Ticket thoughts

Over this past weekend, Newt Gingrich (who is himself still considering a run at the Republican nomination) voiced his opinion the eventual Democratic ticket for 2008 would be Hillary Clinton for President, with Barack Obama as VP. Over at his blog this morning, x4mr has a post up explaining why he and Newt see eye-to-eye on this matter (eye-of-Newt ... get it??? Oh, I crack myself up .... ).

I know x4mr spends a lot of time perusing the blogs, but I had no idea Newt did ... both, however, obviously saw my comment last week in a thread at The Data Port, which included the following:

I can't see Obama/Clinton for partly the same reasons you give for not seeing Gore/Clinton -- why would Hillary take the second post instead of the safe Senate seat? About the only reason I can think of is if her reasoning ran to the macabre and she basically decided "Hey, 2008 was my chance, If I couldn't win then, I am not going to when I am 4 or 8 years older either ... so maybe I'll take the VP job now, and who knows, maybe Obama has a stress-induced heart attack or something."

On the other hand, I could very easily see Clinton/Obama, particularly if a deal were struck to give Obama some high-profile foreign policy portfolio. Eight years as VP would set him up nicely as the "heir apparent" in 2016, when he would still only be 55.

Now, I respect x4mr's opinion a heck of a lot more than I respect Gingrich's, and in all seriousness I am sure my comment above had no affect at on either of them reaching the conclusions they have. However, with all due respect to both (x4mr is due a lot more than Newt), and despite my prior musings, I think they are both wrong.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. I agree entirely with x4mr's assertion that ticket would win the race, and, in addition to merits I think both candidates have anyway, I confess I would love to see a White House with a women and a minority filling the two top slots of our government. It would just add to the attraction for me. I don't see it happening, however.

Clinton and Obama are clearly shaping up as the two most serious claimants to the Democratic nomination, and this is reflected in both camps starting to snipe at each other. By the time the convention actually rolls around, there will have been a lot of hard campaigning, and certainly some hard feelings generated by both sides.

Furthermore, there is another candidate who would seem to make much more sense to be Hillary's running mate should she win nomination - Bill Richardson.

Yes, Richardson is running for President as well, but odds are any conflicts between his campaign and Clinton's during the run up to the convention will be far smaller and less bitter than prospective issues between Clinton and Obama. Also, having served as both UN Ambassador and Secretary of Energy in Bill Clinton's administration, the Clintons and Richardson should already have some degree of comfort working with each other.

Richardson has been (in my mind, at least) somewhat disappointing in the initial debates, but would add a lot to the ticket for Clinton - some foreign affairs experience, his own experience from governing a state executive branch. He would also provide representation from the Mountain West, an area with a growing population that has been trending increasingly Democratic in recent years. There's no real reason a Clinton/Richardson ticket would be any less competitive in the national race than Clinton/Obama.

So while I would personally like to see Clinton, should she win the nomination, select Obama as her running mate (I am particularly drawn to the notion of it setting him up as the natural Democratic "successor" when she leaves office), I think Richardson is the much more likely choice.

Don't just take my word for it though -- those futures traders down at Intrade happen to agree with me ... and for the record, I came to my conclusion before I checked the market listings.

Televised trolling

A PEW Research poll earlier this year found the widest gap in 20 years of measure political party self-identification, with Democrats enjoying a +15% advantage (50% - 35%). The same poll shows increasing majorities favor democratic positions on such questions as "government should help more needy people, even if debt increases?". Support for increases to minimum wages was solid even among Republicans (69%), and higher among Independents and Democrats. A majority (59%) favored immigration reform which provided some form of path to citizenship for current illegal residents. Etc.

Across a wide range of social and economic issues, the clear trends since 1994 (with some exceptions) favor liberal positions. On virtually every major issue, voters have more confidence in Democrats' ability to deal with matters than the current administration.

It would seem nearly unarguable that the nation as a whole is trending left. To the extent voters are irate with Congress, they are upset at it not being liberal enough. In particular, people want to see more done by Congress to get our forces out of Iraq at the earliest reasonable date.

