Month: June 2007

Gall

by digby

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: In my administration, we’ll make it clear there is the controlling legal authority of conscience.

Remember that? It was awfully inspiring, wasn’t it? In fact, conservatives all over the country smugly waved that bloody shirt in our faces, as if they were paragons of “honor and integrity,” a line Bush also made a fetish of in his speeches.

Apparently the authority of their conscience allowed them to out CIA agents,lie to federal prosecutors, pay propagandists under the table on the taxpayers dime, even shoplift. They certainly have shown in the past few weeks that they have no conscience when it comes to politicizing the US Department of Justice and using the full force and power of the federal government to rig elections. Perhaps they could use a little of that old fashioned legal authority after all.

Today we see the latest act of hypocrisy from our good friend Bob Novak, who seems to spend most of his time defending Republican lawbreakers these days:

When Doan appeared before Waxman’s committee March 28 on “allegations of misconduct,” she was prepared to talk about her approval of a contract with Sun Microsystems that has been the subject of contention. Rep. Tom Davis, the committee’s ranking Republican, who is not known to overlook GOP misdeeds, found “simply no evidence” that Doan “acted improperly.”

Doan was taken by surprise that day to find Waxman concentrating instead on a Jan. 26 political briefing about the 2006 elections by Scott Jennings, deputy White House political director, to 30 GSA political appointees — including Administrator Doan. Such briefings were delivered by Jennings throughout the federal government and are not viewed by the White House as violating the 1939 Hatch Act. Waxman fixed on this question said to have been asked by Doan at the briefing: “How can we help our candidates?”

That resulted in the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC), which tracks Hatch Act violations, saying it could “imagine no greater violation of the Hatch Act than to invoke the machinery of an agency . . . in the service of a partisan campaign to retake the Congress and the governors’ mansions.”

But the Jan. 26 meeting targeted no candidate for support, solicited no GSA employee for political activity and resulted in no follow-up. Doan’s question actually was addressed to Jennings. “The harsh penalties under the Hatch Act for a brief slip-up are unwarranted,” a congressional Republican source close to the situation told me. “Doan’s resignation is a punishment that does not fit the crime.”

There was a time when Republicans were adamant about the need to literally interpret every single law on the books. Indeed, during the election recount in 2000 they made some extraordinary arguments in favor of interpreting deadlines and legal interpretations in the most restrictive way possible. And, of course, there was the impeachment, in which differing interpretations of the intentions of those who touched certain body parts in a sexual encounter constituted perjury. Many, many people in the Clinton administration were burdened with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills over ridiculous, trumped up charges as a result of Dan Burton’s or Al D’Amato witch hunts. There was a time when Republicans were apoplectic that anyone could transgress even the appearance of lawbreaking, even if it existed only in the fevered wet dreams of Matt Drudge and FOX News.

George W. Bush in particular shoved that down our throats over and over again for years, insisting that his morality, his integrity, his honor was superior to the rest of us. And here we are, six years later and it’s clear that the Bush administration has illegally used the machinery of the federal government to rig elections. In the case of the US Attorney scandal it has done more to bring dishonor on the federal justice system than a thousand lies about presidential fellatio could ever do.

Listening to these phonies whine now about how Scooter didn’t mean it and Lurita Doan never followed through and how the Democrats are “criminalizing” politics moves me not at all. In a world where Republicans hadn’t impeached a president for purely partisan reasons, stolen elections, started unnecessary wars, pillaged the treasury and degraded the constitution I might be inclined to be compassionate toward someone like Doan, who was probably just doing what Karl Rove expected. Sorry, I’m fresh out of compassion for Republicans. As far as I’m concerned, Waxman should ruthlessly go after every single case. It is a moral hazard to allow these people to continuously get away with things of which they accuse others. It’s got to stop.

.

Debate

by digby

I think the question I enjoyed the most in the Democratic debate was the one where Wolf asked them all what they would do if they were tied to a bed naked with a ticking time bomb and a bunch of terrorists rushed into the room and started kibitzing among themselves about where to get the best Botox in Miami. Or maybe it was the one where he asked them all to raise their hands if they agree that killing is wrong — and if so, doesn’t that indicate that Democrats can’t lead? I can’t decide. I just love those multi-part yes/no hypotheticals.

