December 07, 2005

12/7: Not Confused, Just Well Mixed

Iraq is at the center of nearly every controversy and conversation related in this edition. It's the primary cause of both Pres. Bush's low approval ratings and the Dems' current disarray. Iraq is a major component of the long-running "torture" debate, and without it there would be no Plamegate. It's back to being a a bit of a slow week again for political blogging; most of it focuses on the Dems' Iraq dilemma and the controversy surrounding Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT). The other big topic concerns U.S. detainee policy and human rights abuses, a conversation given currency by European leaders' differences with traveling Sec/State Condoleezza Rice.

DEMOCRATS: The Answer May Be Blowing In The Wind, But The Answer Is Not To Blow In The Wind ...

Washington Post reports, "Strong antiwar comments" from House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi and DNC chair Howard Dean "have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year."

Suburban Guerilla's Susie Madrak points out that public opinion is not behind the war, so it makes little sense to stand with Bush: "I didn't think it was possible for the Democrats to lose next year's Congressional mid-term election, but I'm having a lot of second thoughts." Just a Bump in the Beltway concurs: "This is a Dem deathwish. 60% of the public thinks that the war is a "mistake" and they are running in the opposite direction? Way to read the wind, Dems, you idiots." Publius at Legal Fiction writes, "the domestic politics of Iraq" are enough to drive someone "insane." Though "Dean was clearly right" in his comments, the problem is that if Dems "become associated with the idea of defeat, it's going to be another long, cold November night next year. Statements like Dean's just don't help, politically speaking. In fact, they're pretty dumb."

Worldwide Standard's Dan McKivergan mourns the apparent demise of hawkish Dems: "While they may dress their rhetoric up a bit to sound less Howard Dean-like, most of the 'Blair Democrats' are fast becoming 'Dean Democrats,' putting an exit strategy ahead of a victory strategy." Balloon Juice: "With each new excuse, my assessment of the majority of Democrats decreases, and my opinions of the true anti-war left (see Kucinich, Dennis) increases. They at least believe in something, as wrong as I think their position might be." New York Post's Robert George, at Ragged Thots: "If Bush & Co. have been willing to take on a clear military hero like John Murtha over the issue of withdrawal, ya think Dean and Pelosi have the White House quaking in fear?"

LIEBERMAN: Joe Says It's So, And Underlines It For You Just In Case You Missed It

Sen. Lieberman made news again last p.m., calling on Bush to form a "war cabinet," and saying: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril." Conservatives are still happy to have him on board; most liberals are now past fed up with him.

Conservative Decision '08 urges Lieberman to "get over it and switch parties already!" He adds: "You know, it's good to see many Democrats of high visibility being more vocal in support of the war -- kudos to Lieberman, Obama, and Clinton..." PoliPundit's Alexander McClure, on a possible Weicker run: "If anything," a Weicker candidacy would "pretty much guarantee that the Republicans in Connecticut will vote for the Democratic Senator in roughly the same proportion that Democrats in Connecticut will vote for the incumbent Republican Governor."

The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman summarizes the partisan perspectives as "some Democrats: Lieberman is a traitor for supporting the war; some Republicans: Lieberman is the only sincere and motivated-by-patriotism Democrat in office."

Oliver Willis rejects Lieberman's admonition not to criticize the war: "It's one thing to be George W. Bush's sock puppet while angling for a cabinet job, but Lieberman has now aligned himself with the fascistic elements of the right." Markos Moulitsas: "Funny thing is that he thinks he's helping Israel out by supporting this "transformation" in the Middle East, when all this war did was replace a secular dictator with an Iran-style Islamic regime and Iranian ally." He updated a bit later to clarify he meant nothing controversial: "I think most rational people wish the Israeli people the best -- peace and prosperity. Same for the Palestinians."

Matt Stoller at MyDD: "I hope someone steps forward (Weicker would have to be on the Democratic ticket for this strategy to work); this is the time for one of those people in the machine with integrity and ambition to come out and test the waters. Lieberman is not well-liked, and he can be beaten in a low turnout nasty primary that centers on Bush." AMERICAblog: "Joe Lieberman needs to get the hell out of our party. I don't know if he thinks he's running for president or what, but it better be as a Republican, because if he dares run as a Democrat, he's toast."

CLINTON: Well, She Was A Republican At One Time ...

