. | ||||||||||||||
. |
advanced search
Contribute to TPM through AMAZON or PAYPAL. Or find out about becoming a TPM PATRON.
The TPM Book List
TPM-Approved Sites
Kausfiles | Bull Moose |
Slate | Salon | The New Republic | Washington Monthly
|
. | . | . |
(March 30th, 2002 -- 1:51 PM EST // link) A TPM reader (TW) writes in with a thoughtful critique of the article about Israel, Iraq & the United States I wrote yesterday in Salon. He says I miss the point in criticizing the Bush administration's muscling of Iraq. If, as a result of our muscling, the other Arab states get together with Iraq and get the Iraqis to behave, that isn't a failure of US policy, but rather a success. I couldn't agree more. For some time I've been skeptical of the criticism of the Bush policy on Iraq, even as I myself am critical of it. What if, at the end of the day, Bush's belligerence got the Iraqis to readmit weapons inspectors, perhaps with a brief even more robust than their previous one? Who could say the president's bluster wasn't successful? Where would that leave the critics? Or what if it spurred a change of regime in Baghdad? That's something I see as far less likely. But what if ...? Here is why I think what happened in Beirut a couple days ago doesn't fall into that category. The Iraqis put little or nothing on the table in terms of complying with international resolutions -- as this article in the Times makes clear. Yet they have gotten the other Arab states to place themselves on the side of defending, rather than attacking the Iraqis. At least for now. The error here -- as I see it -- is that the administration really wasn't pursuing a bluster strategy. It was pursuing a military strategy. Or at least it's focus was so solely on a military strategy that it undermined the bluster strategy. Rather than moving deftly and making the Iraqis worry that we might be successful in isolating them, the administration moved cavalierly and got the Arab states to preempt us. The potency of our bluster is now rather diminished. As is our ability to use threats to get the weapons inspectors back in. At least that's how it seems right now. If your response is to tell me that our strategy has always been military and that that's exactly how it should be, well ... that's fine. But how does our military position look to you now? Under the influence of Brooks and other conservative worthies, the president is trying to shape himself in the TR mold. And the White House has thought it was talking loudly and carrying a big stick. For the moment though I think we've been revealed to be all talk and no stick. And a bit foolhardy to boot.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 30th, 2002 -- 4:11 AM EST // link) A month and a half ago I razzed Newsweek's Howard Fineman about a comically fawning article he wrote about George W. Bush and the war on terrorism ... He’s the Texas Ranger of the World, and wants everyone to know it. He’s the guy with the silver badge, issuing warnings to the cattle rustlers. He will cut deals when necessary — his history shows that — but, as a matter of inclination and strategy, he’s the toughest talker on his team. The article appeared at the MSNBC/Newsweek website. But now it's no longer online and there's no record of it on the Nexis database. What gives? Why is this gem down the memory hole?
