| No one is spared in this lively, pointed book—and that makes it a lot of fun. Democrats should read Crashing the Gate to find their way out of the political wilderness. Republicans should read it to understand what their opponents might do if they get smart. -- Larry J. Sabato Pre-order today:
Amazon :: B&N; :: Powell's :: Chelsea Green |
In Britain, A Call For Answers
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:22:42 PM PDT
Her name is Pauline Hickey, and she has joined the ill-fated group of parents who have had thrust upon them the unnatural and heartwrenching act of burying their own children. Sergeant Hickey was not supposed to be outlived by his mother, it's just not natural you see, for parents to outlive their children, it's just not fair. But when he was killed in Iraq four months ago, Pauline Hickey found herself watching in disbelief as her son's body was lowered into the ground.
It's a scene that has played out 2,296 times in the United States, but it's also played out 103 times in Great Britain. The pond that separates our two nations seems more like a reflecting pond in the context of the Iraq War. Both Tony Blair and George Bush misled their nations into the war. Both plotted to push a flawed WMD story, and both have come under fire for their post-invasion actions. Neither Bush nor Blair has attended a single funeral for a slain soldier. And now, both are feeling the stinging rage radiating from families who have suffered the ultimate sacrifice.
More below...
One of These Things Is Just Like the Other
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:12:33 PM PDT
Via Think Progress:
Fox News asks: "Civil War in Iraq: Made Up by the Media?"
Via the Scotsman:
Sudan bars reporters for Darfur crisis 'fabrication'
SUDAN'S defence minister expelled foreign journalists from a news conference yesterday and compared them to "terrorists," saying they had fabricated the conflict in Darfur.
It's an international epidemic, I'm tellin' ya! Terrorist lying journalists are plotting and lurking in every hemisphere!
TX-28: More heavy artillery enters race
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 08:39:47 PM PDT
Good news. More organizations are getting involved in the TX-28 Democratic primary on behalf of Ciro Rodriguez. First up, the Change to Win unions are joining the AFL-CIO effort.
Six of the union affiliates of the Change to Win labor federation (CTW) have launched a radio ad campaign targeting Texas Congressman Henry Cueller (D-TX-28) for a voting record that favors millionaires and big corporations over hard working Americans.
The ads, which will air in Laredo and San Antonio in both English and Spanish, are the first joint effort of the unions belonging to the Change to Win federation to hold politicians accountable for positions that affect working families.
The unions involved are the UFCW, Teamsters, Laborers, UNITE HERE, SEIU, and the Carpenters. Their ads join Ciro's own efforts as well as those aired by the League of Conservation Voters.
Meanwhile, NARAL's Texas affiliate has also joined the effort on behalf of Ciro and has already donated $5K to his campaign. Jane Hamsher writes:
Just got off the phone with Sara Wheat, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas who told me that NARAL has endorsed Ciro Rodriguez. They've also donated $5,000 to his campaign.
Sarah said, "Ciro was such a strong ally in the US house, with a 100% voting record for supporting reproductive health and pro-choice legislation. With so many right-wing extremists in the US Congress, we need someone like Ciro who understands that most Texans are pro-choice."
This is really exciting and exactly the kind of thing NARAL should be doing -- jumping into primary races when there's a clear-cut distinction between a pro-choice candidate (Rodriguez) and an anti-choice candidate (Cuellar). The endorsement was made by the NARAL national PAC, so despite the fact that they continue to endorse Lincoln Chafee they are doing something right.
The bad news from this "one-day story" just keeps hitting Cuellar.
Open Thread
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 07:03:24 PM PDT
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Update: If you are so inclined, we would appreciate it greatly if you wrote an Amazon review for the book after you've read it (and only if you've read it. Keep it honest).
Bush Was Warned of Flooding From Katrina
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 05:47:16 PM PDT
Crooks and Liars has a video up of what appears to be a Presidential video conference recorded a day or more before Katrina made landfall and flooded the city of New Orleans. The video shows both FEMA Director Mike "Heckuva job" Brownie saying he had a gut feeling this would be the "big one" and storm meteorologist Max Mayfield standing in front of a radar image indicating a breach in the levees, specifically from Lake Pontchartrain driven by high winds, was a concern:
[Link] "I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
Bush on Good Morning America, Thursday Sep 1, three days after Katrina made landfall:
[Source WAPO] "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will."
A few synonyms from Thesaurus.com for anticipate: Forecast, foresee, foretaste, foretell, predict, prepare for, previse, prognosticate, prophesy, see, see coming, suppose, visualize ...
A couple of dictionary definitions of anticipate: 1. To feel or realize beforehand; foresee 2. Make a prediction about; tell in advance
But Brownie was quick to defend his Boss as being "fully engaged" before and after the storm. Bush was fully engaged all right. But fully engaged in what exactly?
Update: Kudos to geordie for being on the ball and getting a diary up on this.
Confessing Their Sins
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:32:02 PM PDT
"We have to address the fact that the president has broken the law." -- Senator Russ Feingold
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary committee yesterday, Attorney General Gonzales provided a "clarification" of his previous testimony in which he admitted that, from the very beginning, the President as King theory upon which this administration operates has guided the President's actions. He confirmed that the President has been acting as though the Constitution allows him to break the law.