Unlike Lieberman so far, Sen. Clinton faces actual opponents in her NY SEN primary. Unlike Lieberman, she is not perceived as vulnerable, which may explain why there is less buzz around her. But buzz there is, on the left and right.

Liberal Pam Spaulding at Pandagon: "Hillary, like her colleague on the other side of the aisle, the Bush-humping, AZ marriage amendment-supporting John McCain, will do whatever it takes to try to bring that public image to the perceived center. The error is they choose to kowtow to the lowest common denominator -- the 35% or so of wingnut sheeple that are probably not going to vote for either of them anyway. ... Bill gave us Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA, and even told Kerry to toss gays overboard to get the win in 2004. When we compromise and bite the bullet for the centrist Dems that curry favor with the Right Wing, progressives get a condescending pat on the head and a lecture to be quiet." AlterNet's Don Hazen: "Hillary has a lot of New Yorkers scratching their heads ... and some are beginning to wonder if the activist [Jonathan] Tasini's quixotic run against her in 2006 [see 12/5 Blogometer] will increasingly pick up steam, if this is what Hillary is all about."

Conservative Vodkapundit's Stephen Green comments on the left's opposition to HRC, and also makes a reference to WJC: "If Hillary 'suffers' enough from these people, she'll finally get her 'Sister Souljah moment.' If not, she'll keep angling until she does. ... My anti-Hillary credentials are as solid as anybody's. But the Democrats need a viable hawk in 2008, a definition which probably excludes Joe Lieberman, I'm sorry to say. If Hillary is faking it, I don't care - not so long as she'd govern like a hawk." JunkYardBlog: "So US troops are terrorizing women and children in the dead of night now? Well, federal agents did terrorize a little Cuban boy on Clinton's orders a few years back, but that's a different thing."

RICE: State Department's European Vacation

Sec/State Rice has been running into skepticism with European leaders re: torture, and bloggers have noticed. Most here are left-leaning blogs, who note the spate of news reports with a told-you-so weariness.

Political Animal: "Rice has assured European audiences that the United State does not tolerate torture, but for some reason they don't believe her. That's astonishing. I wonder why not?" The Next Hurrah: "Apparently, we're not the only ones who have had it with outright lies and deceptions from this Administration." Demagogue: "The Dutch government has been one of Dubya's staunchest supporters in the Iraq adventure, but Foreign Minister Ben Bot has shown a disturbing independence of thought on the subject. Now he doesn't seem willing to take Dr. Rice's word for it that the U.S. doesn't torture prisoners in Europe."

On a related note, New York Times reports the ACLU is suing the CIA on behalf of Khaled al Masri, a German citizen wrongly imprisoned and subjected to "rendition" in a CIA prison. Crooks and Liars has video of MSNBC's report on the suit. Stop The ACLU asks: "In a time of war, how can a foreigner be represented by the American Civil Liberties Union? Shouldn't this incident be worked out between the American and German governments first? And its more than a mistake the ACLU are going after, they are going after the entire practice of secret prisons." American Prospect's Laura Rozen: "It would be a beautiful thing for there to be a debate between Dr. Condoleezza "We do not condone torture" Rice and Mr. al-Masri about how much the US condones torture. Someone could tell her to stuff it in her Ferragamo shoes. ... Is Rice denying Masri was tortured? Not that I've heard. She's just admitting snatching and torturing him was a mistake because he had the same name as the guy the US meant to snatch and torture."

TORTURE: But It's For A Good Cause!

A new AP poll released 12/6 finds majorities in the U.S., UK, France and South Korea "say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances." It's a surprising result for most; so far at least, it's not a topic the left has picked up.

The Jawa Report: "This is surprising. AP comes right out in their lead with the real point of the poll, fudging only a little bit, implying that 'rarely' is the most popular answer. Actually, the poll shows that 38% of Americans would allow torture 'often' or 'sometimes,' with 23% saying 'rarely.'" CNN used a different AP story with a different emphasis, heading it "U.S. allies oppose interrogations." TJR adds: "Typically, CNN obscures the most significant poll results by looking for an anti-American angle." Blogs for Bush's Mark Noonan: "This does not mean that people want torture to happen," but: "I think, on balance, that we'd all rather risk having the wrong guy roughed up from time to time rather than have the right guy sit there smilingly silent while the bomb goes off on the school bus."

