The Next Hurrah

Rove's Latest Press Offensive

by emptywheel

Jim E points us to Rove's latest press offensive with Michael Isikoff (and reporting from the reality based among us, Evan Thomas). As Jim points out there are two new data points in this column. Or rather one new data point,

In February 2004, Rove testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury—twice.

And one new totally crazy claim,

Among other things, Luskin told the prosecutor that sometime between October 2003 and January 2004 he'd had a drink with Time reporter Viveca Novak.

What's Going To Happen In Iraq?

by DemFromCT

What are the implications of this Sunday article in the WaPo?

Merits of Partitioning Iraq or Allowing Civil War Weighed

As the U.S. military struggles against persistent sectarian violence in Iraq, military officers and security experts find themselves in a vigorous debate over an idea that just months ago was largely dismissed as a fringe thought: that the surest -- and perhaps now the only -- way to bring stability to Iraq is to divide the country into three pieces. (emphasis mine)

Those who see the partitioning of Iraq as increasingly attractive argue that separating the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds may be the only solution to the violence that many experts believe verges on civil war. Others contend that it would simply lead to new and dangerous challenges for the United States, not least the possibility that al-Qaeda would find it easier to build a new base of operations in a partitioned Iraq.

Now the fact that this is is the paper at all, being discussed openly, speaks volumes about the PNAC failure known as Iraq. Bill Kristol was taken apart by Colbert this week (see Crooks and Liars):

Colbert: How's the New American Century, looks good to me?

Kristol: Ahh--I think...hehe yea--I'm speechless..

Colbert: Really?

Kristol: Yea...we've sort of...the Project for the New American Century is just a few people..

Colbert: Come on, it’s a terrific New American Century, right?

Kristol: Well I think we do OK.

Colbert: You Rummy Wolfowitz, Cheney, Pearle, Feith, all you guys right?

Kristol (responds timidly): Well, we fought back after 9/11..

Back To The GOP Playbook

by DemFromCT

The PNAC Iraq democracy experiment is in tatters. Iran is threatening to build nuclear weapons. Gas prices are soaring. Bin Laden is still not caught. And so our President naturally decides to expend energy on the Burning Issue Of The Day:

Asked at a news briefing in the Rose Garden on Friday whether he believed the anthem would have the same value in Spanish as it did in English, Mr. Bush said flatly, "No, I don't."

"And I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English," Mr. Bush said. "And they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

Mr. Bush has tried to occupy a middle ground in the raging debate over immigration, supporting legislation that would grant immigrant workers temporary legal status and perhaps a path to citizenship, while pushing for immigrants to learn English also pressing for more steps to stop the flow of newcomers over the border. But his statement about the anthem was taken by members of both parties as a clear signal to conservatives that he stood with them on what many of them see as a clash between national identity and multiculturalism.

His remarks touched directly on the divide over the impact of immigrants on the nation's culture, crystallized this time by the release of the Spanish version of the anthem, loosely translated and featuring Spanish-language stars like Gloria Trevi and Carlos Ponce.

This is his chance to signal the base that he stands with them on matters of importance. It ranks right up there with flag-burning amendments and gay marriage declarations... a substantive attempt to address the deep-seated structural issues that threaten us all. Not. But as long as Bush advocates guest worker programs, the knuckle-draggers in his party will not be behind him the way he and Karl (newly freed up to concentrate on issues like this) envisioned.

Minuteman organizers say this spring's marches have proved to be an unexpected recruitment tool for Americans who feel uneasy about the burgeoning immigration movement but may have considered the organization a pack of gun-toting vigilantes.

Why Fire Vivnovka?

by emptywheel

I hate to move away from one of the most amazing comment threads ever (really, we're not obsessed, except for the commenter obsessed, who is). But I've got a new question.

I've long believed the hirings and firings of the White House provide one of the keys to reading its scandals. Rove, Hadley, Condi, Bolton, Abu Gonzales, all promoted. Powell, Armitage, Grossman, gone. Just as he was supposed to be flipping on Dick, John Hannah promoted, along with David "I like torture" Addington. Susan Ralston, disappearing into thin air after her Fall 2005 testimony in the Plame Affair (though she may be in hiding because of her associations with Abramoff, too). Card and McClellan gone, Rove demoted. They did the fire or promote to silence during Watergate and I'm sure they're doing it here.