Somehow, none of this seems to sink in to large portions of our D.C.-based media, which consistently harps on the supposed "dangers" of not acting in a "bipartisan" manner (a particular favorite of columnist David Broder), or of being seen as "too confrontational". The latest offender I saw over the weekend was Cokie Roberts opining on "This Week" about the big risk Democratic candidates would take if they move "way to the left".

I'd make some crack conflating Ms. Robert's first name with the type of drug-induced haze she must be in to make such a comment in the face of all evidence to the contrary ... except for the fact another panelist, David Gergen, agreed with her.

I simply don't understand how much willfulness is necessary to make statements like this, without a shred of actual evidence to support the claim. It's as if both Roberts and Gergen are acting like real-life concern trolls.

Frankly, my major concern is that Democratic candidates might actually pay some attention to these blithering morons. The sooner Clinton, Obama, Edwards et. al., stop paying any heed to these pundits - who apparently form all their notions within the warm cocoon of the DC beltway - and pay more attention to what voters actually say they want as opposed to what Roberts, Gergen and their ilk would like those voters to think the better off the candidates will be.

Update: Digby has a post on the same matter here.

*****

The NY Times has an op-ed piece today by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack this morning discussing how wonderfully things are finally going in Iraq. Glenn Greenwald has a nice, lengthy response to it here.

My only addition to Greenwald's piece is to note I made mention of Pollack and his long-standing support of the Iraq war and occupation in a post last week. A perusal of O'Hanlon's writings will make clear he shares Pollacks views on this matter.

There is nothing particularly new about long-standing supporters of the war telling us: "Yes, things in Iraq have been terrible, but now they really are getting better. We swear. Really. Trust us. Just give it six more months." This claim has been made by different people repeatedly for some years now, and has been wrong every time.

There is no reason either O'Hanlon or Pollack should be any more credible now than they have been in the past.

Starting the Rumpus

One of my favorite quotes to throw out for various occasions is "Let the wild rumpus begin!", which is lifted from one of my favorite (and a favorite for many others as well) books a a child, Maurice Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are".

Sadly, in researching this post, I learned I have apparently been misusing the line all these years, and it should actually be "Let the wild rumpus start!". Sigh. Oh well, c'est la vie. I prefer my version, I think it rolls better off the tongue. Sendak needs to release a new version with my proposed improvement.

Tedski over at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion has a post up today discussing "buzz" about Tim Bee opting to run for county supervisor instead of challenging incumbent Gabrielle Giffords for the her Congressional seat after he gets term-limited out of the Arizona Senate when this session ends. I don't think anyone, including whoever is feeding those rumors to Tedski, believes that -- Bee is the best nominee Republicans can hope to get for that race, and if they don't get Giffords out in 2008 she may be ensconced until she chooses to leave on her own terms.

It didn't take long in the comments section for the ranks of "GiffOnators" (to borrow x4mr's term; the "villains" in question were ThinkRight, The Guard and TonyGOPrano) to start in with calling Giffords a "light-weight", a "Pelosi clone" and other such claims.

In defense of his claims, Guard at least pointed out this Daily Star story in which Republicans complained Giffords voted with Pelosi "96% of the time". I happily pointed out Republicans making such claims might be a little biased, and further noted more recent data which showed Giffords among those Democrats most willing to vote against the party line.

None of which is terribly significant ... it's just, for whatever reason, this was the first give-and-take exchange in some time that reminded me of all the hoopla and sparring over the CD 8 race in the run up to the elections last year. It felt symbolic somehow, like throwing out the first pitch before a baseball game. Ahhh ... the memories ... the days of 30+ comment threads ... it nearly brings a tear to my eye.

The last race didn't really get underway in the blogosphere until Jan. 2007. While I don't expect to see regular posting and threads on the matter for a couple months yet, things will still get heated up for next year's race months earlier than Jan. 2009. At least for me it feels like the warm-ups are already starting.

