I must say that I was surprised not so much with the heated reactions to the post below about civil liberties (which I expected) but the over-interpretation of it, or rather projection on to it. More than a few readers seem to read this passage -- "a good deal less doctrinaire on civil liberties issues than, I suspect, many of the readers of this site ... And a lot of the things that were done in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were, I think, justifiable in theory, if not always in execution." -- as clearly justifying the use of torture to extract confessions or for any other purpose.

Perhaps my interpretive skills are flagging, but can someone point out the reference to torture here? Torture does not exhaust the range of issues covered by civil liberties, to say the least.

More mailbag ...

Subject: the law vs. survival

Josh,

I think that what I object about <$NoAd$>the Bush administration's actions is that they are trying to legitimize torture. That is a significant change.

Realistically, there are times when a person decides to do whatever is necessary to survive. If you're dead, having the law on your side doesn't help much.

It occurs to me that it's similar, in a strange way, to civil disobedience. In theory, civil disobedience means breaking the law to make a larger point. In such a case, the person breaking the law is willing to face the legal consequences in order to make that point. You might stage a sit-down strike. You don't resist being arrested, but you might plead not-guilty and insist on a jury trial just to gum up the legal works and make yourself as inconvenient as possible to the authorities.

The point is torture has no legitimate place in U.S. law.

Regards,

Jim R.

See this June 7th post for more discussion of the point at issue here.

Bazinet and Kennedy nail the Kerik story in the Daily News ...

"Rudy cashed in a chip on this one," said a White House source, who earlier this week predicted there was "no way" Kerik could land a cabinet-level job in the Bush administration.

Rudy's chit.

If there was ever a subject for the Sunday shows, certainly this is it.

By Kevin Drum's count there are seven cabinet secretaries now left standing. Four of them are at second-tier posts (Interior, Labor, HUD and VA) and another, Treasury Secretary Snow, is just (briefly) being kept around for humiliation value -- like the goofy kid in the club whose role and utility is to provide a ready target for the application of wedgies.

And that leaves Don Rumsfeld who, according to this report tonight on CNN, is not only still standing, but will keep standing probably for the rest of the Bush presidency ...

The official said the president asked Rumsfeld, 72, to stay during a weekly meeting on Monday because the nation is at war and he is the best person for the job. Rumsfeld has said he wants to finish his reforms at the Pentagon and continue overseeing the Iraq war and that country's hoped-for transformation.

And of all these <$Ad$>people -- Powell, Ashcroft, Paige, Abraham, Thompson, Veneman, Evans -- does any of them hold a candle to Don Rumsfeld when it comes to the number of screw-ups, debacles and disasters that have happened on his watch?

I mean, it's not even close, is it?

One criticism of the president that loomed large in the last election -- and not just among Democrats but with many Republicans too -- was that this president either does not recognize or will not admit mistakes. And whichever it was, there was no accountability for them. In most cases those 'mistakes' people were talking about were ones under Rumsfeld's purview. And he would seem to be the only one -- certainly the only one of the principals -- that the president insists on keeping in place.

In this administration, the buck may not stop at the Oval Office, but the hard line against accountability sure does start there.

Mailbag ...

"Like Andrew (at least I suspect this is so, though he can speak for himself), I'm a good deal less doctrinaire on civil liberties issues than, I suspect, many of the readers of this site. As Justice Jackson put it, the constitution is not a suicide pact. And a lot of the things that were done in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were, I think, justifiable in theory, if not always in execution."

Shame on you.

You - and idiots like you - are evil and you don't even know it.

You don't believe in human rights. You believe in winning. Simple.
Might makes right. Back to the jungle.

Dumb. You lost me.

John S.

Certainly, there'll be <$NoAd$>more of this.

Lincoln and habeas corpus.

I think Andrew Sullivan is just right in his run-down of what is now emerging about the system of secrecy, torture and extra-constitutional power the Bush administration has set up at Gitmo and other far-flung undisclosed locations around the world.

Like Andrew (at least I suspect this is so, though he can speak for himself), I'm a good deal less doctrinaire on civil liberties issues than, I suspect, many of the readers of this site. As Justice Jackson put it, the constitution is not a suicide pact. And a lot of the things that were done in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were, I think, justifiable in theory, if not always in execution.