It works similarly with journalists--though with journalists, I think the issue is the shame a journalist might bring to the media outlet brand. Judy Miller? Not doing anything for the credibility of the Grey Lady (or Pinch Sulzberger). Matt Cooper? A recent promotion, or at least a move away from the no-doubt Cooper-hating White House. Woodward? Who knows, but maybe he, too, will go the way of Judy. And frankly, I'm really intrigued by the Novak Fox hire. Not that it doesn't make perfect sense, in the wingnut way of the world. But it suggests Roger Ailes believes that Novak did nothing associated with the Plame Affair that will embarrass Fox. It suggests they may know how he'll testify, and they don't think it'll alienate their wingnut viewers.

So I wonder if inquiring about Vivnovka's recent departure from Time answers any of the questions about her testimony.

An Uncommon Vision

By Mimikatz

John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira have published the last installment of their four-part series entitled "The Politics of Definition, and it is very good.  They might have led with this installment, which contains their prescriptions, and then defended it using the poll data in the first two installments, to avoid the impression that they were concoting a poll-tested formula, but no matter.  This installment clearly lays out their vision of a progressive "common good" politics, and how it can be adapted by a candidate to fit the candidate's own priorities and values, and local conditions.

I an earlier post I alluded to their vision of the common good, and my own understanding of that term as the basic Democratic vision of looking out for the underdog and uniting in a larger enterprise that benefits the many and not the few.  In that post, and in the discussion on a post by Emptypockets we also explored the deleterious impact of 25 years of GOP-extolled competitiveness, materialsm and selfishness on our public and private lives.  Halpin and Teixeira invoke these themes as well.

In a nutshell, here is their prescription:

The politics of definition rests on the empirical and social reality that both passion and pragmatism must be employed to string together a coalition out of the fractious political dynamics of America today. We must find ways to harness both forces to build and sustain a progressive coalition out of a disjointed, nonideological political culture where many groups do not share common traits, beliefs or desires.

(snip)

The politics of definition is grounded on five postulates that we believe can serve as the basis for making sound decisions about how best to organize progressive campaigns and present a coherent identity to voters. We then provide an overview of core progressive values and beliefs that can serve as the organizing principles of long-term campaigns and then sketch out how a politics of definition approach would like in terms of economic, social, and national security policy.

The five postulates for the politics of definition -- the guideposts, questions, and “lines in the sand,” so to speak, that need to be drawn out in order to craft better politics -- are as follows:

(1) The starting point for all political organizing and campaigns should be: “What are my core beliefs and principles and how do I best explain them to supporters and skeptics alike?”

(2) Every political battle, both proactive and defensive, should represent a basic statement of progressive character and present a clear, concise contrast with conservatives. Do not blur lines.

(3) All issue campaigns and agenda items are not equal. Progressives should focus their efforts on issues that can simultaneously strengthen the base and appeal to centrist voters. Progressives must be willing to make sacrifices and tradeoffs -- in terms of coalition building and budgetary concerns -- to achieve their most important agenda items.

(4) Escalate battles that expose the extremism of the right or splinter their coalition. [Follow-up: When confronted with the right’s social, cultural, or national security agenda, the absolute worst response is to fail to combat these caricatures or to explain one’s position directly to voters, regardless of the popularity of the position.]

(5) Every political action should highlight three essential progressive attributes: a clear stand on the side of those who lack power, wealth or influence; a deep commitment to the common good; and a strong belief in fairness and opportunity for all.

More About November From The Polls

by DemFromCT

Gallup's come out with an end-of-week round-up of historical miderm election data that's useful to review. Just like on Wall Street, past performance is no guarantee of future gains. But typically, and as we all know by now, the portents and signs are not good for the Republicans.

The most direct way to measure the potential outcome of the midterm congressional elections is simply to ask Americans for which party they will vote in their congressional district. This has proven to be a highly accurate predictor of the congressional vote in past elections.

This "generic ballot" now shows that the Democratic Party leads the Republican Party 52% to 42% among registered voters.

The factors:

1. Presidential Job Approval
2. Congressional Job Approval
3. National Satisfaction
4. Party ID
5. Enthusiasm

On each of these counts, and especially on the last, advantage Dems. The lack of enthusiasm amongst Republicans may offset the traditional advantage among Rs in turnout (known to us as the RV advantage for Dems that evaporates when LVs are surveyed - Likely Voters are roughly 50% of Registered Voters).