Actually, I’m being unfair. It was far less fatuous than the Hume and Matthews debates, but still — the hand raising nonsense has got to go. Clinton rightly took Blitzer to task over it and quite effectively too. It’s just stupid.

But overall it was a pretty substantive debate. (And guess what? There wasn’t even one question about embryos!)I think any one of those guys, including Mike Gravel, would make a much better president than Rudy McRomney or Drop Dead Fred.

I do find it almost unbelievable that everyone but Edwards and Richardson were willing to to say that they wouldn’t boycott the Olympics even if it might help stop the genocide in Darfur. I grant that it was a more nuanced position than that, but that’s how it came off. Weird.

Also, I like Dennis Kucinich and I am glad he’s in these debates to voice certain positions that wouldn’t get heard otherwise. But I really hate it that he said Iraq is the Democrats’ war. I would hope that candidates could play hardball with one another without undermining the single most important rationale for a Democratic president, which is that the Republicans are responsible for the mess in Iraq.

I don’t think it matters all that much right now — as GOP strategist Mike Murphy said on CNN, this isn’t really about the voters yet, it’s about the media and money. But still, it takes almost nothing to gain currency in the MSM and that particular notion is a very dangerous one. If anybody out there has Kucinich’s ear, I would hope you could talk him out of using this line again. I’s the second time this week he’s crossed a rhetorical line and while there aren’t a lot of limits in my mind, implying that your rivals are racist and saying that Iraq is now the Democrats’ war is counter productive to say the least.

Who won? Who knows. The gasbags are calling it for Hillary Clinton, and she did do very well. But I thought they all did

.

Tributes

by digby

I followed this link (from somewhere — sorry, I forget who sent me) to a Google blog search for Steve Gilliard and I am absolutely gobsmacked at the huge outpouring of affection, respect and remembrance from all over the left blogosphere. It is truly amazing.

There is very little coming from the right, for which I’m grateful actually. The few who have written anything are mostly awful, especially the predictable unpleasantness from some of their commenters. I won’t link them.

Having said that, I think it’s important to highlight a couple of respectful tributes from people on the right who read Steve’s blog and considered him a worthy adversary:Dean Barnett and Armed Liberal, who honor Steve for his writing and his knowledge of warfare. Good for them.

.

Tool Time

by digby

Joan Vennochi must have really been pushing her deadline to come up with this ignorant screed today, excoriating the Democratic field for refusing to debate on Fox:

IF YOU can’t face the bad boys of Fox News, how can you face the bad boys of Iraq or Iran?

That’s very cute, but it misses the point entirely. What the Democrats are saying is that unlike George W. Bush they aren’t dumb enough to legitimize the enemy’s propaganda. By pretending that Fox is a news network instead of the official house organ of the Republican Party the Democrats would be doing what Bush has done with al Qaeda — behaving with such predictable idiocy that it inspires the other side’s recruiting.

Furthermore, it’s a waste of time. FOX is a partisan Republican network and the Democrats are trying to get Democratic primary votes (who do not and will not watch FOX for any reason.) They might as well be holding the debate in Dick Cheney’s office. The vast, vast majority of Fox’s audience are older, white, male right-wingers, hard core 28 percenters who would rather stick needles in their eyes than vote for a Democrat. It’s ridiculous to think Democrats have any chance of persuading the audience of a network whose most popular show stars a man who says this:

O’REILLY: OK, I think it’s a small part, but I think it’s there. On the other side, you have people who hate America, and they hate it because it’s run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure. So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion — pardon the pun — of America. Now, that’s hatred, too. It’s a different kind of hatred, but it’s hatred and best exemplified by The New York Times, which today says in its editorial, quote: “Those who want [the immigration] bill to be better are horribly conflicted by it. Their emotions still seem vastly overmatched by the ferocity of the opposition from the restrictionist right, with talk radio lighting up over ‘amnesty,’ callers spitting out the words with all the hate they can pour into it,” unquote.