Instapundit: "I suspect that the over-the-top hysteria of some torture opponents, equating things like fake menstrual blood and wrapping people in the Israeli flag with torture, is actually creating a backlash." Lorie Byrd adds: "I wonder how some of those answering the poll define torture. If their definition includes things like sleep deprivation, they would be more likely to think torture sometimes justified than if their definition only consisted of the infliction of intense pain. But who knows, maybe it is the '24' Jack Bauer effect. I wonder how many of the countries surveyed air '24.'"

Liberty Street: "It's too bad that we can't take a retroactive poll on how many Americans thought torture could be justified if there was "a good reason" before George W. Bush popularized the idea."

IRAQ: Get Out While The Getting's Good?

Liberal Steve Gilliard was impressed with ex-CIA agent Robert Baer's pessimistic take on Iraq, as delivered in his appearance on last p.m.'s "Hardball": "Basically, he said, the next president of Iraq was going to be fundamentalist favorite Moqtada Sadr. Which means he's got all the smart money on him. Why victory is impossible in Iraq?" Gilliard lists 4 reasons: "There is no government"; Iraqis "They tell us what we want to hear"; "We haven't got enough troops and the clock is running"; "The resistance is larger than we think." Gilliard: "The only victory possible in Iraq is an honorable exit after negotiating with the new Shia overlords. As far as influencing Iraq or 'finishing the job,' that's way off the table."

Conservative Jon Henke studies the exit strategy remarks of 4 foreign policy experts in a CFR symposium. All plans share at least these 4 points in common: "Train Iraqi security forces"; "Give the Iraqis time and space to establish democratic institutions"; "Reassure the US and Iraqi public about US goals, intentions and progress"; "Withdraw US troops at a slow to moderate pace." Henke: "Excepting perhaps the Murtha plan, there's really not an awful lot of daylight between many of the strategies being put forth by supporters and critics of the war."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: He's No Conservative!

Philly Inquirer/KRT's Hutcheson reports that the Bush admin. is objecting to the descriptor "conservative" for SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito. In one passage, Asst. AG Rachel Brand "rejected the conservative label for Alito," saying: "The term conservative means different things to different people. A judge is supposed to apply the law, not make it." The story hasn't reached critical mass yet, but expect it to pick up later today. Left-leaning Political Briefs: "This is laughable. Would the Bush Administration have nominated anyone other than a conservative? And why are they so embarrassed by the label 'conservative'?" Daily Kos' Armando: "Shouldn't they be screaming about this on the Right?"

Via an apparently-removed post from Daily Kos, Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft points out that Alito's father was probably not an Italian immigrant, which Alito backers have claimed. The evidence is the U.S. Army's free, searchable online records: "Go here and type in serial number 32186682. It appears that Sam Alito enlisted on 3/14/41 as a private. He was born in New Jersey in 1914. At the time of his enlistment, he was single and a teacher."

BUSH: The "Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up" Bounce?

In recent days, bloggers including Tom Maguire and Mickey Kaus have been noticing a small turnaround for Bush in the Rasmussen robo-polls. == Now Mystery Pollster Mark Blumenthal has looked at it closely, and still he "can only speculate about why Rasmussen always seems to show Bush doing consistently better than other pollsters and whether other pollsters will confirm the upward trend in the coming weeks." He mentions he's sent a note to Scott Rasmussen, and will report what he can. == Political Arithmetik's Charles Franklin adds: "Approval of President Bush may have taken an upturn in the wake of his Veteran's Day defense of the Iraq war and renewed White House emphasis on responding to critics of the war. However, the upturn is not yet statistically significant, leaving some doubt based on the seven polls currently available since Veterans Day."

KERRY: Swift Enough On The Pushback?

Rush Limbaugh mentioned it during his 12/6 radio show, and posted a transcript of his commentary to his website. Like the pro-war bloggers mentioned in our 12/6 edition, Limbaugh complains that Kerry has called U.S. troops "terrorists." The Democratic Daily: "As anyone who has any understanding of the English language would realize, saying it would be terrorizing to kids to have American soldiers come into their home at night is both true and in no way calling the soldiers terrorists. 'Terrorizing' and 'terrorists' are very similar words, but do not necessarily mean the same thing. The context makes the distinction quite clear." AMERICAblog's John Aravosis agrees, and suggests that Kerry seek a libel charge against Limbaugh: "John Kerry is a public figure, but if Limbaugh knows that what he's saying is factually wrong, he's liable for what he says to the tune of millions."