-- Josh Marshall
(March 29th, 2002 -- 10:25 AM EST // link) Can't wait to read Josh Green's article on the Bush polling operation? Your wait is over! Here it is.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 27th, 2002 -- 11:04 PM EST // link) As I once noted in the context of the bogus White House vandalism story, the stories that really get traction aren't so much the ones that are true as they are the ones that resonate with journalists' preexisting prejudices and assumptions. Case in point: Bush and polling. The reigning assumption in DC is that Bush makes little use of pollsters or doesn't pay much attention to them if he does. Even many reporters think the president's pollster is Matthew Dowd. None of these points turns out to be true. But until now no one took the time to ask the obvious question: who's the president's pollster? No one, that is, until Josh Green -- esteemed TPM associate -- decided to take up the challenge. As Josh discovered, Bush's pollster is a guy named Jan van Lohuizen. Bush and Rove hooked up with him back in 1991 when Rove hired him to work on a campaign to raise the local sales tax in Arlington, Texas, to help pay for a new baseball stadium for Bush's team, the Texas Rangers. Here's one fun snippet from his soon-to-be-published article in the Washington Monthly ... Like previous presidential pollsters, van Lohuizen also serves corporate clients, including Wal-Mart, Qwest, Anheuser-Busch, and Microsoft. And like his predecessors, this presents potential conflicts of interest. For example, van Lohuizen polls for Americans for Technology Leadership, a Microsoft-backed advocacy group that commissioned a van Lohuizen poll last July purporting to show strong public support for ending the government's suit against the company. At the time, Bush's Justice Department was deciding to do just that. Clinton pollster Mark Penn also did work for Microsoft and Clinton took heat for it. Bush has avoided criticism because few people realize he even has a pollster. The White House has gone to great lengths to keep its polling operation and its pollster under wraps. And pretty much everybody in the DC press corps decided this was cool by them. Of course, the fact that Bill Clinton's pollsters got so much more attention might have something to do with the fact that his post-1994 pollsters (Greenberg's cool by me) were both fabulously cartoonish blowhards. But let's not make this post more complicated than it needs to be. I'll be linking to the story tomorrow.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 27th, 2002 -- 10:44 PM EST // link) Ralph Nader has a new book out on his 2000 presidential bid, Crashing the Party. Here's my review of it in the new issue of the Washington Monthly. Here's a snippet from the review: The mood of the book is unmistakably "onward and upward with activism." And, for those inclined to be thus inspired, that mood will likely prove inspiring. For others not under the spell, however, the mix of cliché, nostalgia, and reunion will likely have a quite different effect. For them, much of the book, particularly the first half, will have the feel and cadence of one of those early '80s TV movies where the cast of some '60s-era sitcom reassembles for one last adventure. Picture a graying Gilligan flying from city to city pitching the professor, Mary Ann, and other worthies on some quixotic quest to save the Island.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 27th, 2002 -- 1:42 PM EST // link) More on going-ons in Taiwan, Hong Kong and other places. As we reported last night, there is a major scandal brewing in Taiwan, which will almost certainly lead to at least some embarrassment for various political officials in the United States. But there's also more here than meets the eye. Is some of this being ginned up by pro-Beijing forces in Hong Kong in order to embarrass the Bush administration for its extremely supportive stance toward Taiwan? More on that later.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 27th, 2002 -- 2:15 AM EST // link) So back to the burgeoning scandal in Taiwan and how it might make it to Washington, DC. At this point the details remain murky. But here's some of what's been reported. According to reports in Hong Kong's Sing Tao Daily and the South China Morning Post, three years ago James Kelly -- now Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific -- helped high-ranking members of the Taiwanese government use secret slush fund money to take care of a friendly Japanese politician, Masahiro Akiyama, after he had been forced to resign from the government. Akiyama had helped Taiwan leverage its way into a proposed US Theater Missile Defense. (This article in Singapore's Straits Times says the Taiwanese also paid off Masahiro and then-Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto for their assistance helping Taiwan on Missile Defense.) What's being alleged about Kelly is very specific. So I'm just going to quote at length from the relevant passage in the article in today's South China Morning Post: The documents said Mr Lee [former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui] in February 1999 authorised the NSB [the National Security Bureau] to pay US$100,000 (HK$780,000) to the Pacific Forum at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think-tank with close ties to the US military establishment, to support former Japanese vice-minister for defence Masahiro Akiyama's two-year study at Harvard University after his forced resignation in October 1998 in a defence contracting scandal. Mr Kelly was then Pacific Forum president.More to come...