Now, this is a theme of The New York Times, that if you oppose the immigration bill that you hate Latinos. Now, there’s a segment that does, but most oppose it on policy. They just think it’s bad policy, rewarding bad behavior. Bad policy. But The New York Times, which is an open border, OK, let-everybody-in concern — that’s what they want, because they want a totally different power structure in America.

Number one, they realize that 40 million new citizens — and that’s, you know, probably the estimate that if you let all the illegal immigrants and all their extended families come here, which is what The New York Times want, would wipe out the two-party system. You’d only have a Democratic party, because new immigrants are probably gonna break 3-to-1 Democrat, and that’s what The New York Times wants. But more than that, they want to change the white, Christian male power structure. That’s what they want.

I think he knows his audience very well, don’t you?

I can’t explain why the Congressional Black Caucus Institute is still willing to lend credibility to FOX’s bogus claim to being fair and balanced by sponsoring this debate. They are being used as cover for the disgusting swill like that above which FOX’s stars spew around the clock every single day and I think it’s a mistake. I’m very glad that most of the Democratic candidates have declined to participate.

And in any case there is no excuse for Biden and Kucinich to suggest that their rivals are racist for failing to appear at this debate. Both of them should be ashamed of themselves. Joan Vennochi may just be another columnist on a deadline taking an easy shot but these two should know better.

H/T to BB

.

Fact Checking?

by digby

The other day I wrote a post about Karl Rove’s long term “plans” and mentioned this New Yorker article by Jeffrey Goldberg in which Rove babbled about how the future of the party rests with ebay entrepreneurs and the the Christian Right, both of which are allegedly growing in huge numbers. I didn’t excerpt the passage in that post, but rather characterized it as “he mumbles some crap about ebay and Jesus to back up his claim.”

Unlike Goldberg (writing for the New Yorker, fergawdsake), Jonathan at A Tiny Revolution actually checked out the crap Rove mumbled about ebay, and lo and behold Rove is wrong:

At one point Goldberg goes to the White House to interview Karl Rove, who appears surprisingly optimistic:

“There are two or three societal trends that are driving us in an increasingly deep center-right posture,” [Rove] said. “One of them is the power of the computer chip. Do you know how many people’s principal source of income is eBay? Seven hundred thousand.” He went on, “So the power of the computer has made it possible for people to gain greater control over their lives. It’s given people a greater chance to run their own business, become a sole proprietor or an entrepreneur. As a result, it has made us more market-oriented, and that equals making you more center-right in your politics.”

Ebay is the primary source of income for seven hundred thousand people? That sounds implausible. And it is:

Entrepreneurs in record numbers are setting up shop on eBay, according to a new survey conducted for eBay by ACNielsen International Research, a leading research firm. More than 724,000 Americans report that eBay is their primary or secondary source of income.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess far more of these 724,000 Americans use eBay as a secondary source of income rather than a primary one. If the ratio’s 75/25, that makes 175,000 people whose primary source of income is eBay. Hard to spin that into a tale of impending Republican ascendancy.

But it’s Rove’s specialty. He knows nobody will check it out. It sounds so gooood. The alleged atheist Rove also said that “spirituality” and “anti-materialism” (the new codeword) is growing in leaps and bounds which is another reason why the Republican party is actually in great shape:

As for spirituality, Rove said, “As baby boomers age and as they’re succeeded by the post-baby-boom generation, within both of those generations there’s something going on spiritually—people saying it’s not all about materialism, it’s not all about the pursuit of material things. If you look at the traditional mainstream denominations, they’re flat, but what’s growing inside those denominations, and what’s growing outside those denominations, is churches that are filling this spiritual need, that are replacing sterility with something vibrant, something that speaks to the heart of the individual, that gives a sense of purpose.”

Goldberg could have looked into this claim as well. Rove is much more circumspect than usual about the strength of the Mighty Christian Right, but he’s basically making the same claim that he’s always made: the country is getting more religious and the religious vote Republican in greater numbers. Therefore, Republicans will always win.

The problem is that the Barna Group, which tracks religious beliefs and attitudes, says that Rove’s thesis is crap. From their latest report of May 21, 2007:

It is not unusual to spot minor ebbs and flows in what adults believe. However, the 2007 study of the nation’s core beliefs found that five out of six theological perspectives have shifted in recent years away from traditional biblical views. This includes perspectives about three spiritual figures: God, Jesus, and Satan.