But what stands out about this administration is not the willingness to sacrifice certain civil liberties safeguards in the face of demonstrable necessity, but the eagerness and almost delight in doing so. Having walled themselves off from the more harmless varieties, this is apparently the one form of transgression the Ashcroftites cannot resist.

Most telling is the addiction to secrecy. The clearest, or rather the most basic, test of whether strong measures are compatible with a free society is whether the government is willing to be open with the public about what it is doing in their name. By every measure, this administration is not.

If you haven't seen it, a House Appropriations Committee staffer, Richard E. Efford, has stepped forward to take responsibility for the Istook Amendment. His boss is Rep. Istook. But he says he never ran it past the congressman -- at least not until it was too late to do anything about it. Sleepless nights and the agonies of the appropriations process are to blame, we're told, not bad intentions. The Post has an interview with Efford and the details of his story.

Like Rep. Istook, Bob Novak is a very sorry columnist. Only he's never said he was sorry about the Plame episode, even though it was one of his sorriest. Now, before I get myself too tangled up in verbal gymnastics about how being Bob Novak means never having to say you're sorry, check out the new Novak profile just out from the Washington Monthly: 'Bob in Paradise: How Novak created his own ethics-free zone'.

Don't lose sight of the Tom DeLay crony Indian gaming (aka Indian shakedown) scandal. Bull Moose provides today's update.

We got word this morning that everyone at HHS had been called together at noon for a big announcement/meeting. And there it is, Thompson resigns.

If you're curious to see CBS's rationale for rejecting the UCC inclusion ad, as clipped from the letter they sent the church, click here.

In the coming Social Security debate, Democrats should dust-off Clinton's 'mend it, don't end it' rhetoric. I can't take credit for this idea; I heard someone suggest it in an email exchange. If it's a bad idea I take the grief for pushing it forward. But I think it is very shrewd since it frames the debate in advance as equating privatization with abolishing Social Security, which of course it does.

I'm not saying the phrase should be adopted intact without any adjustments or that it's a perfect fit. But this debate is a classic case where framing the issue is key -- the strategic choice that determines who wins the battle before it even begins.

The strength of the Republican privatization argument -- and all their rhetoric and strategy point to this -- is the contention that privatization is just a reform, a way to improve or save Social Security, or to put it simply, a way to make sure people get their checks when they retire. But what this is really about is abolishing Social Security; and that fact needs to be taken as granted -- not even a subject of debate -- in the way Democrats frame the debate and how they talk about the subject.

To look at this debate in any other way is to be willfully ignorant of history. Republicans -- particularly the party's conservative wing which now entirely dominates the party -- have wanted to abolish Social Security for half a century.

This is a delicate topic. But I think it's worth asking.

If you look in today's Reliable Source column in the Washington Post, the final item is identified as a verbatim press release ...

On Nov. 21, Vice President Dick Cheney (along with approximately six Secret Service agents) visited the Johnston & Murphy retail store at Tyson's Corner Shopping Center in McLean. Cheney has been a longtime Johnston & Murphy customer, but recently found it necessary to make a personal visit to the store because his shoe size changed to a size 10EEE. Cheney selected the Lasalle wingtip loafer in brushed mahogany. He also bought a pair of shoe trees to keep his 10EEEs in top shape. Bob Ciuffoletti, store manager, has helped Cheney with his footwear needs in the past. . . . 'It was such a pleasure to see him again and help him select a pair of shoes that fit,' said Ciuffoletti.

The item does not identify <$Ad$>who the press release is from. But it turns out that it came from the shoe store chain, not the White House.

But why is the Vice President's shoe size getting bigger? Of course, it doesn't explicitly say they've gotten bigger only that his feet have changed sizes. And 10EEE is a rather large size.

Here's why I say this. Swollen feet is a symptom of congestive heart failure, particularly when the enlargement is in both feet (thus signalling a systemic cause.) It is by no means the only thing it can mean. Ankle and foot swelling can also be caused by fluid build-up due to renal insufficiency, among other causes. And, of course, even later in life one's shoe size can simply change for entirely benign reasons.