Let the Wild Rumpus Begin! Er ... Start! Er ... Begin!

Update: As of now, the associated comment thread on R-Cubed has 19 comments attached to it -- 30, here we come!

Playing the odds

Conservative columnist/pundit Jonah Goldberg had a column yesterday accusing liberals of turning their back on genocide in Iraq when they call for our troops to be pulled out of the country, and further accuses them of hypocrisy for supporting intervention to prevent genocide in the 1990's, but "flipping" on it now.

Of course, this argument makes the assumption that pulling our forces out would lead to genocide in Iraq, but Goldberg addresses that:

Of course, some advocates of withdrawal try to maintain the moral high ground by arguing that there won't be genocidal slaughter -- though that usually sounds like self-delusion to me. Most close observers of the situation believe that if the U.S. were to sail out of Iraq, it would be on a river of Iraqi blood.

"The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom," a new report from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution concludes, "is 135,000 American troops." Rapid withdrawal, the report says, could bring "a humanitarian nightmare" in which we should expect "hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die."

There are a couple things wrong with the above, however. The "new report" Goldberg cites is, in fact, neither particularly new nor a report. It is, instead, an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post last August, nearly a year ago. Also, it's not as if this opinion is universally shared within the Brookings Institute. A truly recent article (as in, from two days ago) from the same institution argues the US must withdraw now to contain civil war in Iraq. Furthermore, while the Brookings Institute as a while may be "liberal-leaning", it's questionable (at best) either author of the piece, Kenneth Pollack or Daniel Byman, fit that description in regards to their views vis-a-vis the Iraq war, at least as one can best conclude from perusing their publications.

Further, in considering what "close observers of the situation" have to say about what might happen if US troops withdraw from Iraq, Goldberg apparently doesn't think actual Iraqi citizens qualify. If he did, he would be aware the large majority those who might be most expected to fear genocide if left to fend for themselves actually think their security situation would improve.

Fair enough -- what's a little mischaracterization, disingenuousness and outright dishonesty between pundits after all? That doesn't mean Goldberg's underlying claim that pulling out from Iraq could lead to genocide. So lets examine his record as an Iraq prognosticator.

Perhaps most famously, in a debate from 2005 Goldberg said:

Let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now).

Well, those two years were up this past February, and Goldberg at least had the courage to do something which the current administration is chronically incapable of doing -- admit he as wrong.

That's not the only one, though ...

"Some pro-war arguments are very strong, some less so. But you have to add them all up together and look at the final tally. So: Is Iraq a brutal totalitarian regime? Check! Is it a proven threat to its neighbors? Check! Is it a proven threat to its own people? Check! Is it a proven threat to our allies? Check! Is it willing to export terrorism abroad? Check! Is it likely that if it got weapons of mass destruction, it would use them recklessly? Check! Is it working very hard to get weapons of mass destruction? Check! Would Saddam's people be better off without him? Check! Would we and our allies be better off without him? Check! Do we have the power and capabilities to get rid of him without paying too high a cost? Check! And, would getting rid of him make it less likely that another September 11 would "happen again"? Check."

And another ...

"I don't care if you hate George W. Bush; it's not like I love the guy. And I don't care if you opposed the war from day one. What disgusts me are those people who say toppling Saddam and fighting the terror war on their turf rather than ours is a mistake, not because these are bad ideas, but merely because your vanity cannot tolerate the notion that George W. Bush is right ... "

I actually spent a fair bit of time looking up statements by Goldberg on Iraq, and have yet to find one of any significance which has actually turned out to be correct. I imagine one such example must exist somewhere, but finding that needle-in-a-haystack is going to take more effort than I am willing to put in.

It's not just Goldberg of course -- nearly all well-known predictions made by conservatives regarding the course of the Iraq war have turned out to be wrong. Have you seen any Iraqi civilians greeting us as liberators and throwing rose petals at our tanks recently? Neither have I.