Most Americans still embrace a traditional view of God, but they are less likely than ever to do so. Currently two-thirds of Americans believe that God is best described as the all-powerful, all-knowing perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today (66%). However, this proportion is lower than it was a year ago (71%) and represents the lowest percentage in more than twenty years of similar surveys.

Few adults possess orthodox views about Jesus and the Devil. Currently, just one-third of Americans strongly disagree that Jesus sinned (37%) and just one-quarter strongly reject the idea that Satan is not a real spiritual being (24%). Each of these beliefs is lower than last year and among the lowest points in nearly two decades of tracking these views.

The other changes in beliefs include greater reluctance to explain their faith to other people (just 29% strongly endorse this view, compared with 39% in 2006) and the willingness to reject good works as a means to personal salvation (down to 27% from 31%).

Given these shifts, it is ironic that the only religious belief that was unchanged from previous years was the belief that the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches. Not quite half of Americans (45%) strongly assert this perspective.

American Spiritual Activity – More of the Same

The Barna study also examined 10 areas of religious engagement. Involvement levels for eight of those activities were statistically no different than 2006. The two activities that had changed included the following: Americans were less likely to volunteer at church and less likely to read the Bible. Although these had declined from the participation norms measured in 2006, they were not statistically distinct from the engagement levels of a decade ago. In other words, even in those areas where there has been recent fluctuation in religious behavior, the net effect of those changes has done very little to alter the overall religious engagement of Americans.

The 2007 study showed that among the ten activities studied, Americans are most likely to pray. More than four out of every five Americans (83%) said they had prayed in the last week. This was followed by attending a church service (43%) and reading the Bible outside of church worship services (41%). Notably, just one-quarter of adults possess an active faith, meaning they engage in all three of these activities (pray, attend church, and read the Bible in a typical week).

Slightly less than one-quarter of adults had volunteered free time to help a church (22%) or some other type of non-profit (23%) in the last week. About one-fifth of all adults had attended Sunday school (20%), while a similar proportion had participated in a small group for Bible study, prayer and Christian fellowship (19%). The survey showed that half of all adults (50%) said they had donated money to a congregation in the past year.

Another element of spiritual engagement is evangelism. While most Americans are more skittish than usual about explaining their faith to others who hold different religious views, among born again Christians a majority (61%) said they had personally explained their faith to someone else in the past year with the hope that the person would accept Jesus Christ as their savior. This was on par with previous tracking data from the California-based firm.

Identity and Commitment

The study also examined people’s spiritual identity. For instance, 83% of Americans identified as Christians, yet only 49% of these individuals described themselves as absolutely committed to Christianity. The remaining portion of the adult population (about 17% of Americans) was split almost equally between those who aligned with another faith and those who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic. These indicators of faith identity are also on par with earlier Barna research.

In terms of denominational affiliation, one-quarter of adults identify as attenders of Catholic churches (23%), which is about half the size of the Protestant-attending segment (49%).

The Barna survey categorizes people based upon their convictions about life after death and creates two additional faith segments: born again and evangelical Christians. These are not based upon self-identification or denominational attendance, but based upon their personal commitment to Christ as well as their theological perspectives. The percent of Americans whose beliefs are categorized as “born again” has tapered off somewhat: currently, 40% are born again Christians compared with 45% in last year’s study and 43% in 1997. Despite the slight decline in numbers, this still represents 90 million born again believers nationwide.

Within the born again group, there are an estimated 16 million evangelical Christians, who also embrace an additional set of beliefs in addition to their profession of faith in Christ and confession of personal sinfulness. The 2007 study found that 7% of adults qualify as evangelical Christians, which is statistically consistent with prior levels.

And here’s a startling trend you don’t hear about:

Definition

The following is how we define an unchurched adult for our research: an adult (18 or older) who has not attended a Christian church service within the past six months, not including a holiday service (such as Easter or Christmas) or a special event at a church (such as a wedding or funeral).

How Many?

