Month: January 2008

Come On People Now

by digby

I have another post up at CAF today, talking about the alleged thirst for bipartisan comity now that Republicans are on the run. Check it out.

Also, I forgot to mention this interesting article by Rick Perlstein in the NY Times last week-end. It’s about one of the premiere strategists of the Southern Strategy, Harry Dent. Everybody ought to read it as we go into this election in earnest. Dent may have passed into the great beyond, but the Southern Strategy lives on.

.

This Shit Is Really Important

by dday

It’s great fun to slag on the fact-free media and slag on the small sliver of Iowans that will actually participate tonight and slag on this crazy process that has taken over how we select the next President. It values personality over policy, money over ideas, media favorability over issue favorability.

But it’s important to step back and understand just how crucial this choice actually is.

Democrats will start 2009 having lost a full branch of government for a generation. We may hope that George Bush’s departure from the stage will result in him being erased out of history like wiping clean a chalkboard, but his legacy will resonate for decades.

After nearly seven years in the White House, President Bush has named 294 judges to the federal courts, giving Republican appointees a solid majority of the seats, including a 60%-to-40% edge over Democrats on the influential U.S. appeals courts.

The rightward shift on the federal bench is likely to prove a lasting legacy of the Bush presidency, since many of these judges — including his two Supreme Court appointees — may serve for two more decades.

And despite the Republicans’ loss of control of the Senate, 40 of Bush’s judges won confirmation this year, more than in the previous three years when Republicans held the majority.

We all know that Republicans bottled up a lot of Clinton judicial nominees in committee, and Pat Leahy has not really done the same. But even if he did, we’re talking about 20 of the last 28 years with conservative judges being put up for confirmation. You can fault this Senate for confirming too many Bush nominees, and to an extent they have, but it’s just a fact of life that elections have consequences, and the federal bench may be the most wide-reaching consequence.

There are appeals courts out there which will be sharply conservative for a long time to come. These hopes of public financing of elections, rolling back the unitary executive, ending the surveillance state and official secrecy, and on and on, are going to run into a stone wall with this kind of court system. And that’s not just the Supremes, where Roe v. Wade hangs by a thread. It’s the appeals courts and the US district courts, which are packed with Federalist Society-approved jurists for some time to come.

We can’t afford another term’s worth of those appointments. They fly largely under the radar except for a couple high-profile fights, they’re invisible to the media, and consequently they’re not typically something you can base a campaign on (though the Supreme Court is different, and you can make that an issue). But make no mistake, the conservative movement knows exactly how important this is.

Conservatives tend to agree on that point. They say the ideological makeup of the courts has grown into a major issue on the right, and it has brought Republicans together, whether they are social conservatives, economic conservatives or small-government libertarians.

“This issue unites the base,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group that lobbies for Bush’s judicial nominees. “It serves as a stand-in for the culture wars: religion, abortion, gay marriage and the coddling of criminals.” […]

While Republicans find themselves somewhat divided heading into the election year, Bush is widely praised for his record of pressing for conservative judges.

“From Day One, President Bush made the judiciary a top priority, and he fought very hard for his nominees,” said Washington attorney Bradford Berenson, who worked in the White House counsel’s office in Bush’s first term. “He was less willing to compromise than President Clinton. As a result, in raw numbers, he may end with somewhat fewer judges than Clinton had.”

Bill Clinton let Orrin Hatch pick a lot of his judges. George Bush went for broke. As a result, there are hundreds of movement conservatives placed around the country as long-term thorns in the side of progressive governance. It’s the right of the President to have those selections. The next one MUST reverse this trend.

.

Horse Race Trading

by digby

Jane Hamsher is doing some fun reporting from Iowa, sharing all the rumors about strategy and tactics she’s getting on the ground. Apparently, there’s one rumor that the Clinton camp will willingly trade their votes to Edwards, and take a third place finish, to damage Obama. That’s interesting, but I doubt it would work unless she had a 20+ lead in New Hampshire and South Carolina. The vaunted “sling-shot effect” the chatterers keep yammering about will dominate the coverage and the candidates who win first and second in Iowa will be considered the front runners. It’s possible for either Clinton or Obama to survive past South Carolina and go on to win, of course, but I really doubt that either of them want to purposefully take a chance that they will come in third in Iowa and end up with the Giuliani Big State strategy. It could work, but it’s very risky. (Personally, I’d love it because my vote has never been courted, much less been decisive, in a presidential primary.)