We argue discuss on these pages what's likely to enthuse Dem voters, but what turns off Republicans and R-leaning indies might be that much more important. Interestingly, Gallup discusses how things might turn around for the Party of Dobsen and DeLay:

Chernobyl, beyond the numbers

by Plutonium Page

"It was like airplane pilots experimenting with the engines in flight..."
             -- Valeri Legaslov, Soviet Chernobyl accident investigator

"Without Father"
              -- a 1986 painting about the Chernobyl disaster, by Lyudmila Koulichenko, age 12

"We did not yet possess a system of imagination, analogies, words or experiences for the catastrophe of Chernobyl."
                --  Svetlana Alexiyevich, writer from Belarus

On 26 April, 1986, the worst commercial nuclear accident in history occurred during a test at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which lies near the Belarus-Ukraine border, 100 km north of Kiev, Ukraine.  At 1:23:58 am local time, the plant's Unit 4 reactor was rocked by a steam explosion, followed by a hydrogen explosion and a fire resulting in temperatures over 2,000°C.  The 1,000 ton reactor lid was blown off the core, the nuclear fuel rods melted, and more than 100 times the radiation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was released into the atmosphere over the 10 days that the fire burned.

Many of the small towns and villages close to Chernobyl were rendered uninhabitable, and radioactive fallout from the accident was detected all over Europe.  On that day, the lives of over 130,000 people evacuees from the 30 km radius "exclusion zone" (left, click to enlarge) were changed in a way that is difficult, if not impossible, for most of us to imagine.

Most of the recent media discussion of the Chernobyl catastrophe has focused on the controversy about the number of people who have died - and will die - as a result of the accident.  In other words, the media has largely failed to see the people behind the statistics.  The purpose of this post is not to discuss the numbers, but to put a human face on the legacy of that day in April 1986.

This post is dedicated to those who died, and those who are still with us today. 

(A note to the nerds out there:  for brevity, I am not going into extreme technical detail about the disaster.  However, if you're interested, this article [pdf] is excellent.)

Fitzgerald's Headfake: It's Not Just about Rove and Cooper

by emptywheel

Jim VandeHei, who tends to serve as a Luskin's most faithful stenographer, tells us Rove spent most of his three hour chat yesterday talking about Matt Cooper.

Rove's testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 and whether the top aide later tried to conceal it, the source said. Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said. Lawyers involved in the case said yesterday that they expect a decision on Rove's fate soon.

But I don't think Fitzgerald was thinking solely about whether he'll charge Turdblossom with perjury and obstruction, or just with perjury. I think the testimony directly relates to larger conspiracy charges.

What's Going To Happen In November?

by DemFromCT

We've been putting up a series of poll posts because if one looks at the data, trends become more apparent. For example, in the Sour Mood post about the NBC/WSJ poll, we listed this response from those that took the poll, cautioning against rabid partisanship (but people say they don't like negative ads, even though they respond). Of course, our astute readers here have plenty to say about what really motivates voters. And now Gallup has more bad news for the GOP in their latest poll analysis.

Bush May Be Souring GOP's Mood for Fall Elections
Republican enthusiasm for midterm elections waning; Democrat interest high

A recent USA Today/Gallup survey finds Republican enthusiasm for the 2006 congressional elections waning at the same time that Democratic enthusiasm is at a record high. That disparity could have significant implications for voter turnout in the fall, therefore accentuating the relatively weak support seen for Republican candidates with the general electorate. In other words, the Democrats' greater enthusiasm makes a shift in power in Congress from Republican to Democratic control even more possible, given that turnout in midterm elections is usually a critical factor in the ultimate outcome.

According to the survey, conducted April 7-9, 2006, Democrats lead Republicans by 10 percentage points, 52% to 42%, among all registered voters as the party they are more likely to support in their local congressional race. Typically Republicans can count on higher turnout from their members to significantly contract Democrats' lead among all voters, but whether that happens in 2006 is currently in doubt.

