The Next Hurrah

The Next Open Thread

by DemFromCT

A topic of abiding interest:

Democrats Weigh Risks of Caution

Strategists differ over offering a detailed agenda versus relying on voters' unhappiness with Republicans.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2006

WASHINGTON — Are the Democrats ready for their close-up?

With President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress facing bleak approval ratings, many Democrats are increasingly confident that the public is ready to hear the party's alternative policy ideas as the 2006 campaign heats up.

The question is whether the Democrats have an alternative ready to present.

Party leaders have provided some specifics about how they would deal with national security, energy issues and ethics reform if they recapture one or both chambers of Congress in November. But on many topics, they have provided only broad hints about their direction.

This cautious strategy is generating intensifying debate within the party.

We know which side of the debate TNH readers are at, but there's this:

On the other side are strategists who fear that offering too many specifics could allow Republicans to shift focus away from public discontent with how they have governed. Those sentiments appear especially strong among Senate Democrats.

"If you start to [discuss] big government programs … you open yourself up to criticism in all directions, and there's no reason for Democrats to do that now," said one senior Democratic Senate aide, who asked not to be identified when discussing internal party deliberations.

But attempts to minimize the target for Republicans could leave Democrats vulnerable in a different respect. A continued reluctance to detail an agenda, some party strategists say, could allow the Republicans room to define for voters what the priorities of the Democrats are.

Your turn.

More On The Narrative

by DemFomCT

That would be the term for the conventional wisdom that passes for punditry and insight these days. The CW drives the narrative as editors and scribes try to put events in a 'helpful' context that, while often wrong, nonetheless flavor stories and events through the ubiquitous media filter. For example, the 'popular' Bush has morphed into the 'unpopular' Bush, 'and Iraq is driving his numbers down. So what does he need to do to get his mojo back?' and so on.

This is often false and simplistic, but it's nonetheless out there. Bush, for example, is never getting his mojo back and will never be above 40% job approval again. He screwed up so royally on Iraq and Katrina (it's not just Iraq) that no one will ever trust him again. But editors can't get themselves to admit that Bush has already been deemed a failure by the American pubic, so they have to play the 'what would it take to..?'. game.

As far as Congress goes, here are examples of the narrative from First Read:

A New Treasury Secretary

The big news this morning is that President Bush has finally found someone willing to become Secretary of the Treasury to succeed John Snow.  The pick is Henry Paulson, head of the prominent brokerage firm Goldman Sachs, previous home of Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.   There is no question that Paulson is a man with considerable stature on Wall Street.  Indeed, the big question for the commentators on CNBC this morning was why such a person would take the job.

As Bush's previous secretary, Paul O'Neill, so famously remarked in his book "The Price of Loyalty", the Bush Administration is notoriously uninterested in policy as such, just politics.  Moreover, the chatter about replacing the hapless John Snow has repeatedly made it clear that the Bush Administration considers the job of Treasury Secretary to be head cheerleader for the economy, and, by reflection, Bush.   In other words, someone who could sell the public on the idea that an economy that all but the top 5% experience as unsettling at best and very difficult at worst is really the best there is. 

But Paulson is an interesting choice, and the fact that he would take the job is interesting in itself.  Paulson is not just  a very smart, savvy and successful Wall Streeter.  He is also an avid birdwatcher and Chairman of the Board of the Nature Conservancy, and someone who puts his money where his mouth is:

Paulson is chairman of the board of directors of the Nature Conservancy, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that aims to promote environmental diversity and protect natural habitats. He and his wife ``are devoted conservationists,'' according to William Burnham, president of the Boise, Idaho-based Peregrine Fund for birds of prey, which he joined in 1990.

Paulson defended his conservation work at the firm's annual meeting on March 31 after the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a pro-free-enterprise mutual fund, accused him of promoting his environmental concern ahead of Goldman's business interests. Three days later, the firm disclosed that Paulson had just made a $100 million donation to a charitable foundation he established to donate to environmental causes. He still owns stock worth more than $500 million.

In fact, because the Nature Conservancy (albeit one of the more conservative conservation groups) is known to support the Kyoto Treaty and action on global warming, Paulson's rumored accession to the post was criticized by some conservatives precisely for that reason.  Moreover, as a person with a solid Wall Street finance background, even if he is a Bush Pioneer, he has to know that the current fiscal policy (all borrow and spend, all the time) is a Recipe for Disaster. 

