New Link, Will We Take the WH?

Just needed to add this link, mddems.

Centrist Republican Not Oxymoron?

Here's Ripon Society, even though "Republican" in party orientation, seems centrist in philosophy. To which "moss backed elders" might they be referencing today! Lynn Swann for President?

BACKGROUND ON TRI-PEGGED CONSERVATISM TODAY (New York Review):

On foreign policy, despite the Iraq war, the neoconservatives still hold tremendous sway in GOP circles. Jacob Heilbrunn, a former New Republic writer who has written incisively about the movement over the years, explains why in They Knew They Were Right, his excellent new history of neoconservatism. Heilbrunn adroitly surveys the movement's history, from the Trotskyist alcoves of the City College cafeteria up to the present day. With respect to the future, he argues that the neocons' main potential competitors, the foreign policy realists, have not prepared for long-term battle the way the neocons have ***

the theoconservatives are thought to be on the defensive this election cycle, with their grip on the GOP loosening. In some superficial ways this is true. There is no candidate who passes every one of their basic litmus test issues, and, if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination, the party will have selected a pro-choice nominee for the first time since 1976. Still, where is the countervailing force to the religious right in the party? As with the neocons, there is none. (Frances FitzGerald and other writers have observed a more liberal trend among some of the large evangelical churches; but right-wing evangelicals continue to dominate among Republicans.) There are also organizations like the Ripon Society, which tries to press moderate social programs within the party, and there are nominal blocs of libertarians, but these groups are vastly outspent and outnumbered. ***

the third leg of the conservative movement is in many ways the most important and comprehensive: all conservatives agree on less government, lower taxes, and less regulation. And all the candidates have pledged to support these goals.

Here's Tomasky's conclusion:

But at the same time, one must remember that as far as movement conservatives are concerned, Bush has been something of a disappointment, and vast chunks of their plan for the country remain unrealized. The neocons will not quit wanting a preemptive strike against Iran, something the December NIE has seemingly ruled out for the rest of Bush's term; they will welcome a fresh opportunity to push their case with an administration the public has not yet learned to distrust. The theocons still want Roe overturned, along with some other Warren Court precedents (watch, if the next president is a Republican, for a fresh assault on Warren-era decisions on criminal and civil procedure, for example Miranda v. Arizona). And for the radical anti-taxers' tastes, the federal government is still far too large, its regulations far too numerous, and income tax and capital gains tax rates, even at their already reduced levels, far too high, not to mention the continued existence of that pesky Social Security system.

The Republican nominee, once he is named next spring, will undoubtedly tack toward the center during the general election campaign. But again, the important question is how he would govern. Presidents respond to the constituencies that put them in office, and a Republican president elected in 2008 will have been put in office by the factions that control his party. There is no reason to expect that he will defy those factions. Let us hope that in the long run, the Republicans outside them will decide to challenge their power.

Addition to Blogroll

Here Politico, something new for this bloggy Friday.

Topics of Interest

National Security Archives: "Crown Jewels" released summer, 2007 noted by Valerie Plame.

Bush v Gore and the recount, the shake'n bake decision. Reading Bake's book almost makes me think Republicans could be an alright bunch after all. Almost.

Musings Over a Paradox

One of Bush's top aides muses on the defining paradox of this presidency: How did a man who promised a change of tone in Washington preside over one of the most partisan and divisive periods in the country's history? Bush doesn't conduct feuds or hold personal grudges, this adviser insists. "The president is polarizing, even though he isn't polar." Here's where I find a disconnect: Bush's aides seem not to understand how Bush and Cheney's statements have poisoned the water.

Perhaps there is a structural problem caused by congressional redistricting, this aide reflects, with most Republicans and Democrats in safe one-party districts where the biggest threat is a challenge from their extreme wings. The aide pauses, and then offers a devastating analogy: "We may be the Israelis and Palestinians here, each trying to avenge the latest outrage." If so, that's not good for the country.

David Ignatius

The Next Challenge

During the 1990s, Paul Romer, a Stanford economist, emerged as one of the world’s leading theorists on economic growth. Recently, though, Romer has changed his focus, and he told me that the country, too, is entering a new phase. For most of the 20th century, he explained, economists focused on stability — that is, understanding and controlling inflation and depressions. Then, toward the end of the century, growth became the central obsession. Now, Romer said, we are embarking on the next great challenge in American economics: mitigating inequality.

Matt Bai, a contributing writer, covers national politics for the NY Times magazine. His book, “The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics,” will be published in August.

Vanishing Moderates?

David Broder, here:

Today, however, the partisan chasm in Washington is deeper than it has been in 100 years, according to some academic studies, as moderate blocs in both parties have all but vanished.