-- Josh Marshall
(March 26th, 2002 -- 9:33 PM EST // link) Taiwan is being rocked by a big-time slush fund scandal. Is the scandal about to hit the Bush administration too? For the last week or more, Taiwan has been in the throes of the early stages of a major, perhaps a watershed, political scandal. Here's the essence of it: the Taiwanese government had a slush fund -- operated through part of the state security apparatus -- which the Taiwanese leadership used to pay off, support, and assist friends and allies in other countries who were friendly to Taiwan. Oh, and also for overseas lobbying and espionage. The existence of these funds is hardly a surprise to those familiar with Taiwanese politics. But last week a collection of documents relating to the slush fund were leaked to the Taiwan press. And that's when, well ... that's when the you-know-what hit the fan. The government of President Chen Shui-bian reacted by seizing copies of one magazine which was publishing the documents and banning the publication of a newspaper which reported the story. Protecting national security has been the justification for these actions. And charges of treason are even a possibility. All of this may be only a matter of passing concern unless you're a devotee of Taiwanese politics. But the scandal is now spilling over onto several senior political appointees in the Bush administration. And, truth be told, it could reach quite a bit further into the American political system. The Bush administration connection coming later tonight ...
-- Josh Marshall
(March 26th, 2002 -- 11:33 AM EST // link) There's a serious political scandal brewing in Taiwan centering on illegal slush funds used to lobby and patronize political figures in and outside of Taiwan. And the South China Morning Post (the major English language daily in Hong Kong) is apparently set to publish an article (likely tomorrow, which means later today in North America) tying a senior political appointee at the US State Department to the scandal.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 26th, 2002 -- 12:20 AM EST // link) We've been sitting for a couple weeks on our latest addition to the TPM Document Collection. So let me just introduce it now, though only with a minimal introduction. The new dossier is our first installment of the foreign agent's registration for Richard Schechter and Wyatt Stewart on behalf of Bogoljub Karic and the Karic companies. Karic was a big-time crony of Slobodan Milosevic who made billions of dollars in the uneven, jagged privatization of the Yugoslav economy. This filing illustrates an extremely common practice in the foreign agency game: foreign leaders who don't want to hire DC representation themselves will often get a businessman crony to do it for them. In this case what Karic et al. wanted was very clear: they were trying to get sanctions lifted. Schechter is a lawyer and apparently something of a real estate developer. Stewart, meanwhile was pretty clearly brought on board because of the juice he had with Republican heavies in Washington, DC. Stewart is a storied DC Republican political operative who was with the National Republican Congressional Committee back into the mid-1970s. Here's Republican uber-insider Rich Galen calling Stewart the man "whom Washington insiders know as the man who, for all intents and purposes, invented the use of direct mail in politics." I'm still working over these documents to get a handle on precisely what was going on. But the basic outline is pretty clear. Schechter and Stewart were trying to work the Contract-With-America-era Republican power structure to make the Yugoslav sanctions into a partisan issue and hopefully get them lifted. Here you can see how one part of the deal was that Schechter was supposed to set up a front group called the "International Committee for Peace in the Balkans" in Washington, DC. Here you can see how he's supposed to hook Karic up with Ted Turner and Larry King. Here you can see how Schechter was trying to pitch Karic on some hot real estate properties in Texas. And, finally, here you can see how Schechter and Stewart were trying to convince Karic that their "very substantial relationships with the large fruit companies active in South America" could help him set up some other lucrative venture. (Sort of sounds like a set-piece for a lefty college course on Latin America, doesn't it?)
-- Josh Marshall
(March 25th, 2002 -- 11:07 PM EST // link) We've talked a lot about Tom White in recent weeks. White, of course, is the former career army officer and former Enron Energy Services vice chairman who now serves as Secretary of the Army. What I didn't know, though, is that White is also the "interim executive agent for homeland security." In other words, he's the guy at the Pentagon in charge of protecting the mainland until they devise a new appointive position and/or military command to oversee the task. Also on the Tom White front, you'll remember that a couple weeks ago we reported that Public Citizen was preparing to unleash a report on White's service at Enron Energy Services. They were telling folks that the report would cost White his job. "A bombshell" was how one person familiar with the report described it to me. A week later we reported that the Public Citizen report was focused on the company's role in fomenting or exacerbating last year's California energy crisis. So where's the report? Good question! I've been keeping tabs on this and the word has been that they're taking their time letting the lawyers go over the report with a fine-tooth comb to make sure that everything is kosher. But it's been a while now and you start to wonder. Maybe White dodges this bullet? Is there some problem with the report? What's the hold up exactly?
