The Next Open Thread

by DemFromCT

Laura Rozen notes that Tom Friedman is giving up.

President Bush has slipped in one recent poll to a 29 percent approval rating. Frankly, I can't believe that. Those polls can't possibly be accurate. I mean, really, ask yourself: How could there still be 29 percent of the people who approve of this presidency?

Personally, I think the president can reshuffle his cabinet all he wants, but his poll ratings are not going to substantially recover — ever. Americans are slow to judgment about a president, very slow. And in times of war, in particular, they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I think a lot of Americans in recent months have simply lost confidence in this administration's competence and honesty.

That why Bush's immigration speech didn't work. It wasn't the content, which Ted Kennedy could live with. It was the messenger.Take Broder's reaction, e.g.

Chertoff was explaining that the rotating contingents of 6,000 troops who would supplement the 12,000 patrol agents on the border would be an interim force. It might take two years, he said, to recruit and train several thousand additional men and women for the border agency that is now part of his department. As they come on duty, he said, the number of National Guard troops would be reduced.

"Sort of like Iraq," I said. "As they stand up, we will stand down."

"I would not make that comparison," Chertoff replied.

Of course he would not, because it implies that this latest Bush military deployment could be as open-ended and frustrating in its results as the previous one.

Shorter Broder: "We trust this guy on immigration like we do on Iraq." And that would be not at all.

This is an open thread.

Comments

[TCinLA]

One might also point to the grilling Cheney got yesterday by Rush Limbaugh on the subject of immigration. There wasn't a single softball thrown by our favorite drug-addled moron, and Cheney was entirely on the defense during the whole 13 minutes, unable to give a good answer to any of Limbaugh's questions. So now they've lost Rush.

One hopes the Republicans will run like crazy on their 21st Century version of 1924 xenophobia, since the majority of the country actually agrees with the kinds of ideas Bush was trying to get at (I never ever thought I would find the day when I would say that his ideas are better on any topic, but on this they are - even a stopped clock is right twice a day and this is one of those times). But like I said, let the Bozos be bozos, and after November 7 we can take our majority and write immigration reform that isn't a carbon copy of "dogs and Irishmen keep off the grass" from 1854.

1752: When are these Germans going to learn English?

1846: When are these Irish going to learn English?

1885: When are these Jews going to learn English?

1895: When are these Italians going to learn English?

1905: When are these Poles and Slavs going to learn English?

[youarereadingthisrightnow]

RE: Tom Friedman.

I found this hilarious.
"6 to 9 months..."

[kvenlander]

It's kinda funny (in a sad and infuriating way) that on a subject Bush actually knows something about and has experience, he is calling for a reasoned discussion. It also follows that the less he knows, the more black-and-white is pronouncements are...

[DemFromCT]

kvenlander, the irony is not lost on us. Here he is, trying for a reasonable compromise that most Americans that aren't Republican house members could live with, and he gets nowhere.

why? it's because of everything else he's done the last 5 years. His political capitol is in deficit spending.

So Democrats could help him pass this in the House (not just the Senate), but that won't happen. Hastert's "majority of the majority" rule means that if the Rs don't like it, it won't come to a vote, and that minority R plus all D bills shall not pass the House. And Ds won't in any case lift a finger to help W.

The end result is passage in the Senate and not the House, allowing D's to paint the Rs as extremist and obstructionist, or passing a bill that will make the Rs lose the House. Bush looks weak and the House Rs look screwed no matter what they do.

What a stupid system.

[&y]

I've been working on this Plame Resources and Timeline periodically for a few weeks. I know--another freakin' Plame timeline. Sigh. But if any of the serious Plameologists who frequent this site have time to take a gander, I’d appreciate it. The comments section of the post is open.

Caveats. The timeline part becomes fairly lame right around the time Libby is indicted--I’m still working on it... and will probably be working on it forever. But up to the indictment, I think I have most of the broad strokes covered. Now I’m looking to flesh it out further with the vital and not-so-vital details I’ve overlooked.

[bleh]

Re Friedman, does he really think people put any credence in the wide-eyed naif act?

How, and O how, asks the crack reporter turned geopolitical and historical savant, could Bush, knowing that his historical legacy depends on how he handles war and peace and all that stuff, not put The Best Possible People in charge of it? Why, it boggles even his big and well-informed mind!

Uh, gee, Tom, maybe because they don't and never did give a flying f*&k about anything except making their buddies rich?

I know, it makes even your Mind reel. And truly, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

What an idiot. Somebody pension him off, for all our sakes.

[ab initio]

For those following the EFF class action lawsuit against AT&T, I have a question:

The Feds have filed a brief requesting the judge to throw out the case on the grounds that "state secrets" and "national security" is at stake. What are the precedents in case law for such assertions and have the judiciary traditionally given the government a pass when it claims injury to "state secrets" even when there is a credible likelihood that the government has engaged in illegal acts?

[Steve]

Good post on the state secrets doctrine here.

[TCinLA]

What is really truly sick about the "state secrets" exception - as you can read in detail if you follow the link in the post immediately above to Glenn Greenwald's excellent explanation - is that it was done because the plaintiffs said the Air Force records they wanted would demondstrate USAF malfeasance, incompetence and liability for the accident. USAF said they were "state secrets" utterly necessary for the Cold War and the Judge bought it. When the records were opened under the 50 year rule, what did they reveal? Malfeasance, incompetence and liability on the part of USAF for the accident!!! Surprisesurprise.

And people wonder why it is I wouldn't believe an employee of the US government - under any political administration - if they told me today was Wednesday.

[ab initio]

Thanks Steve for the link to Glenn Greenwald's post on "state secrets" legal defense. It's just as I suspected, where judges don't even review the "state secret" to determine if it really is so or just a cover-up.

This is just a big legal loophole that further strengthens the state vs the individual. It's hitting home that we live in a constitutional democracy only nominally or better just in name only. The Bill of Rights are great for history class and politcial ads and for bloviating but means very little in a practical sense when it comes to state power.

So as we see now when there is a rubber-stamp congress and an overreaching executive we can easily have a totalitarian state but unlike the european fascists during the 30s-40s they'll provide us the illusion of the constitution.

[DHinMI]

This is a test for power and for ball.