It has been said that Bush needed Paulson more than Paulson needed to be Treasury Secretary.  It is hard to believe that a man of his stature, wealth and, apparently, principles, would join this Administration, even in its waning days, if he thought he was going to be just  a salesman for a failed and unsustainable economic policy.  It will be interesting to see what happens in those legendary cabinet meetings, and whether Paulson is able to bring some degree of sanity to an operation in which so many with ability have failed and so many without scruples have prospered.

And it may show something else.  Maybe Karl Rove is more worried about Al Gore than about Hillary Clinton.

Anatomy of a White House Smear, 3.3

by emptywheel

5/31: See the update below--apparently when DOJ first subpoenaed documents from the White House, that was an "informal" subpoena.

This is the third part of a multi-part narrative of the whole Plame Affair. Here are parts one and two. In this post, I cover the efforts BushCo made to slow the investigation--and possibly to cover-up the crime--in Fall 2003.

Delayed Realization and Playing Dumb: July to September 2003

I ended my leak week post with Novak's column. But that's a bit deceptive, because BushCo continued to push the Wilson smear even after Novak's column. On July 20, four days after presumably attending Gerald Ford's birthday party with her husband and Dick Cheney, Andrea Mitchell told Joe Wilson that "White House sources were telling her about the real story not being the sixteen words but Wilson and his wife." (Earlier that week Mitchell was was bitching because Richard Armitage wasn't returning her calls.) The next day Chris Matthews called and told Wilson that Rove had told him that Plame was "fair game." (Politics of Truth 350-1) After outing Plame, BushCo kept pushing the nepotism story, showing little concern, yet, for her covert status.

Billy Graham is a liar.

Look, the evidence is in the archives of the Minnesota Historical Society where I put the records about 25 years ago.  In 1964 I was Executive Director of the Minnesota Council on Religion and Race, and among other things, I tried to get the Billy Graham organization then headquartered in Minnesota to endorse the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  They negotiated a little -- but not for long, but they then decided that it was not in their interests, and they refused.  (I got all the Minnesota congresspersons, but not Billy Graham.  I know he also refused an invite from MLK to talk about it.  While I like Taylor Branch's history he really skipps over this matter. 

What really boiled me about Billy Graham was when I discovered that he had the Hungarian Copyright on King's writings in Hungary not only on King's own books, but Gandhi stuff long out of copyright that Graham's organization had republished and recopyrighted as to translations.  I was struck by the effort to put forward the idea of non-violence essentially as a suggested state policy in a Hungarian context, but not be willing to join a united religious front for the 1964 Civil Rights Act in an American Context. 

Watching his interview with Chris Mathews -- I realize the guy is -- shall we say "forgetfull" -- But where you were on the big laws in 1964 -- that you don't forget. 

On the Lighter Side

by emptypockets

Something fun for your day off. I scribbled it several years ago in Golden Gate Park.
Let's call it the second entry in The emptypockets Anthology of Short Fiction.

"Any excuse for a barbecue! That's what my grandfather would say, ash on his apron and sparks in his hair. He was good, too, a real hamburger Hephaestus. But he never moved out of the classical. He'd learned it old-school, black coals and red dogs, with grey smoke over everything.

Now my father was weaned on those weenies but he moved on as a young man. It caused great tension between him and my grandfather, and when my dad grilled his first portobello they didn't speak for six years. My pop was the Picasso of the Weber, he reinvented the grill. Mushroom and salmon shishkebab with garlic butter and dill. Upside-down buffalo burgers with avocado chili. Even desserts -- grilled dandelions over vanilla ice cream would have crowned the collection of any gustatory Louvre.

So when he presented me my first set of tongs in a small ceremony, close family only, on my thirteenth birthday, I was intimidated by them to say the least. In my dreams I was turned over a low fire all night, waking covered in sweat and charred on one side.

What We Don't See on TV

by emptypockets

President George W. Bush raised nearly half a million dollars for Representatives Jim Gerlach and Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania last Wednesday at a $1000-per-ticket fund-raiser. Here is what he said.