-- Josh Marshall
(March 25th, 2002 -- 6:18 PM EST // link) I've gotten an amazing amount of feedback about my series of posts on dual-citizenship. I'll try to address the various points in a series of posts. The first question to tackle is whether what we're talking about is principally an issue of 'loyalty.' I don't think it is. Unlike many conservatives I'm not worried that today's immigrants are essentially different from those of 25, 50, or 100 years ago in their basic desire to become Americans and assimilate. We could dredge up the silly and well-worn question of whether Mexican-Americans would choose Mexico or America if the two countries went to war, or whether American Jews would fight for Israel or America, or Irish-Americans for Ireland or America. But I find these scenarios as irrelevant as they are improbable. (I'm not saying it's never an issue, just not the most important one.) We've had a long national debate over whether it's a good thing that "ethnic" Americans (if we can use that deeply problematic phrase) maintain deep social and cultural attachments to their native countries. I think it's just fine. In fact, I think it's a very good thing, a very American thing. But it's a different issue than the question of citizenship. Many of the responses I've gotten have raised very good points. But what strikes me about most of the ones that disagree with me is that their authors have a quite thin and what seems to me impoverished idea of citizenship. I've received a number of emails from dual citizens who have the status because of a foreign-born parent or spouse or some similar reason. And from many of these folks the response is something like this: 'I'm an American citizen but I've also got this French or German or Sudanese citizenship sort of in my back pocket, as it were. Why is it such a big deal?' In a sense I suppose it's not a very big deal. But doesn't this trivialize what it should mean to be a citizen of one of those countries? It's sounds less like a civic, national identity than a sort of heritage knickknack or heirloom. Citizenship isn't just about having a standing right of residency or something you have because you have some attachment or family connection to a particular country. I think it's something more than that -- particularly in the context of American citizenship. Let me try to sketch out my idea of citizenship. I see the American national community as a sort of club. A very large one, yes. A very diverse one. And one in which we'll only ever meet a very small fraction of the members. But a club nonetheless. It trivializes what this means to reduce it to questions of which side would you fight on if the two countries went to war. Or sneering questions about loyalty and disloyalty. The basis of the club and our membership in it is our fundamental equality. And the essence of that equality, as I see it, is that we've all thrown in our lots together. Some of us who were born here do it implicitly others who are newcomers did explicitly. But we've all committed ourselves to this group, this enterprise, this club, this nation. If some of us are American citizens and others of us are citizens of this and another country then we're not quite equal anymore. The basis of our equality and citizenship is challenged. More on the dual citizenship question in a bit, and also dual-citizenship in the context of 9/11 and globalization.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 24th, 2002 -- 8:11 PM EST // link) The Florida AFL-CIO's endorsement of Bill McBride should give pause to anyone who thinks Janet Reno is going to be the Democratic nominee to face Jeb Bush. The question is why McBride, a relative unknown, would get the nod over Reno. Is it because they think she can't win?