All of this stuff is lots of fun for us political junkies, who are mainlining rumors like China White at this point. Chris Cilizza has gathered some predictions by operatives and pollsters, here, if you need a fix. (His blog is actually called “The Fix”) But the sad truth is that the Iowa caucuses are now in the hands of those grubby little bastards who have no business deciding who presidents should be when we have experts and gasbags (and bloggers!) who should be making the decision. Yes, I’m talking about real live voters. Long may they reign.

.

Resurgent

by digby

I know that The Man Called Petraeus has single handedly won the war in Iraq and brought paece in the middle east and all, but there does seem to be a teeny tiny little problem.

Here’s Spencer Ackerman:

Suicide bombings in Iraq: not actually over. The last two weeks there’s been something approaching a bombing every two or three days. And they’re not where U.S. forces are spread the thinnest, but where they’re in full effect — Diyala and Baghdad. The Post reports the trend line for suicide bombings has been upward for the past two months. Happy 2008, year of the de-surge.

Over the past several months, surgenik euphoria has gotten out of control. War supporters all but declared victory as soon as 2007 ended. “We are now winning the war,” writes new NYT columnist Bill Kristol in the current Weekly Standard. “We at the Weekly Standard thought the chances of success were better than 50-50 — but that it remained a difficult proposition. Petraeus pulled it off.” Leave aside for a moment the question of Kristol’s cynicism and presume his sincerity. What this account neglects (as an understatement) is that every single time U.S. forces have shifted their tactics and pushed the insurgencies back — the capture of Fallujah, the death of Zarqawi, the capture and the execution of Saddam Hussein, Operation Together Forward I, Operation Together Forward II, etc. — the insurgency and al-Qaeda have watched, adjusted, adapted, and responded. Every company commander in Iraq knows this. Every NCO in Iraq knows this. Every soldier, Marine, airman, sailor, coastguardsman and civilian (maybe not all) in Iraq knows this. To get jargony, what happened this year is that Petraeus got all up in their OODA loop, which makes him the first U.S. commander to have done so. But there was never any reason to believe that would be permanent — hence the reason why Gaskin is the only general ever to have used that word in public. The suicide bombings are an indication that the insurgent groups and al-Qaeda in Iraq are shifting their loop up. Now it becomes a question of U.S. counterresponse, shaped by available capabilities. But we’ve passed the high-water mark of U.S. capabilities: the surge brigades will be gone by the spring-summer, owing to the unyielding reality of military overstretch, and Secretary Gates has spoken of bringing 40,000 troops total home by July. Continuing the current strategy will require doing way more with significantly less. For an example of what happens when troops are asked to do that, read this.

One hopes the candidates haven’t gotten too rusty on the issue of Iraq because it’s going to be an issue whether they like it or not.

.

Pakistan

by tristero

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett contribute a blunt overview of Pakistan/Afghanistan in the wake of Bhutto’s murder. Short version: it’s even worse than the pessimists are saying. How bad is that? Well, they conclude that Musharraf, a deeply unpopular figure within Pakistan, is America’s best hope to influence the situation and counteract the Taliban. That is very bad indeed.

There is much about their article that seems disputable. For example, I think the comparison of Bhutto to Chalabi is mostly specious but they are right to recognize the parallels in the disastrous efforts by Bush to “install” both. And I think they are wrong to assert that Bush – of all presidents! – was pushing for “free and fair” elections in Pakistan. Those of us who followed American machinations during the loya jirga that installed Karzai in Afghanistan know that Bush has no interest whatsoever in democracy for the region, only in creating, for certain audiences, the illusion that it exists.