* There has been a 92% increase in the number of unchurched Americans in the last thirteen years. In 1991 there were 39 million unchurched Americans compared with 75 million currently. (2004)

So Rove is spinning like crazy. The Christian Right is not growing and the “spiritual” non-evangelical or non-born again Christians tend to be Democrats:

Definition

* We categorize Notional Christian as those who describe themselves as Christians, but do not believe that they will have eternal life because of their reliance upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the grace extended to people through a relationship with Christ. (A large majority of these individuals believe they will have eternal life, but not because of a grace-based relationship with Jesus Christ.)

Voting Trends

* They have a below-average likelihood of being registered to vote (77%) when compared with evangelicals (84%) and born agains (86%) (2004)
* 42% are aligned with the Democratic party and 27% with the Republican party. (2004)
* Only one out of every five describes themselves as “mostly conservative.” (2004)

How Many?

* Notional Christians represent 39% of the population.

It would be very nice if reporters like Goldberg challenged assertions like this so that such nonsense doesn’t find its way into the conventional wisdom as so much of GOP marketing and PR does. This is exactly the kind of thing that distorts our politics if it goes unrefuted. It’s just not true that the Democrats were rejected because of their perceived hostility to religion, but it’s become so entrenched in the CW that it might as well be. (And once again the Democrats look like they have no principles — a nice side effect of the whole culture war madness.)

As Jonathan at ATR wrote in his ebay post:

This is what drives me nigh unto madness about this country’s media. Journalists theoretically should be skeptical of what anyone says. They certainly should be skeptical of things that sound implausible. They certainly absolutely should be skeptical of implausible things political operatives say. They certainly absolutely definitely should be skeptical of implausible things political operatives use as a basis for an entire narrative that’s flattering to the operative. They certainly absolutely definitely always always always should be skeptical of implausible things political operatives say when those political operatives have a history of STARTING GIGANTIC WARS BASED ON LIES.

Exactly. But good luck. You see, they know Karl. He’s a good Dad who hands out ice cream bars to everybody in his office and invites reporters to his cabin in Texas. He’s also a genius. There’s no need to double check him. Waste of time.

.

RSSPECT

by digby

A lot of tributes to our friend Steve Gilliard have mentioned the fact that there aren’t enough African American voices in the blogosphere. As it happens there are quite a few and some of them have created a nice site called rsspect.org to access them. I thought you might want to add it to your bookmarks.

Update: All About George tells me his blog Negrophile.com has 1100(!) links to blogs written by African Americans. Check it out.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

What did you do in the War, Mommy?

By Dennis Hartley

If you have perceived a deluge of WW2-themed films as of late, you’re not imagining things. Most of the critical brouhaha seems to have been centered on Clint Eastwood’s “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (neither of which I have seen yet, I will admit), which likely explains why two other WW2 dramas helmed by a pair of equally noteworthy directors have slipped in and out of theatres relatively un-noticed.

Paul Verhoeven’s “Zwartboek” (aka “Black Book”) and Steven Soderbergh’s “The Good German” share some interesting similarities. They both represent a throwback to a certain type of old-fashioned WW2 adventure yarn, and they both feature strong female protagonists doing whatever it takes to survive their wartime nightmare.

“Black Book” (co-written by the director with Gerard Soeteman) is native Hollander Paul Verhoeven’s first Dutch language film in quite a long while. There is an entire generation of moviegoers who can quote lines from “Basic Instinct ”, “Robocop ” or “Starship Troopers” but have never heard of “Spetters ”, “The 4th Man” or “Soldier of Orange”.

“Black Book” is a “Mata Hari” style tale set in Holland in the waning days of the German occupation, as the Allies make their post-D-Day push across Europe. Carice van Houten gives a compelling performance as a former chanteuse named Ellis, a Dutch Jew who has spent the occupation in hiding with a sympathetic farm family. When her hosts are obliterated in a bombing raid, Ellis is left with the realization that she will now have to live by her wits if she is to survive (“The Sound of Music” meets “Showgirls”? Discuss.)

After a series of harrowing escapes and misadventures, Ellis finds herself in the Dutch Resistance. As part of a plan to spring some imprisoned Resistance fighters, she is asked to seduce the commander of the local SS detachment, Colonel Muntze (Sebastian Koch, in a nicely fleshed out performance). Things get a little complicated when Ellis begins to develop a genuine attraction to Muntze.