-- Josh Marshall
(March 24th, 2002 -- 3:50 AM EST // link) I'm glad to see that my earlier post on dual citizenship has sparked a lot of responses on various sites and in a number of emails. Let me elaborate on a few points. There are a number of people who believe that dual-citizens are so many potential fifth columnists, or that the current existence of many dual-citizens presents some real and present danger to our national fabric. I don't think either of these is true. Another point. A number of people write in to say that this is largely an enforcement issue and that it's unenforceable. The point being that the United States can't dictate to France or Israel or Mexico or any other country who they do or do not consider to be their citizens. This is true of course. But I think it's beside the point, because we do have quite a bit of control over and say about American citizens who either claim a second citizenship or, more importantly, exercise citizenship rights in another country. (I seem to remember once being told that the old Soviet Union deemed its own citizenship to be un-alienable. Once a Soviet citizen, always a Soviet citizen. But again, who cares?) Other countries can say whatever they want. The issue is what American citizens do. One reader from the British Isles writes in to say that my sense of citizenship as unitary is a uniquely -- and perhaps revealingly -- American understanding of what citizenship is. I think is true. And actually that's part of the point. More on this tomorrow.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 23rd, 2002 -- 5:44 PM EST // link) I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to start a support group for progressives (or center-left types) who really believe in reining in the role of money in politics and also really believe that part of the current bill may be bad policy and unconstitutional. It's no fun believing something on principle and finding yourself standing together with a bunch of wretches who merely believe in protecting the power of organized wealth to beat back popular and necessary reforms. But what are you gonna do? I'm speaking of course about the part of the soon-to-be-law which places limits on advertising by independent issue advocacy groups in the lead-up to elections. We'll be saying more about this soon and also getting into the reluctant but growing reservations I have about the campaign finance laws we already have. For the moment though let me touch on another point. Why is Ken Starr the lead attorney for the legal challenge to McCain-Feingold? For my part, I believe that Starr's ethical standing and integrity are deeply compromised by a host of things he did while he was Independent Counsel in the Whitewater investigation. Of course I'm not a neutral observer and I have strongly held views on the matter. But let's assume that you don't believe as I do. Still, why is he the lead attorney? You don't have to believe that Starr did anything wrong as IC to recognize the unavoidable truth that he has become a deeply polarizing figure with a very high partisan profile. Fair or not, it's just a fact. Doesn't selecting him to head up the legal team saddle the constitutional question with all of Starr's baggage and give the legal battle an even more partisan (in the worst sense of the word) color than it already does and inevitably will? The decision is even more puzzling when you figure that Starr doesn't even seem particularly well qualified for the job. Starr is, as far as I knew, an appellate lawyer, not a first amendment expert -- as many of the other members of the team are. That doesn't mean his expertise is deficient, per se. But it certainly rules out any thought that his qualifications somehow trump his too-apparent liabilities. It seems to me that Mitch McConnell has done everyone a great disservice with this pick. Why he's done so, I'm really not sure.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 23rd, 2002 -- 11:15 AM EST // link) For some reason I hadn't heard of Joe Klein's new book The Natural until now. It's apparently Klein's non-fictional attempt to take stock of, evaluate, and place into historical context the Clinton presidency. I'm going to run out and get it. And from the descriptions I've now read I'd recommend it to you as well. (I'm not recommending it per se, mind you. Or endorsing what it says. How could I? I haven't even read it yet. But I'm sure it'll be an interesting read.) I've always had deeply conflicted opinions about Klein, particularly in his middle-1990s anti-Clinton phase. One of the first non-academic articles I ever wrote when I was trying to transition into political writing, circa 96-97, was a critique of Klein and several others I grouped with him. (The piece never even got submitted for publication, let alone appeared in print -- a long story.) But his long interview-based article in the New Yorker in 2000 turned a refreshingly new page on his decade long engagement with Clinton. According to a post today on Kausfiles, Klein says he wrote this book partly because "it has become too fashionable to flatly reject Clinton as a kind of bad dream." It pains me to admit the degree to which this is true. But it hasn't made me lose too much sleep or faith. I'm quite confident that the Clinton presidency will stand the test of time, media scrutiny and historical scrutiny. (Most media scrutiny and contemporary pundit-comment is ungrounded and shallow anyway.) And the current presidency, whatever its advocates and opponents may say, seems unlikely to me to efface many of the previous president's accomplishments.