However, even with the problems that I see with parts of their analysis, the Leveretts provide a cogent and worthwhile indictment of Bush’s incredibly idiotic actions vis a vis Pakistan and Afghanistan, and a well-deserved slap at Democrats who have failed miserably to articulate both a coherent criticism of Bush’s Afghan/Pakistan policies, let alone alternatives. It highlights how important it will be for the next American government to craft a sensible foreign policy, untainted by neocon fantasies and other manifestations of American narcissism.

Freddie, We Hardly Knew Ye

by digby

Remember those halcyon days, oh about six months ago, when every gasbag in the country tried to convince us that Frederick of Hollywood (h/t Rick Perlstein) was the walking incarnation of Ronald Reagan, and therefore destined to lead us out of the wilderness (and directly to the craft service table for hot cheese puffs?)

Here was his electrifying announcement on Jay Leno:

It’s hard to believe that man hasn’t run away with the nomination, isn’t it?

Sad, sad news, my friends. Fredmania may be over.

.

Run For Your Lives!

by dday

I know Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but I think he meant to replace “patriotism” with “Rudy Giuliani’s New Hampshire ad.” He just wasn’t alive to see it. (Also, he wouldn’t have had a chance unless he was living on the island of Guam, which I believe is central to Rudy’s new “Win Guam and race to the nomination!” strategy.)

Never mind the fact that all of these challenges have grown worse under the tenure of George W. Bush, whose warmongering, imperialist foreign policy matches up best with Rudy’s blood-red neocon vision. Never mind that the part where Osama bin Laden shows up only reminds you of the fact that he’s still alive. But the ultimate chutzpah is that somehow, New York City’s mayor is the guy who’s “tested” and “ready” to deal with such a thing. Happening to be in a particular city on 9/11 does not a foreign policy résumé make, as the public is beginning to figure out.

Josh Marshall is thankful that Rudy’s tanking in the polls is almost complete, and I agree with him. A country with this 30-second spot as the template for foreign policy is almost too horrific to contemplate, particularly when you consider the advisers (hello, Norman Podhoretz) ready to realize this nightmare. Apparently, you have to promise to exterminate the brutes in a nicer, more maverick-y way, like John McCain (who I agree is most likely to win by default at this point).

…oh, and just to comment on the favorability ratings post below, McCain was lucky enough to be pummeled into dust early on, which means he hasn’t had to withstand the same attacks and scrutiny recently as the rest of the GOP field. Plus the media has a hard-on for him. But there’s still a year to the election, and plenty of time to recall “Bomb Bomb Iran” and hugging George Bush and all these ties to K Street, etc. Favorables have a way of fluctuating.

.

Favorables

by digby

Here’s a shocker:

One impact of the long run-up to Election 2008 can be seen in public perceptions of the leading Presidential candidates. After a year of campaigning with no votes actually being cast, only one candidate in either party is now viewed favorably by more than half the nation’s voters. Stunningly, especially given the status of his campaign six months ago, that candidate is John McCain. This is one reason why a recent article noted it is a good time to be John McCain.

The Arizona Senator is now viewed favorably by 53% of all voters (a total boosted by the fact that 56% of those not affiliated with the major parties have a positive opinion of him. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters nationwide have an unfavorable opinion of him. Last summer, following the Senate debate on immigration, McCain’s stock had sunk so low that he was viewed favorably by fewer than half the voters in his home state. But, he has recovered in the latest Arizona polling as well as nationally.

John Edwards is viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 42% and Hillary Clinton is the only other candidate with favorables about 43%. She is viewed favorably by 48% of all voters and unfavorably by 50%. Attitudes about the former First Lady are held more firmly than those for other candidates.

Barack Obama earns favorable reviews from 43%, Fred Thompson from 42%, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani from 40%. Mitt Romney has the lowest total at 38%. Fifty-one percent (51%) have an unfavorable opinion of the former Massachusetts Governor. That unfavorable rating is matched by Obama and topped only by Giuliani at 55%.

Of course, entering the Primary season, it may be that opinions within the partisan ranks matter more than the overall numbers. McCain is viewed favorably by 66% of Republican voters nationwide, Thompson and Giuliani are viewed favorably by 65%, Romney by 57%, and Huckabee by 55%.