A battlefront in the war on terror is, of course, Iraq. And people in our country are unsettled because of the war, and I understand that. I fully understand why people in America are disquieted about what they're seeing on their TV screens. There's a concern about whether or not we can win. There's no doubt in my mind we will win...

The enemy cannot defeat us on the battlefield, but what they can do is put horrible images on our TV screens.

It is not what we are seeing on TV screens that disquiets us.

What Libby Gets

by emptywheel

Thanks to Tom Maguire for getting Judge Walton's decision on what Libby will be granted from his journalist subpoenas. The short version is, not much, beyond a draft article that will apparently make Judy look bad (go figure) and the drafts of the Matt Cooper's "What I Told the Grand Jury." So it seems that Libby will be able to:

• Impeach Judy based on her interview with other NYT reporters
• Slightly impeach Cooper based on inconsistencies in his draft version of the story
• Not impeach Russert directly, one way or another

Update: After thinking about this, I think I'll rephrase this--I think Libby gets more. He will be able to:

• Impeach Judy based on her interview with other NYT reporters and possibly gain secondary information about her other sources or at least what she knew when
• Impeach Cooper to some unknown degree based on inconsistencies in his draft version of the story
• Not impeach Russert directly, one way or another

I'll review his decisions below.

Gallup: Bush's Biggest Poll Losses Are Moderate and Liberal Republicans

by DemFromCT

Since the start of his second term, George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped almost 20 percentage points, including declines among key demographic groups. A Gallup analysis shows that Bush has lost the most support over this period from moderate and liberal Republicans, with most of this change coming in the last several months. Conservative Republicans remain solidly behind Bush, although their level of support for him has declined somewhat from the near-universal support they gave him at the start of his second term. 

Bush's overall approval rating averaged 33% in the three most recent Gallup Polls, conducted in late April through mid-May. This is down from a 43% average in three polls conducted in January 2006, and a 52% average in three polls conducted in January 2005, as Bush began his second term in office.

So why were they supporting him in the first place? People like Mike Bloomberg have nothing in common with this crowd of radical wingnuts.

Distancing himself from national Republicans and the Bush administration, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday urged an end to the political manipulation of science, which he said had been used to discredit the threat of global warming and undermine medical advancements in areas like stem-cell research.

In a speech to graduating students of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Mr. Bloomberg railed against what he sees as ideologically motivated arguments that have fueled debate over hot-button issues like teaching evolution in public schools and the Terri Schiavo case.

Anatomy of a White House Smear, 3.2

by emptywheel

This is the second part of a multi-part narrative of the whole Plame Affair. The first part is here. This installment is loooong, but I think it important to keep all of leak week together to show the trends and changes in the Administration's talking points.

Overall, the WH reaction to Wilson seems to have evolved over the week. They threw one then another detail out to smear Joe Wilson and didn't always seem clear about the details, even the details they wanted to disseminate. Libby seems to have been the avant garde of the leaking, leaking solid details of things on Tuesday that others started leaking more vaguely--but more publicly--on Friday. BushCo started, on Monday, simply denying OVP's involvement. By Tuesday, the emphasis was on leaking details of Joe Wilson's trip report and beginning to leak Plame's identity. Both these intensified on Wednesday. On Friday, they seem to have added one item to the more general talking points (as distinct from the avant garde, more extensive points Libby was working from): cueing reporters to figure out who sent Wilson on his trip. By Saturday, they appear to have been seriously distorting the CIA report on Wilson's trip to suggest Wilson was an Iraqi-Nigerien go-between--though by the end of the day, Libby appears to have realized that falsehood might get them in trouble.

Sunday July 6: Dick Takes Notes

On July 6, the NYT publishes Joe Wilson's op-ed and he appears on Meet the Press. Dick apparently annotates his copy of Wilson's op-ed using some of the same terms others in the White House would use later in the week.

Have they done this sort of thing?

Send an Amb to answer a question?

Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?

Or did his wife send him on a junket?

And OVP puts together--and sends to Ari Fleischer by the next day--a set of talking points.

On July 6 the article is printed. On July 7 in response to that, the office of vice president sends some talking points to Mr. Fleischer about the vice president didn't know about this trip before.

Monday July 7: Priming Ari

These talking points may or may not have reached Ari before his morning gaggle, but in any case Ari spins precisely the story about OVP that they want him to spin.