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 23rd, 2002 -- 1:08 AM EST // link) I don't want to flog a dead horse here, of course. Or mercilessly whack an unacknowledged error. But one more point on the Lieberman-Enron-American Prospect micro-scandal. We've noted that it is quite legitimate to say that contributor X gave money to candidate Y if contributor X gave money to contributor Y's 'leadership PAC.' And what, again, is a 'leadership PAC'? It's basically a modern, campaign finance law approved, patronage engine. Big pols get money on their own name and then dole it out to other pols -- primarily smaller fry -- to get various chits, gratitutde, and other favors. Here's an example: Joe Lieberman's leadership PAC, Responsibility Opportunity Community PAC, aka ROC PAC. I looked at the list of individual and PAC givers to ROC PAC at the the FEC website. And there's no Enron, though the Arthur Andersen PAC did give ROC PAC $5000. Saying money to ROC PAC is money to Joe Lieberman? Accurate and totally fair. Saying money to the NDN is money to Joe Lieberman? False and unfair.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 22nd, 2002 -- 1:05 AM EST // link) I spoke briefly to one of the children of light at the American Prospect today and this person informs me that, notwithstanding yesterday's post, the Prospect still believes it's right in claiming that money given to the New Democrat Network, an organization Joe Lieberman co-founded with two others six years ago, actually counts as money given directly to Joe Lieberman. Apparently the whole "current leader" bit isn't the point. It's that he was a co-founder of the organization. As we noted yesterday, this logic would be valid if the NDN were a 'leadership PAC' or a PAC run by or on behalf of Joe Lieberman. (An example of this might be John McCain's Straight Talk America PAC). But neither seems to be the case. My understanding is that NDN is more like a New Dem version of Emily's List, with money going to striving or sad-sack New Dems in the marginal districts they inhabit around the country. Simon Rosenberg is the President of NDN. So perhaps he could tell us whether NDN functions as the equivalent of Lieberman's leadership PAC. According to TAP, however, this sort of counting is just standard practice is campaign finance reform circles. I don't think that's true, though. I think this is at best a distortion of the normal practice of tabulating campaign contributions. Or if it is standard procedure, then perhaps Enron economics is more widespread than I thought.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 21st, 2002 -- 7:59 PM EST // link) I just noticed this article in National Review Online discussing the question of dual-citizenship, and particularly the unique issue of Mexican-American dual citizenship. This is a complex question, of course, touching on the unique relationship between the US and Mexico, assimilation, the trans-national Southwestern economy, and so forth. The broader issue, however -- the idea of dual-citizenship -- is one about which I have quite strong views. I don't think the United States should allow dual-citizenship at all. Not ever. Not with Australia, not with Canada, not with Israel, not with Mexico. Not with anyone. Children present a unique case, of course. They should be allowed to maintain a dual nationality until they reach adulthood so they can make a mature decision about which country to adhere to. But why should any adult be allowed to be a citizen of two countries at once. And under what theory of citizenship does such a practice make sense? I'm very pro-globalization, very internationalist in foreign policy and outlook. But citizenship is inherently unitary. It implies not only membership but allegiance to a political community and a state. One can no sooner be a citizen of two countries than a husband to two wives or a wife to two husbands. The very idea is a solecism in civic thought. To my mind, this isn't a conservative view. It's a liberal one. One of the things that makes us all equal as citizens is the fundamental reality that makes us citizens: membership and allegiance to this political community, this country. That's what allows an immigrant citizen to be just as much an American as the guy whose ancestors came on the Mayflower.