This is a genuinely exciting war adventure, with interesting plot twists along the way (along with a few of those patented over-the-top Verhoeven moments, usually involving fearless nudity and gore). It’s refreshing to see Verhoeven escaping from Hollywood and getting back to his roots; while I generally enjoy his big budget popcorn fare, I have always felt his Dutch films were much more challenging and substantive (Verhoeven the Hired Hand vs. Verhoeven the Auteur, if you will). Note: “Black Book” is in limited theatrical release;however if you have an all-region player and are lucky enough to live near a discerning independent video rental store, the PAL disc is already available.

Steven Soderbergh loves to pay homage. In fact, (Mr. Tarantino aside), he probably holds the record for dropping more cinema buff-centric references per film than any other director. In his most recent film, “The Good German” (filmed in glorious B&W), he may have allowed this tendency lead him too deeply into “style over substance” territory.

The story is set in immediate post-war Berlin, with the backdrop of the uneasy alliance and growing mistrust between the occupying U.S. and Russian military forces. Captain Jacob Geismer (George Clooney) is an American military correspondent who has been assigned to cover the Potsdam Conference. His G.I. driver, Tully (Tobey Maguire) is a slick wheeler-dealer (reminiscent of James Garner’s character in “The Americanization of Emily”) who “procures” everything from sundries to women and has a German girlfriend named Lena Brandt (a barely recognizable Cate Blanchett, dutifully delivering all her lines in a husky Marlene Dietrich drone). Imagine Capt. Geismer’s surprise when Tully introduces him to said girlfriend, and she happens to be an old lover of his.

To say much more about the narrative would risk revealing spoilers, so suffice it to say that Lena, a Woman with a Dark Secret, soon becomes the central figure in a murder mystery, with the hapless Geismer drawn into the thick of it.

Unfortunately, despite a certain amount of suspense in the first act, the story becomes increasingly convoluted and curiously uninvolving. Blanchett’s performance feels a bit phoned-in, and I wouldn’t call it Clooney’s best work either. Now, it is possible that Soderbergh is SO obsessed with aping the feel of a film noir-ish, black and white late-40’s war thriller, that he may have directed his actors to mimic the semi-wooden, melodramatic acting style that informed many of those films. (Even the DVD transfer appears to be in tune with the affectation; as it is matted in full frame 1.33:1 aspect ratio).

The film does have a great look; the cinematography is outstanding (Soderbergh has never faltered in that department) and he perfectly captures the chiaroscuro look of a certain classic Carol Reed film (I am sure I am not the first person to draw comparisons to “The Third Man ”). There are also some other obvious touchstones here, like Hitchcock’s WW2 thrillers “Notorious (DVD)” and (especially) “Foreign Correspondent”.

At the end of the day, however, if I really want to see something that reminds me of “The Third Man” or “Foreign Correspondent”, I think if I had my druthers, I would just as soon pull out my copy of….er, “The Third Man” or “Foreign Correspondent”, if you know what I am saying. “The Good German” sure looks pretty, but feels pretty… empty.

I will survive: Casablanca, Shining Through, Julia, Two Women, Three Came Home, A Town Like Alice(TV mini-series version), Sophie’s Choice, Playing for Time, The Night Porter, Yanks, Hope & Glory, Hanover Street. And on the slightly cheesy side, but still on topic: Till We Meet Again (TV mini-series).

Steve Gilliard

by digby

As most of you know, Steve Gilliard has been fighting a serious illness for some time and today it seems it finally got him.

Gilliard was one of those voices back in the beginning who taught us all how it was done. He was an independent, fiery, no-nonsense fighting liberal, filled with passion and intensity, a species which many of us worried had gone extinct. I’d read his posts, first at Kos and then at The News Blog, and be left feeling both wrung out and inspired. There was many I time I said to myself “I wish I’d written that.”

I have been missing him terribly since he took ill and now, sadly, I always will. I hope he has found peace.

.

