put the poll out on the PR Newswire, ensuring that virtually all of the mag's readers wouldn't see it.
Now Camp Hillary is privately demanding an explanation from Newsweek's editors for the glaring omission.
--Greg Sargent
Sen. Johnson's (D-SD) son on his dad's recovery: ""That's the easiest question for me to answer. From my conversations with the doctors and based on the progress he has been making, I feel very confident that he is going to be getting back to work sooner rather than later."
--Josh Marshall
Little fact glossed over in the new Pentagon report about what's going on in Iraq: about 60% of the drinkable water isn't making it to the people who need to drink it.
--Josh Marshall
One of the big stories -- for those who like watching and dogging the DC press corps -- over the next two years will be watching the slow disconnect between the people the prestige DC pundits think should be the top candidates and those who are the top candidates. The numbers will arch away from the conventional wisdom. But when will disconnect become too big to ignore?
Let's start with some recent numbers.
There's some very deserved buzz about the new poll out which has Hillary over John McCain by a 50% to 43% margin.
But I want to focus not on Hillary but on McCain. Let's start with this passage from an article last week in the Washington Post, discussing their latest poll ...
McCain's favorability ratings have declined over the past nine months. Among independents, his support has dropped 15 percentage points since March. Independents were his strongest supporters when he sought the Republican nomination in 2000. The decline comes at a time when McCain is calling for sending more troops to Iraq and has aggressively reached out to conservative groups and Christian conservative leaders.
Dan Balz hits on the key points. Self-identified independents are McCain's big constituency. And his popularity in this group has dropped substantially over the last year.
Now, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. McCain's rep, from the late 90s onward has been based on three things -- a perceived stance of political independence, an embrace of a number of Democratic positions which are more popular than Republican ones (the case for most everything outside national security issues, though that's changing), and his soft-pedaling his actual hard-right positions on things like choice, etc.
For anyone who's paying attention, the independence rep is toast. He's been toadying to conservative orthodoxies for the past year. Something that makes him seem doubly non-independent and craven since it's pretty clear he's doing it just because he wants to be president. That is to say, he's not like longstanding toadies like Bill Frist and others like him. He's also embracing an extremely unpopular position on Iraq -- a war that is extremely unpopular amongst independents. And of course he's George Bush's new best friend.
The idea that John McCain is going to stay the darling of self-identified independents and centrist Democrats while acting like a partisan right-winger and supporting a deeply unpopular war reminds me of those dingbat prognosticators who argue, in so many words, that now that the GOP has the racist vote sewn up all they have to do is get the blacks too and then the Dems won't ever be able to win an election again.
People aren't that stupid.
Why do we think John McCain is going to play like he did in 2000 after he's turned himself into a gruffer version of George W. Bush?
--Josh Marshall
I've seen a number of bloggers making this point. But let me join the chorus. President Bush has for years hidden behind the fairly transparently bogus claim that decisions about troop strength and deployment will be made based on the judgment of what the military brass thinks they need. That now seems to be a dead letter, though, as the Joint Chiefs are unanimously against the White House plan to 'surge' troops in Baghdad for at least the first half of next year.
As significant as the JCS's opposition, however, is the basis of their opposition. According to the Post, they believe the White House "still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military."
I think there's a more blunt way of putting this. The administration refuses to deal with the actual sitaution in the country, the "limited alternatives." So they're pushing for more troops -- without any clear idea of what they will do, other than that more must be better than less -- because that's the easiest way to avoid dealing with what's actually happening in the country. It's a policy of denial.
--Josh Marshall
Sources: Pelosi to tap Van Hollen to succeed (sub.req.) Emanuel as DCCC Chair.
--Josh Marshall
Jack Abramoff: Lobbyist, felon, prisoner. . . lawyer? That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
As many have predicted, it now seems that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been dealt a significant reverse in elections to municipal councils across the country. The elections have no direct effect on Ahmadinejad's hold on power. But they're the first significant, electoral sign of public discontent with his policies which have been long on confrontations with the West (over nuclear weapons, the Holocaust, Israel, etc.) but short on bread and butter issues (like growing unemployment and a slumping real estate market).
Here's my question, how long before this bit of data gets run up the flag pole as a sign that Iran really is ripe for 'regime change' after all? Just ripe for the plucking, in Cheney's words, as we heard earlier in this decade. And why sit down and talk with these jokers about the situation in Iraq when there's going to be a revolution there pretty soon anyway?
(ed.note: The