In his letter, Gonzales revisited earlier testimony, during which he said the administration immediately viewed a congressional vote in September 2001 to authorize the use of military force against al-Qaeda as justification for the NSA surveillance program. Bush secretly began the program in October 2001, Gonzales's letter said.
On Feb. 6, Gonzales testified that the Justice Department considered the use-of-force vote as a legal green light for the wiretapping "before the program actually commenced."
But in yesterday's letter, he wrote, "these statements may give the misimpression that the Department's legal analysis has been static over time."
Fein said the letter seems to suggest that the Justice Department actually embraced the use-of-force argument some time later, prompting Gonzales to write that the legal justification "has evolved over time."
One government source who has been briefed on the issue confirmed yesterday that the administration believed from the beginning that the president had the constitutional authority to order the eavesdropping, and only more recently added the force resolution argument as a legal justification. [emphasis mine]
Let me repeat. The administration believed from the beginning that the president had the constitutional authority to violate FISA. The administration believed from the beginning that it was above the law and because they believed the President was above the law, the President BROKE the law. All of these "evolving" legal justifications for the illegal warrantless wiretapping of American citizens have been nothing more than diversions, window-dressing to make us think that the administration FELT like it had to provide justification for it's illegal actions. Whether he intended it or not, Gonzales just admitted that, from the very beginning, the President has operated as King.
Before the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees even consider revising FISA, they need to address the fact that the President of the United States is an admitted criminal.
Federal Judge Says No To Dubai Ports Investigation
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:13:57 PM PDT
New Jersey's request for an injunction is denied:
NEWARK, N.J., March 1 (Reuters) - A federal judge in New Jersey on Wednesday decided not to intervene in the contested takeover of U.S. port terminals by a state-owned Arab company.
U.S. District Court Judge Jose Linares denied an injunction requested by New Jersey seeking additional review of the acquisition and said it was premature to order the federal government to turn over documents from a security assessment because a new 45-day review has already been ordered.
When you ask for an injunction, you have to show that you will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Here, it looks like the 45-day (sham) review provided the administration the cover it needed to keep the judicial branch at bay. The judge ruled that because the deal was being re-reviewed, the plaintiffs did not fulfill the requirements for the granting of the injuction.
However, the 45-day review does not stall the finalizing of the deal, and the takeover will still take place tomorrow. Once the deal is finalized, it will become nearly impossible for Congress to reverse the deal. If that's not "immediate harm," I don't know what is.
Update: The judge did say he reserved the right to reconsider his decision after the government has completed its 45-day review. In a separate article, this paragraph caught my eye:
In court, a lawyer for the Justice Department said the administration had not received a letter from the company formalizing the 45-day review. [New Jersey Attorney General] Farber said if the letter doesn't come, the state will go back to court.
For the record, it's been almost
a week almost four days since DP World "volunteered" for the 45-day review.
Midday open thread
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:12:54 PM PDT
- The natives in DeLay's district are restless.
- House Republicans brace for 10-15 more retirements. Currently, there are 25 open seats, 16 held by Republicans. Bush's numbers, the Culture of Corruption scandals, and prospects of losing the majority might drive more Republican congressmen into the warm, lucrative embrace of the lobbying world.
Amy Walter, a senior editor at the Cook Political Report, observed that in August 1993 there were three Democratic open seats. By March that had jumped to 22 and by July to 30 [...]
Referring to the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, the aide said: "Tom Reynolds is literally begging people not to retire. Everything we hear coming out of their side is every caucus [meeting] is a lecture from Tom Reynolds begging people not to retire, saying, `Please stay, please stay, please stay.'"
- Ahem, YearlyKos.
- Donna Shalala needs to put words into action.
- Poor O'Reilly. Still a joke. And his ratings are falling.
- Which city should host the DNC convention in 2008? You guys voted for Denver (31 percent), with New Orleans close behind (28 percent). Minneapolis scrounged up 9 percent while the other cities got crumbs.
- Is Tom Tomorrow psychic, or is this administration just this predictable?
- Francine Busby reaches the $1 million raised milestone. We're going to pick up this seat in April.
- I still haven't slept since Monday night. I'm going to see if I can get a few hours in now. But good news is that I am feeling better.
MN-Gov: Pawlenty fades
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:01:45 PM PDT
Rasmussen. 2/20. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (1/16 results)
Pawlenty (R) 40 (47)
Hatch (DFL) 45 (44)
Pawlenty (R) 42 (46)
Kelley (DFL) 42 (37)
Nationally, this race hasn't been viewed as one of our top pickup opportunities. Much of that has to do with the perception (wrong, I think) that Minnesota is trending Red.
I suspect we'll take this one as Minnesota voters quit their flirtation with the GOP and move back into the DFL fold.
TX-28: How about it? A poll!
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:00:31 AM PDT
You guys are sooo spoiled. Congressional races are rarely polled, and when they are, those polls are rarely released. But we've got one and it offers good news.