When asked how they feel about voting in this year's congressional elections compared to previous years, the plurality of Republicans, 47%, now say they are less enthusiastic; only 33% say they are more enthusiastic. This is a sharp change from January, when the Republican numbers were nearly reversed; 47% were more enthusiastic and 32% less enthusiastic. Over the same period Democrats' enthusiasm has held constant, with 48% saying they are more enthusiastic and slightly fewer saying less enthusiastic.

I'm not surprised (after all, Bush has soured my mood for 5 years). But if every poll is picking up this 'sour mood' thing, and there's only one party in power, this has the makings of a political train wreck.  Now, every pundit and pundit wannabe will point out that there's a long time between now and November. But that means that there's more time for things to go even more wrong for Republicans. Republican scandals and Iraq and gas prices will not let up (and scandal may yet touch Condi, Mehlman or deeper into the WH). Bush will govern no better in the fall than in the spring. Hurricane season is coming, and FEMA is in disarray.

Cross Blog Historical Post

By Sara

Yesterday on Firedoglake, there was a great post by Jane suggesting the creation of a "Truman Committee" should the Dem's win one or both houses next November.  It is a great slogan, and good general idea, but I know all too well that if people don't know all that much about George Marshall these days -- they probably have a problem remembering the history of ole Harry Truman before he became President.  If it is to be a "cause" or a "slogan" -- we have to put the historical meat into it. 

The idea of a "Truman Committee" has several recommendations.  He did directly and solidly investigate profiteering on the part of contractors during a time of War.  World War II to be specific.  His was a very active committee -- it found fraud and profiteering, and FDR's Justice Department went after it.  In fact his efforts were the value that recommended him as VP in 1944.  It clearly did not lower the morale of the troops knowing that Harry Truman was going after the war profiteers.  Nor did it compromise national security.  In fact in one instance he announced hearings about a factory in Tennessee where it was reported all sorts of stuff went in, and nothing came out -- and George Marshall talked to him and told him to cool the investigation -- it was supposed to be about Oak Ridge.  Truman did can it. 

What I want to suggest is that the paradigm for fraud and corruption today is vastly different from what was understood back in the 1930's and 40's.  Truman's work during World War II can only be understood against the background of the work of the Ney Committee of the 30's, and the two Neutrality Acts it generated -- and that can only be understood against the widespread belief in the wake of World War One that it was fought in the interests of Finance Capital that profited from the war.  Indeed the Ney Committee produced evidence of this thesis -- and that precluded US support for the Republican Cause during the Spanish Civil War -- and it also set the crazy acrobatics FDR would have to jump through between 1939 and Pearl Harbor and then the German Declaration of War on the US.  (If your neighbor's house was on fire, would you lend-lease him your garden hose?)  In fact, in those times, Americans strongly believed  war was an opportunity to profiteer -- and what the Truman Committee was really about was catching the most wicked of them and doing it quite publicly because it was a means of social control for all the rest. 

Sadly, the US has not been through a Great Depression recently and does not have the same attitude toward Corporate America that was so common among what we now call "the Greatest Generation" -- the Depression Survivors (CCC Campers) who fought a successful World War, and then "suddenly" turned normal and voted for Ike.  Essentially, we cannot just pluck one small piece out of a historical dynamic, especially since the American People are so determined not to know or understand their own history.  Our problem is that you cannot recreate something like the Truman Committee without doing the first act -- and the first act was the Ney Committee.,  And the Ney Committee work was based on the majority opinion that World War One was fought in the interests of Finance Capital. 

Both the Ney and the Truman Committees responded to a cross party notion of class and that war was fought in the interests of class.  Since we don't talk about class these days it is really hard to snatch out of history something that cannot be understood without that comprehension.  What the Truman Committee allowed was a cross-over between that belief and the actualities of World War Two.  You could retain concern with fraud, anti-profiteering and speculation, and still support the war effort. 

Jane's idea is that the Democrats should call for something like the Truman Committee.  I've got problems with the lack of a values background such as was laid by the work of the Ney Committee, and the normative background of the Great Depression and New Deal and all that.  I think these days all too many folk are conditioned to think about private interests first -- which means who is really supposed to get all that bothered about a little fraud on this or that Iraqi contract?   

What I do think important is the message that you can investigate Fraud in the midst of a war -- and that the Chair of the committee can ride the wave of approval into the VP office -- and then into the Presidency.  That's good history.  I am afraid we have to figure out from our own current assets how to actually restore a taste for doing what Truman did with his committee in his times.