Among Democrats, Clinton is viewed favorably by 80% of Democratic voters, Edwards by 66%, and Obama by 61%.

Favorable Unfavorable
McCain 53 – 27
Edwards 49 – 42
Clinton 48 – 50
Obama 43 – 51
Thompson 42 – 42
Giuliani 40 – 55
Huckabee 40 – 47
Romney 38 – 51

I can’t tell you how many liberals I’ve talked to recently who say they’d like to vote for McCain. He’s a “straight shooter” don’t you know.

,

Slice ‘O Nonsense

by digby

Allegedly, Pizza Hut held a telephone poll in Iowa to determine certain important facts about how Iowans perceive the candidates’ pizza eating habits.

FWIW (nothing) here are the results:

— Among Democrats polled: 29.7 percent said Hillary Clinton would put or keep more dough in their pockets, followed by John Edwards at 20.1 percent and Barack Obama at 16.6 percent. All other Democratic candidates had single percentage support.

— Among Republicans polled: 24 percent said Mike Huckabee would put or keep more dough in their pockets, followed closely at 21.4 percent for Mitt Romney and 11.2 percent for Fred Thompson. All other Republican candidates had single percentage support.

Asked which candidate you would most like to share a pizza with:

— Among Democrats polled: Barack Obama led the field at 30.3 percent, followed by Hillary Clinton at 23 percent and John Edwards at 22.6 percent.

— Among Republicans polled: Mike Huckabee finished in the lead at 28.3 percent, followed by Mitt Romney at 15.2 percent.

Asked which candidate you think eats the most pizza:

— Among Democrats polled: Bill Richardson led the field at 15.4 percent.

— Among Republicans polled: Rudy Giuliani came out on top at 17.5 percent.

There you have it. We can all relax now.

.

Mitt Romney Is A National Embarassment

by tristero

Man, Romney makes me ashamed of my country:

“We’ll try and represent ourselves and our nation well also to our kids because I think, I think kids watch the White House and there have been failures in the past in the White House — if you go back to the Clinton years and recognize that — that I think had an enormous impact on the culture of our country”

Oh, where to start? Well, for starters, I suppose Romney’s saying that the “enormous impact” of Monica’s blowjob “on the culture our country” was responsible for Trent Lott’s racist defense of Strom Thurmond, the substance abuse problems of Jeb Bush’s daughter, the meth-fueled extramarital sex sessions of the former Reverend Ted Haggard, Larry Craig’s widening stance, Bush/Iraq war supporter Brittney Spears’ shaved head, and maybe even Cheney’s inebriated behavior around loaded shotguns. Or maybe Romney has in mind serial adulterers in his own party like Scaife, Gingrich, Hyde, and Giuliani. Who knew a little fellatio was so insidious that it could cause David Addington and Alberto Gonzalez to countenance torture, or Tom Delay to use the Office of Homeland Security to help subvert the legislature of Texas? Or perhaps Romney had in mind the slimy christianist activists who Judge Jones accused of lying to a court of law during Kitzmiller v. Dover. Yes, this is all the Clintons’ fault.

For a second response, let’s go about 40 kilometers outside of Helsinki, to a farmhouse, with 6 or 7 Finnish friends, with plenty of great food and beer. And when? The day Clinton admitted getting a blowjob from a woman not his wife.

To make a long, very enjoyable evening short, the behavior my Finnish friends found silly and embarrassing was that anyone in the US cared enough to make a big deal out of it. It was the Republican’s and media’s shocked, shocked reaction that was embarrassing the United States. This reaction is a common one, all over the world. Only once, in Canada, did I speak to someone who felt Clinton embarassed the US. I hasten to add that all other Canadians I’ve known are quite normal.

Finally, I am certain that Romney is quite capable of embarassing this country in his own numerous and unique ways, should this country be nuts enough to elect him. Indeed, his remarks about Clinton represent quite a start. And, as Atrios says, he lies about everything. And let’s not forget his public admission that he won’t allow his Mormonism to stand in the way of fluffing christianists.