A common warning for prospective investors is "past performance is no guarantee of future results". Just because Goldberg and company have been wrong on nearly every single claim they have made regarding Iraq over the last 5 years is no guarantee they are wrong this time. If you had to trust someone on this matter, who would you choose? Conservative pundits or Iraqi's themselves?

Yes, a genocide may begin if we pull our troops out. If it does, we can revisit the situation - no one wants to see a genocide occur. If nothing else, were we to leave, then find ourselves having to go back to prevent a genocide situation, we would be likely to have more support from all quarters, home, abroad, and within the Iraqi populace itself ... and who knows, it's also possible form will hold, and Goldberg and Co. will be wrong on Iraq yet again.

I know which way I would bet.

What Sept. benchmarks?

Do you recall way back in February when the entire Iraqi "surge" notion was being debated? Do you recall those "benchmarks" which were supposed to be met by September? Well, it's becoming increasingly obvious none of those benchmarks will be met. Do you suppose this will lead to serious discussion within the administration regarding withdrawing troops from Iraq?

Of course not. The notion is laughable.

The New York Times has a story this morning discussing military plans to retain significant forces in Iraq at least into 2009:

By Michael R. Gordon

Published: July 24, 2007

BAGHDAD, July 23 — While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.

The Reach of War

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.

Even just reading the opening three paragraphs above it is clear all that time the administration was talking about a "limited" surge and "reassessment" in the fall, it was well aware any real results would take years, if they came at all. The fix has been in from the start (yes, the administration lied about Iraq yet again, quelle surprise) -- no matter how grim the September assessment might be, there is no way the administration will not insist on continuing the occupation. To paraphrase another conservative icon, the only way we are going to get our troops home is if we "pry the war from (Bush's) cold, dead hands".

At this point, the only way troops might be brought home prior to 2009 is if Congress finally grows the cojones to insist upon it in funding bills (sending the same bills back when Bush vetoes them), or to defund the war entirely. Even then, it's uncertain the administration wouldn't simply appropriate the money anyway to carry on its glorious crusade.

The beat goes on ...

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is testifying before Congress again. One wonders why. He continues to apparently have no knowledge whatsoever about how his office works. When asked outright how many attorneys he had fired he claimed not to know. He doesn't know, his aides all don't know, no one knows.

Apparently, some magical list * poofed * into existence on his desk with a series of names of people to be fired, and Gonzales simply signed the list without questioning it ... because, you know, it's not like attorneys to be skeptical or ask questions of anything. One assumes the mystical appearance of the list suddenly appearing in front of him convinced him of it's divine provenance, or something like that. Who was he to question God (or President Bush -- apparently members of the current administration often conflate the two).

Gonzales claimed he hadn't made the now infamous hospital-room trip to visit John Ashcroft in order to get Ashcroft to overturn his deputy's decision vis-a-vis the warrentless surveillance program not having sufficient legal authority. Shortly after, he was forced to admit he did take a reauthorization order with him on his little foray. What, he just took that along as some bed time reading? That's a close an admission of lying to Congress as one is likely to get.

Senator Patrick Leahy has flat out told Gonzales "I don't trust you." Other Senators have followed in the same vein. Senator Herb Kohl asked why Gonzales should be kept on, which Gonzales admitted "That's a very good question, Senator", before going on to give a not very good response.

Same game, second round. Gonzales knows nothing, hears nothing, does nothing, yet somehow expects people to have confidence in his ability to repair the credibility and morale issues within the department. Why not? It's the same tack the administration is taking on Iraq: "Sure, we've botched everything horribly, we lied about our motivations for invading in the first place, we've repeatedly been completely wrong on our predictions for how things would work out, but trust us - this time we really are on the road to stability there." A decade from now, these folks would still be asking for "six more months", and blaming "defeatist liberal attitudes" for the ongoing lack of progress.