Adnan-ymous Donor

by digby

ABC News reports:

FBI agents feared but never confirmed the three men accused of plotting to attack John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York were linked to one of the most wanted al Qaeda leaders, Adnan Shukrijumah, known to have operated out of Guyana and Trinidad. Officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com that they heard repeated references to “Adnan” during the extensive wiretaps conducted on the suspects’ telephone conversations, including calls to Guyana and Trinidad.

Hey, maybe they were talking about this guy. He certainly has money and he certainly has some very interesting connections. I heard they weren’t even close to implementing the plot because they had no money or means to carry it out. This Adnan is a well-known go-to guy. (I think I feel a conspiracy theory coming on.)

.

More Majority

by digby

Yesterday when I mentioned Hastert’s “majority of the majority” tactics in this post, I didn’t realize that others in the blogosphere were chattering about the same topic for different reasons. (I’ve been busy.) Sam Rosenfeld at TAPPED flagged this article in the NY Times blog which says that Speaker Pelosi has been as good as her word and not governed with the ruthless partisanship that Hastert did. Rosenfeld disagrees (in a good way):

In his New York Times web column, Carl Hulse argues that there is a stark contrast between the leadership style of Nancy Pelosi and that of her predecessor Dennis Hastert in that Pelosi seems to have abandoned Hastert’s “majority of the majority” doctrine, where only bills that had majority support from the leader’s party are pushed. Pelosi broke with that notion in bringing the Iraq supplemental bill to passage. However, that’s Hulse’s only example. I think the war supplemental has to be thought of as fairly sui generis, not merely given the issue at hand but also the fact that disputes over war policy play out in the American political context as fights over “must-pass” funding bills for troops and personnel on the ground.

Generally speaking, while it’s certainly true that Pelosi emphasizes in public comments how she differs from the old Republican leadership in her approach and disavows the Hastert doctrine, it’s safe to say that the increased polarization and party cohesion that constituted the central story of American congressional politics in the last few decades have continued apace under the Democrats. (Which is a good thing.) Divided government may explain at least some of the discrepancy we might see, since there’s still a president of the opposite party around competing to set the agenda and put issues before Congress that might divide the congressional majority.

That last bit is extremely important. Hastert governed with a majority of a majority when they had control of both houses of congress and the presidency. From 2000 to 2006 the Bush White House treated the congress like its lackey and the GOP congress dutifully tugged its forelock and did as it was told. It was, therefore, political kabuki, designed not to inhibit legislation (which could have been vetoed anyway by the Republican White House if it was the outcome they were afraid of.) It was designed, with the help of the White House, to keep the Republican moderates and Democrats from even being able to cast a (losing) vote they could take to their constituents. That is entirely different than the Democratic majority right now trying to keep their squishy moderates from handing the Republicans substantial victories going into a big presidential election.

I do believe that the Democrats should generally make it very difficult for moderates to vote against the party right now because the risk of moderates losing seats is, in my judgment, about as low as we can ever hope for and the upside of gaining seats with a little bit of bold political persuasion is actually quite high. If not now, when?

I also believe that every every vote should be in furtherance of gaining enough power in 2008 to end this travesty of Republican rule and every argument must be in furtherance of progressive ideas. Now is the time to make the case for a Democratic agenda whenever politicians have their constituents’ ears. Democratic values been nearly shut out of the dialog for more than six years (longer actually) and we are dealing with a media that is so entranced by entertainment values that they are virtually useless for conveying any real information. Politicians and their surrogates must use every opportunity to direct the conversation now to what Democrats stand for and what they want to do.

The Republicans understood one thing very well (even as they used that knowledge to degrade the congress) and that was that the optics of legislation are important. In our current environment, it’s terribly important that even if the Dems don’t fully implement the “majority of the majority” tactic, they keep a very close eye on how all their legislation plays out in a macro sense with the media and the public. Normally, I would assume that this needn’t be openly said, it’s so obvious. But their spin was so bad after the Iraq vote that it’s clear it needs to be. You can’t spin compost into cotton candy and they need to recognize that if they are going to “compromise” with the administration in this polarized environment they are going to have to do a better job of explaining themselves. (And they simply must learn to discipline their rhetoric — this use of GOP talking points is the single most self- destructive thing they do. I do not understand why they can’t break themselves of that habit.)