CALIFORNIA CABLE: Reality Check For The Tancredo Crowd?

The special election for the CA 48 seat, vacated by now SEC chair Chris Cox, was held on 12/6. Rep.-elect John Campbell easily retained the seat for the GOP, despite the presence of Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist, who ran on an anti-illegal immigrant platform, and who might have aided Dem Steve Young.

Hugh Hewitt congratulates Campbell: "Despite massive media attention and around-the-clock boosterism from local radio flaks and know-nothings John & Ken, the candidacy of anti-illegal immigration single issue candidate Jim Gilchrist could only muster 23,237 votes." He adds: "GOP incumbents will study these results very closely and recognize that while there is a 5-to-10% that must be reassured on the security of the border, there is no national tide running that demands an exclusve and relentless focus on illegal immigration." Swing State Project's DavidNYC: "Alas, it didn't happen. Whereas I had hoped that Gilchrist would pull votes only from Campbell, he appears to have pulled them from Young, too. ... I'll let the spinmeisters take it from here." On 9/29, Townhall's Tim Chapman interviewed Campbell; this a.m. he reposted the interview.

PLAMEGATE: Parts Included, Some Sembler Required

Josh Marshall points out that the "Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund is being headed up by none other than Mel Sembler, the Cheney-fan and the big-ticket GOP fundraiser from Florida who was the US Ambassador to Italy when all the secret meetings took place" re: the forged uranium documents. Although he knows of no bad acts by Sembler during that time, it still seems to Marshall "like a pretty big part of this story to be collecting money for the one person under indictment for their role in it."

LANDSCAPE: The Goldwater-Ticker And The Super-Watergate

Over the last weekend, liberal journalist Rick Perlstein, popular with many lefty bloggers, participated in a conservative conf. at Princeton. He has now posted a transcript of his remarks at Huffington Post. In the speech he argued that GOPers today are less the party of Goldwater (whom Perlstein wrote a book about) and more the party of Watergate. Liberal Ezra Klein agrees, except he things the GOP is more "like Nixon, who ended up obsessed with neither ideology nor outcomes, but simple power. Today's conservative movement, by virtue of its success, is obsessed with perpetuating Republican dominance." Perlstein also quotes Hullabaloo's Digby saying: "'Conservative' is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals." Andrew Sullivan -- himself ostracized by many on the right -- concurs: "I think that just about sums up our current situation." In the speech, Perlstein asks where the principled conservatives have gone. Orrin Judd, a conservative but not a Bush fan, replies: "As a matter of fact, there are rather few people of principle and the ones who pretend to be are pretty useless to a political movement. A principled conservative would be obligated to sit by and watch everything he supposedly wants to conserve be destroyed because the exercise of power to save it requires pragmatic compromise. That's why the Right hated Reagan while he was in office and hates W now."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Blogger Defending The MSM? If You Say So!

Building on an argument at TNR's The Plank and disagreeing with Atrios, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum defends the MSM from the blogosphere: "The things we choose to emphasize are often a reliable guide to what we think, and even if we don't always set those thoughts down directly on the page, they nonetheless expose our real motivations. ... It's not that pointing out the shortcomings of the MSM is out of bounds. Far from it. But when blog coverage of the MSM focuses solely on its shortcomings -- as it generally does -- surely it's safe to conclude that the blogosphere is not just practicing its own version of toughlove on a beloved but wayward institution. Rather, the blogosphere hates the MSM with a white hot passion. And that's long been my problem with what passes for media criticism in the blogosphere: it consists solely of scathing critiques and just about nothing else." He concludes, while the MSM deserves its criticism, so too does it "deserve equally sustained praise for the stuff they do well. It wouldn't hurt to combine a bit more of the carrot with the everpresent stick."

LEST WE FORGET: iRegrets

At his ABC News blog Down And Dirty, Jake Tapper writes: "So watched the premiere of LOST on my new video iPod last night on the flight down here. Not the smartest thing I've ever done. ... You know how airline officials have all plane crash references edited out of in-flight movies? There's a pretty good reason for that."

Posted by at December 7, 2005 12:19 PM