Pineda Consulting for Ciro Rodriguez. 2/26. Primary voters. MoE 4.9% (10/29 results)
Cuellar (RD) 39 (45)
Rodriguez (D) 34 (30)
Morales (D) 8
Undecided 19
That's a pretty dramatic turnaround. From the pollsters' memo:
The vote clearly trends in Rodriguez's favor. Despite an initial 10-day on-air head start, Cuellar's support has dropped. In October, Cuellar was garnering 45 percent compared to 30 percent for Rodriguez and 11 percent for Richard Raymond, who has since decided not to run. The most recent tracking poll, which ran from February 23rd to the 26th, shows Cuellar dropping to 39 percent compared to Rodriguez's 34 percent. Victor Morales, the late entry in the race, is getting 8 percent, while 19 percent remain undecided.
Cuellar's drop, Rodriguez's gain and the eventual outcome of the election are all explained by one fact: the more of these Democratic primary voters that find out Cuellar has been taking Republican stands on important issues, the more they support the true Democrat in the race, Ciro Rodriguez. In the February poll, likely voters were asked whether they supported the Republican or Democratic position on the recent changes in Medicare. Not surprisingly, 68 percent said they agreed with the Democrats while only 22 percent said they agreed with the Republicans. Then voters were asked whether they thought Cuellar had voted with the Democrats or the Republicans. Only 37 percent of voters knew that Cuellar had voted with the Republicans. Among those voters, a majority (52 percent) are voting for Rodriguez while only a third (33 percent) are voting for Cuellar.
The implication of this finding cannot be overstated. Democratic primary voters in the district support Democratic positions on issues like Medicare. As they learn that Cuellar has taken Republican positions on these issues, they leave Cuellar and support Rodriguez. Rodriguez's potential for even more growth derives from the fact that almost two-thirds of voters do not yet know that Cuellar voted with Bush and the Republicans on Medicare. If they learn about Cuellar's votes, they will support Rodriguez.
Cuellar is getting hammered on the air, has a massive and motivated ground operation working against it, and is getting gobs of negative press. Quite the dramatic one-day story, no doubt.
These numbers suggest a couple of things. One, it's an even battle, with the outcome likely decided by the GOTV operation. Early voting suggests that voters in Rodriguez' Bexar County base are turning out better than Cuellar's in Laredo. That's the good.
The other suggestion, this one not so good, is that Morales is drawing enough support to potentially kick this thing into a runoff. In other words, another month of this stuff. Now a runoff would shift the advantage toward Ciro. Morales voters are already disinclined to vote for the incumbent, and Texas special elections usually draw higher turnouts and Bexar county will likely feature several of them. And the trends are all moving Ciro's way.
But it'd be nice if Rodriguez could close the deal on the 7th.
Volunteer
Contribute
GOP United In Covering For President, Just Not Sure How To Do It
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 08:42:47 AM PDT
The New York Times reports today that Republicans are "seeking to bridge differences" on legislation that would retroactively make legal Bush's illegal spying program.
[P]eople at the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity because its deliberations were supposed to be confidential, said the group remained sharply divided. On one side, Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has proposed a bill that would require the administration to seek periodic approval for the program as a whole from the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as well as its approval for specific wiretaps.
Congress created the court in 1978 as part of a broad overhaul of intelligence agencies and gave it the power to issue special secret warrants to eavesdrop on specific suspected foreign agents, but the Bush administration's program has so far circumvented the law.
Others in the meeting questioned whether the foreign-intelligence court's approval for the whole program might risk rejection by the Supreme Court, according to the people present. They said still others argued that involving a court would clash with the president's war powers.
Specter's legislation (which Glenn Greenwald analyzes here) is essentially a scruffier version of FISA which would bring Bush's program under the review of the FISA court. Frist has already completed his legal diagnosis and declared the program is "constitutional." He maintains it does not require more legislation, though he's open to "buttressing" what he says is the current authority for it. Then you have the likes of Pat Roberts who made it clear that any opposition to the program is "political opportunism" and legislation should embrace the program, not reject it.
Specter, who has repeatedly stated the program is illegal, has chosen (again) to provide cover for the President instead of addressing the fact the President broke the law. Even if Specter's legislation is passed, there is nothing stopping the President from issuing one of his infamous signing statements, reiterating his belief that Executive has an unbounded inherent power in a time of war, and ignoring any sort of oversight legislation. And so, while Republicans debate away in secret session about how best to make this pesky scandal disappear before midterms, the GOP remains united in embracing the radical claim that the President is indeed above the law.
These are not Reagan Republicans, they are not traditional conservatives. They are Nixonites, every one of them, from Specter on down. President Nixon famously claimed that "when the president does [something illegal], that means it's not illegal." That fundamentally erroneous claim has become the motto of this Republican party. Nixonites like Frist, Roberts, and yes, even Specter, are set on shaping the law to conform to the President's actions, even though it should be the President's actions that should conform to the law in the first place. The President claims he has the authority to break the law, and Republicans refuse to challenge him. Nixon would have a loved a Congress like this...
Open Thread
Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 07:37:47 AM PDT
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