But Cheney's history of severe heart disease at least points to the possibility of a heart-related cause.

If you look around on the web you'll find many descriptions of foot and ankle swelling as a possible symptom of congestive heart failure. And this afternoon I spoke to a physician to whom I described an unnamed man in his mid-60s with a history of heart disease and newly-enlarged feet. Congestive heart failure was the first possibility he suggested, particularly if the enlargement was in both feet.

Now, diagnosis by press release is a rather inexact form of medicine. And this doctor made clear that he simply lacked enough information to make even a tentative diagnosis, let alone his not being able to examine the patient. I should also make explicitly clear that I know nothing else about Cheney's health beyond what is already publicly known. Perhaps the shoe chain PR folks are just wrong that the size of the Vice President's feet has changed. Or perhaps they have changed, but they've shrunken. But given the Vice President's medical history and his position in the line of succession to the presidency, it seems like a question worth asking.

Rep. Ernie Istook, a very sorry congressman. From The Hill: "Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) sent a written apology this morning to GOP lawmakers whose transportation projects he stripped from the omnibus appropriations bill in retaliation for their endorsement of additional funding for Amtrak."

What a pleasant surprise. CBS's and NBC's rejection of the UCC's church inclusion ad got big billing in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. (If you're in Chicago or Boston, drop us a line telling us exactly where the story ran in the paper.) Let us know how your local paper covered it.

Coming soon: Sen. Bill Frist test-drives Social Security privatization with his own campaign warchest and comes up half a million short.

Late Update: It turns out the Trib and the Globe both ran the story on page 1 below the fold. The Austin American-Statesman, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Providence Journal-Bulletin (the 'Projo') and the Des Moines Register also seem to have gone with it on the front page

In case you didn't know, there's a tight House race still going on down in Louisiana's 7th District. The Democratic candidate is former Lake Charles Mayor Willie Landry Mount. And the run-off election is on Saturday.

Check out her site here and media coverage of the race here.

This is an important race. Majorities are built one seat at a time.

Late Update: My bad, my bad. Louisiana's got -- count 'em -- two House races still going on. In the third district Democrat Charlie Melancon is battling to stop retiring Rep. Billy Tauzin from handing off his seat to his son, thirty-year-old Billy Tauzin III.

I don't know what else to make of Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns nomination as Agriculture Secretary. But Johanns is now the second cabinet secretary appointment of the second term whose current office is more than a hundred feet from the president's. So I guess this marks a new phase of reaching out.

Today a reporter asked me whether I'd noticed, as he had, the sudden drop-off of interest in things political since the election and whether I'd seen this drop off registered in the traffic at TPM. I gave the matter some thought and looked over the traffic logs. And having done so and given him an answer, I thought I'd share what I told him with you. (And I assume, though I have no direct knowledge, that similar sites have had roughly similar experiences.)

The answer turns out to be that, yes, traffic is down substantially, but not nearly as much as I'd expected. And if you set aside the furious final month of the campaign, October, the viewership of the site hasn't fallen at all.

A few examples ...

In the last two weeks, the average number of weekday visits has hovered around 140,000. That is close to indistinguishable from the average in September and markedly higher than August.

In October, weekday daily visit totals never went below 165,000 and often went over 190,000. But it was only in the last week or so of the campaign that the real pre-election updraft began. Visits hit 223,000 on Monday, October 25th, the first day (I believe) they'd ever gone over 200,000. And they never went below 200,000 again until after the election.

So, I've tossed out a lot of numbers here. But the upshot seems to be that traffic to center-left political websites like TPM has been relatively unaffected by either the end of the election cycle or the Kerry defeat.

Another update from the JTA on the FBI's investigation of AIPAC.

Their latest update reveals ...

Sources close to the investigation told JTA that the four [AIPAC staffers] ordered to appear before a grand jury were Howard Kohr, the group’s executive director; Raphael Danziger, the research director; Richard Fishman, the managing director; and Renee Rothstein, the communications director. An FBI spokeswoman confirmed the search, but had no further comment.

Various knowledgable sources tell me that this investigation is heating up and that AIPAC, and specifically Steven Rosen, are the primary targets, rather than Larry Franklin.