-- Josh Marshall
(March 21st, 2002 -- 5:49 PM EST // link) Just what is going on with United States policy in East Asia? As we've discussed at some length already, the post of chief American envoy to Taiwan has remained vacant for months. James Kelly is the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific. And he -- others certainly too, but he's been the most insistent -- has been holding out for months to give that job to Douglas H. Paal. (Kelly, you'll remember, accused TPM of being a practitioner of "hack journalism.") Now there's another odd development brewing. Until recently Torkel Patterson was the head of Asia policy at the National Security Council -- the official title is "senior director for Asian affairs." He resigned, rather abruptly, in late January of this year. Now Patterson is telling friends and colleagues around Washington -- and not that discreetly, mind you -- that Kelly will be gone from the State Department in the not-too-distant future and that he -- Torkel Patterson -- will be the new Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific. (The idea, apparently, is a time-frame of a year or maybe less.) What exactly is going on isn't completely clear. Certainly not to me, and apparently not to a number of DC Asia hands either. Is Patterson just trying to lay claim to the post after Kelly leaves? Is he trying to muscle Kelly out of his job? Or is he just not that discreet? It's not clear. But it is raising a lot of eyebrows.
-- Josh Marshall
Send Tips or Comments to TPM.
ARCHIVE - March 22nd-31st Talking Points - - March 15th-21st Talking Points - - March 8th-14th Talking Points - - March 1st-7th Talking Points - - February 22nd-28th Talking Points - - February 15th-21st Talking Points - - February 8th-14th Talking Points - - February 1st-7th Talking Points - - January 23rd-31st Talking Points - - January 15th-22nd Talking Points - - January 8th-14th Talking Points - - January 1st-7th Talking Points - - 2001 - - December 23rd-31st Talking Points - - December 15th-22nd Talking Points - - December 8th-14th Talking Points - - December 1st-7th Talking Points - - November 23rd-30th Talking Points - - November 15th-22nd Talking Points - - November 8th-14th Talking Points - - November 1st-7th Talking Points - - October 23rd-31st Talking Points - - October 15th-22nd Talking Points - - October 8th-14th Talking Points - - October 1st-7th Talking Points - - September 22nd-30th Talking Points - - September 15th-21st Talking Points - - September 8th-14th Talking Points - - September 1st-7th Talking Points - - August 22nd-31st Talking Points - - August 15th-21st Talking Points - - August 8th-14th Talking Points - - August 1st-7th Talking Points - - July 22nd-31st Talking Points - - July 15th-21st Talking Points - - July 8th-14th Talking Points - - July 1st-7th Talking Points - - June 22nd-30th Talking Points - - June 15th-21st Talking Points - - June 8th-14th Talking Points - - June 1st-7th Talking Points - - May 22nd-31st Talking Points - - May 15th-21st Talking Points - - May 8th-14th Talking Points - - May 1st-7th Talking Points - - April 22nd-30th Talking Points - - April 15th-21st Talking Points - - April 8th-14th Talking Points - - April 1st-7th Talking Points - - March 22nd-31st Talking Points - - March 15th-21st Talking Points - - March 8th-14th Talking Points - - March 1st-7th Talking Points - - February 22nd-28th Talking Points - - February 15th-21st Talking Points - - February 8th-14th Talking Points - - February 1st-7th Talking Points - - January 22nd-31st Talking Points - - January 15th-21st Talking Points - - January 8th-14th Talking Points - - January 1st-7th Talking Points - - 2000 - - December 22nd-31st Talking Points - - December 15th-21st Talking Points - - December 8th-14th Talking Points - -December 1st-7th Talking Points - - November 22nd-30th Talking Points - - November 13th-21st Talking Points - Joshua Micah Marshall is a writer living in Washington, DC. Until March 2001 he was Washington Editor of the American Prospect. His articles on politics and culture have appeared in The American Prospect, The Columbia Journalism Review, Feed, The New Republic, The New York Post, The New York Times, Newsday, Salon, The San Francisco Chronicle, Slate, Talk and The Washington Monthly. He has appeared on Hannity and Colmes (FOX), Hardball (MSNBC), O'Reilly Factor (FOX), The Point (CNN), Reliable Sources (CNN), Rivera Live (CNBC), Washington Journal (C-SPAN) and talk radio shows across the United States. He is currently finishing his doctoral dissertation in Colonial American history at Brown University.
|
. | . | . | . | |||||