The House judiciary committee will move forward with pressing contempt charges against Harriett Miers and Joshua Bolton tomorrow. It's a complete waste of time -- the word is already out on the street any statutory contempt case won't be prosecuted by the US Attorney's office. That's the same US Attorney's office presided over by the oh-so-incompetent Alberto Gonzales. If there is one thing we can trust him on, it's that the office certainly won't do anything to support a Congressional investigation into possible wrong-doings within ... well ... within itself. Still, I guess formalities must be preserved. I don't believe there has been an inherent contempt case tried within Congress since the 1930's, I am looking forward to witnessing a small piece of history.

While Gonzales and the administration are doing their best to be obstructionist, Republicans in Congress don't want to get left out of the fun. Remember all those complaints they had about Democratic filibusters? Remember the nuclear option? Apparently they feel no need to lead by example. McClatchy Newspapers had an article last week highlighting just how out-of-hand things have become.

While the number of filibusters has definitely been on a general upward rise, the current group of Republicans is on pace shatter the old record of 58 in a two-year session. With 42 cloture votes so far (that's nearly 1/6 of all Senate votes, according to the article, if the pace were maintained it would lead to 153 over the course of the term.

Of course, that isn't enough ... when legislation does get passed, such as an ethics bill which garnered a 97-2 majority, things get held up ... either it's our own Senator Jon Kyl placing a secret hold, or it's delays in naming members to a committee negotiating differences with the House. It's the best of all worlds! All those Republican Senators can claim they voted for the ethics bill without, you know, actually having to take a chance on those tighter standards actually being applied.

It's just part of the "game" now. Filibuster everything, hold stuff that you don't think can be safely filibustered, and then claim Democrats aren't getting anything done. Meanwhile, smile and discuss the need for "more bipartisanship".

Just another day in D.C.

Accountable to none

I admit to feeling a bit prescient this morning. A couple days ago I noted even if the House Judiciary Committee pressed well-earned contempt charges against Harriet Miers it was unlikely the U.S. District Attorney would actually prosecute the matter. Really, though, it didn't take much divining to see that state of affairs ... and the reality is beyond even what I expected.

The Washington Post has an article (free registration required) this morning in which an anonymous source says the administration is asserting no Justice Department official would ever prosecute a contempt case in an affair in which the administration had previously asserted Executive Privilege. Think about some of the implications of that ... go ahead ... I'll wait.

Here's one possibility ... way back in the Nixon administration, Mr. "I am not a crook!" asserted Executive Privilege in an attempt to not hand over the Watergate tapes. The court ruled against him, the tapes were handed over, and shortly after Nixon resigned.

Now, those issues did not revolve around contempt charges, but it would have been easy to make them do so. Let's hypothesize Nixon continued to refuse to hand over the tapes. He is found in contempt of both Congress and the courts. Now he says no US DA will prosecute the contempt charges. Essentially, he might have been able to create a shield of immunity about himself, no matter how illegal his actions might have been.

Whether the administration was within in rights or not regarding firing of the attorneys last year (for what it's worth, it's my opinion the firings were legal, but unethical), it's undeniable by any but the most die-hard supporter of the unitary executive theory that it has engaged in illegal activities involving wiretapping of US citizens.

Extend the logic a little, and it applies to anything. The administration or any of it's personnel could engage in any illegal activity. Congress (or any body) initiates an investigation and issues subpoenas for documents or for individuals to testify in person. The administration refuses to hand over requested documents and orders individuals not to testify, citing Executive Privilege ... oh, and by the way, don't bother filing contempt charges, because the US prosecutors are not gonna prosecute those charges.

I'm pretty sure when our founding fathers (whom die-hard conservatives so often like to cite, usually inappropriately) set up a system of government based on checks and balances, this wasn't what they had in mind. Unfortunately, the system does not work when one of the branches refuses to acknowledge it's rights and powers can be either checked or balanced by the other two.

I guess it makes some decisions easier. Since there is clearly no point in pursuing any statutory contempt case against Miers Congress might as well call the President's raise, skip any of those procedural steps and move straight to inherent contempt charges. I suggest taking time out of the traditional summer recess for this. That should get our Congressional representatives in the proper frame of mind.