But of course this is not the last word on moderation, or molasses-pace of change:

“I agree that it is a bad thing for it to take an extraordinarily long time to deal with problems,” said Mickey Edwards, a former Republican representative from Oklahoma and now a vice president of the Aspen Institute and a lecturer in government at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. “But I think it is a worse thing to rush into solutions when you’re dealing with a nation of 300 million people.”

He cited Prohibition and the Medicare drug benefit as examples of laws that carried large and unintended consequences.

“I don’t suggest that given enough time you can make everything perfect,” Mr. Edwards said. “But you do need enough time to make sure all views are heard and you can avoid the unforeseen circumstances that plague so many things.”

“You don’t just want them to act,” he said. “You want them to act responsibly.”

Well said guys.

Power and the Man

Tenet has done an uncommon thing in Washington—uniting columnists on opposite sides of the Iraq war in their contempt for him. “Tenet presents himself as a pathetic victim and scapegoat of an administration that was hellbent on going to war, slam dunk or not,” the columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Post. In the Times, Maureen Dowd was coldly dismissive, writing, “If you have something deadly important to say, say it when it matters, or just shut up and slink off.” On the New Republic Web site, the international-relations expert Ronald Steel wrote that Tenet “exemplifies the rule that those in high places will endure virtually any humiliation before surrendering a position of power.”

The New Yorker

Ya Gotta Love The Nation

Wanna know why I luv The Nation?

Here's why:

Bush Blames the Troops

Robert Scheer

PRINT ARTICLE TAKE ACTION EMAIL ARTICLE SUBSCRIBE NOW BLETTERS (1) Blame it on the military but make it look like you're supporting the troops. That's been the convenient gambit of failed emperors throughout history as they witnessed their empires decline. Not surprisingly then, it's become the standard rhetorical trick employed by President Bush in shirking responsibility for the Iraq debacle of his making. Ignoring the fact that we have a system of civilian control over the military, which is why he, the elected President, is designated the commander in chief, Bush hides behind the fiction that the officers in the field are calling the shots when in fact he has put them in an unwinnable situation and refuses to even consider a timetable for getting them out. He did it again Monday, responding to the prospect that both houses of Congress seem in agreement on setting guidelines for the "progress" that the President continually proclaims is at hand. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable [for] withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job." This is disingenuous in the extreme, because Bush is the Washington politician who plotted this unnecessary war from the moment the 9/11 attack provided him with an excuse for regime change in a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack.

Capital Briefing: No Impeachment (yet)

Sorry so late, but y'gotta check out this blog (Capital Briefing) from Washington Post's Kane.

If not impeachment, then it's immunity for that Assistant AG who said she's taking the Fifth (Amendment -- that is asserting one's right to remain silent), so forcing her to testify about what she was so afraid might incriminate herself, that would be according to her own lawyer of course. Now that's good. Of course lawyers need lawyers in order to be (and become) better lawyers and also to remain protected from other lawyers.

Six members of the committee voted not to grant the immunity. One member, from Texas, wanted to know whether, if immunity might not be granted AG Gonzales might resign. The response? "How should I know... (I loved that). Let's not go there (yet), okay?"

Whew, it's a jungle out there.

ALSO: On Tuesday, paying tribute to the observance of Equal Pay Day, Clinton chose to blog about pay equity on firedoglake.com -- the smart, edgy and saucy progressive blog run by women. It's the online home for Jane Hamsher, producer of the 1994 cult classic film "Natural Born Killers" and author of a bestselling, tell-all book "Killer Instinct" on the making of the controversial movie. From, The Sleuth (Mary Ann Akers) and Washington Post

Katrina Vanden Heuvel Speaks

Here's what's really going on: (from Nation)

On the eve of Alberto Gonzales' testimony before Congress about his deep involvement in US Attorneygate, the Bush Administration has the gall to propose a bill which would greatly expand its ability to intercept telephone calls and e-mail correspondence as well as provide immunity to participating telecom companies. The bill would do far more damage to our right to privacy than many in the mainstream media are reporting.

According to the New York Times, Democratic leaders "reacted cautiously" to the White House proposal. (Even though "they have become increasingly concerned by disclosures of abuses in other data collection programs.") But is this a time for caution in dealing with this White House and its cronies? It's a time for spine, mettle, and moxie. The question that all small-d democrats need to ask themselves is this: are you a defender or a subverter of our Constitution?

The telecom immunity (with impunity!) provision of this should-be-dead-on-arrival proposal is easy to address. In opposing the measure, even Republican Senator Arlen Specter ☼ told The Times, "That provision is a pig in the poke. There has never been a statement from the Administration as to what these companies have done. That's been an intolerable situation."

As for White House claims that it is simply trying to "modernize" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – there is a clear record of FISA providing both the oversight needed to guard against executive abuse and meeting our nation's national security needs.

As Elizabeth Holtzman noted in a Nation cover story, "Since 1978, when the law was enacted, more than 10,000 national security warrants have been approved by the FISA court; only four have been turned down."

And Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, and Legislative Counsel Timothy Sparapani, wrote in a letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "… the Administration has not publicly provided Congress with a single example of how current standards in FISA have either prevented the intelligence community from using new technologies or proven unworkable for the personnel tasked with following them." Frederickson concluded in a statement, "FISA has been constantly violated since President Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping and data mining of Americans by the National Security Agency in 2001. Congress shouldn't reward a president who continuously disregards the rule of law. FISA has already been amended numerous times. It doesn't need to be 'modernized,' it needs to be followed." Mike German, Policy Counsel, adds, "This proposal doesn't 'modernize' FISA. It guts it."

What is most frightening about the Bush proposal is that although the Administration claims – and many in the mainstream media are reporting – that the plans are an effort at modernization and increasing the monitoring of targeted foreign persons (which is troubling enough), it's really about increasing surveillance of Americans too, according to Mike German.

By changing the definition of "electronic surveillance", the Administration would be able to exempt all international phone calls from the warrant requirement. The same holds true for e-mails. The government wouldn't have to go to the FISA Court long unless it knew that "the sender and all intended recipients are located within" the US. Any e-mail routed through a foreign country could be fair game. So, for example, if AOL routes an email originating in Washington, DC to a recipient in San Francisco – via Canada – the government could mine the content of that email. (Of course, cooperating telecom companies would be protected with immunity.) And let's say the government just happened to grab some of this information in violation of the law…. currently it is required to destroy it. The new proposal allows the government to "keep material that they improperly took by accident," German says.

Just as Gonzales was a key player in creating and defending warrantless wiretaps to spy on Americans; stripping habeas corpus rights and weakening our commitment to the Geneva Convention; politicizing the civil rights division at his Department of (In)Justice… no doubt he will offer his unabashed support for the Administration's latest proposal to expand domestic spying, weaken oversight, and rollback the checks and balances of our system to create an unfettered Executive. The contempt for our Constitution is clear, and the pattern of abuse is consistent with what former Nightline anchor Ted Koppel recently warned happens "when a regime places a higher value on ideological loyalty than it does on honesty or creativity or even efficiency."

FISA needs to be strengthened, not weakened. Gonzales needs to resign – he has no credibility as our top law enforcement official. And investigations need to be held to determine the telecom role during five years of illegal domestic spying.

There is only one bright side to this latest chapter of madness in the long insanity of the Bush Administration. It raises another opportunity for sane political leaders and pro-democracy patriots to push back and answer this fundamental question: are we a nation of laws or do we bend to the partisan rule of a few men?

Don't forget to check out the comments at the end of THIS piece.

Helping the Homeless

Frederick, Md----After closing in mid-March for the season, the doors of the Alan P. Linton Jr. Emergency Shelter have reopened due to April's surprisingly frigid weather.

The Rev. Brian Scott, executive director of the Religious Coalition for Emergency Human Needs, said freezing temperatures last Thursday forced the agency to put a call for help out to its 300 volunteers and reopen its door for the Easter weekend.

Go Earth Day--Go Sheryl and Laurie

Check out the Global Warming Tour led by Laurie David and Sheryl Crow, here and the Danielle Lurie's blog on the march here.

See who else is marching here.

It kicked off today and finishes up at GWU on Sunday April 22.

March! March!

UPDATE: Sheryl and Laurie are blogging the tour at Huffington Post.

Measure of a Nation

The measure of a nation, as much as the measure of a man, is the ability to hold true under pressure to universal truths of decency and humility.

Executive authority strains most vigorously against its constitutional restraints in times of war and in matters of human liberty. Both Washington and Lincoln faced precisely these dilemmas, and resolved them without compromising America's dignity or reputation.

Read more of this, here. (The Nation, via How Appealing)

Weekend Reading for Patriots Only

There is this from Tim Grieve and the War Room at Salon

The House of Representatives has just put itself on record as opposing the president's escalation of the war in Iraq. The final vote on a nonbinding resolution was 246-182, with more than a dozen Republicans breaking ranks with their party to vote in favor it.

The text of the House resolution is simple and clear:

"Resolved by the House of Representatives ... that (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."

The Senate will vote on whether to vote on the resolution Saturday.

Here is a good beginning to understanding Iraq, where it came from and where it is going: Source

William Pfaff--New York Review of Books

President George Bush has decided to disregard both the political message of the 2006 midterm election and congressional pressure for an early end to America's Iraq involvement, as well as the Baker-Hamilton proposals. These decisions are meeting much opposition, which is likely to fail. Bush's opponents have been unable to propose a course of withdrawal that is not a politically prohibited concession of American defeat and that does not risk still more destructive consequences in Iraq and probably the region—even though the result of delayed withdrawal could be worse in all respects. Most of Bush's critics in Congress, in the press and television, and in the foreign policy community are hostage to past support of his policy and to their failure to question the political and ideological assumptions upon which it was built.

This followed from a larger intellectual failure. For years there has been little or no critical reexamination of how and why the limited, specific, and ultimately successful postwar American policy of "patient but firm and vigilant containment of Soviet expansionist tendencies...and pressure against the free institutions of the Western world" (as George Kennan formulated it at the time) has over six decades turned into a vast project for "ending tyranny in the world."^[1]

The Bush administration defends its pursuit of this unlikely goal by means of internationally illegal, unilateralist, and preemptive attacks on other countries, accompanied by arbitrary imprisonments and the practice of torture, and by making the claim that the United States possesses an exceptional status among nations that confers upon it special international responsibilities, and exceptional privileges in meeting those responsibilities.

The rest of this article is available at the hot link.

Also check out this one: (source)

talking tough may look like a good way of demonstrating U.S. resolve, but when tough talk makes our opponent richer and stronger we may accomplish more by saying less. James Surowiekcki--New Yorker

"Our" War (begone)

Update on War Resolutions: Next stop, state capitals. (courtesy, NYT).

The Line in the United States House of Representatives

Not one more casualty in Iraq. Not one more body brought home in a box. Not one more. Not one. Nada. Bring them home tomorrow. That is the best view I've heard yet, and comes from Newsweek's Anna Q. She is right on the button.

Representative Woolsey also has the right idea on the floor of the House. The House resolution will pass, and is but a start. The finish is when the convoys bring the troops home, enemy in Iraq are shooting at the stars and not, not, not at under-armored Americans, and any threat that moves is picked off utilizing superior surveillance and intel by truly international cooperating forces seeking peace and order in the Middle East.

It all begins with one word, one action; the results will come.

Democrats Divided Beats Republicans Toe the Line

Begin today's review from the Crow's Nest with General Odom here (Washington Post OpEd. Odom is a West Point graduate with a PhD from Columbia, teaches at Yale and is a fellow of the Hudson Institute).
This is no dud, dude: "Victory is Not an Option" and it starts like this,

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.

Its gloomy implications -- hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact -- put the intelligence community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon.

Read the planks on the Iraq War and foreign policy here, (Jeffrey Goldberg) courtesy of New Yorker Magazine. Here's the nub:

Obama, like his rivals, would rather not see the Democrats take the blame for what recent events suggest will be an unhappy dénouement in Iraq. But many foreign-policy experts believe that, even without an increase in troop levels in the coming months, Bush may yet succeed in delaying the day of reckoning until the next President takes office.

A few other interesting excerpts:

2005 poll conducted by the Democratic-affiliated Security and Peace Institute found that the top two foreign-policy priorities of Republicans were the destruction of Al Qaeda and a halt to nuclear proliferation; Democrats named the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the elimination of AIDS. Grassroots Democratic opposition to the Iraq war has been especially potent; it cost Senator Joseph Lieberman the support of Democrats in his primary fight last year. Polls also show that a sizable minority of Democrats now feel that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake—thirty-five per cent, according to an M.I.T. survey conducted in November of 2005. Even more noteworthy, only fifty-seven per cent of Democrats questioned in the same poll would support the deployment of U.S. troops against a known terrorist camp. A German Marshall Fund poll in June of last year found that seventy per cent of Republicans would approve of military action as a last resort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as opposed to only forty-one per cent of Democrats.******

New Republic editor-at-large Peter Beinart, who has argued for a more assertive Democratic foreign policy, notes in an essay that will appear in a forthcoming collection produced by the Brookings and Hoover Institutions, “America’s red-blue divide is no longer chiefly between churched and unchurched. It is between hawk and dove.” He is not alone in arguing that Bush has done something that would have seemed impossible in late 2001: he has turned the fight against terrorism into a partisan issue.

No Debate?

Here's what's going on about Iraq in the Senate:

At issue are four separate measures. The main resolution, worked out by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), would put the Senate on record as opposing the additional troop deployment while calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict. It would oppose a cutoff of funds for troops in the field of battle.

The Republican leadership's alternative, drafted by John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), would establish tough new benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500675.html

March, March, March! (in January)

Here is something for we, the Peaceful People: ("Around The Nation")

March on Washington: Act Now to End the War!

• Washington, DC.

On Saturday, January 27, people from every corner of the country will march on Washington, DC. Our message will be clear, our voice will be strong: End the war in Iraq, Bring all the troops home now! Jan. 28: Peace and Justice lobby training, strategy exchange and skills sharing. Jan. 29: Educate Congress Day--lobby or join a CODEPINK action in Congress. Jan. 30: One last DC action with Codepink. For more information and to sign up to attend and/or volunteer go to www.unitedforpeace.org or www.codepinkdc.org.

Permalink | Add to Google Calendar