Too Hard a Ball
Right-Wing Radio yakker crashes and burns like the Hindenburg while trying to talk about appeasement ...
--Josh Marshall
Why Talk to Them When You Can Work for Them?
I hear McCain's top foreign lobbyist advisor Charlie Black (he's the one who now conducts his lobbying business from McCain's campaign bus) was just on the tube knocking Obama for his willingness to talk to international bad actors. Remember, this is the same Charlie Black who worked on behalf of Ahmad Chalabi (who unless I'm mistaken our government still believes spied on us on behalf of Iran) and then got the contract for creating phony news in Iraq ...
Special TPM Bonus Round: Send us any examples you can find of reporters asking Black about his work for regime-change bamboozler and accused Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi and other rogue regimes.
Super Double Bonus for any TPM Reader who can get us a clip of Black being asked whether he is sure Chalabi was not passing US secrets to Iran while he had Black on his payroll.
--Josh Marshall
One TPM Reader goes rational on President Bush ...
When President Bush decries "the false comfort of appeasement," and John McCain raises the spectre of Neville Chamberlain, they're deliberately advancing a fallacious line of argument. Appeasement - the acceptance of conditions imposed by an aggressor in lieu of open conflict - is not the result of negotiation, but of capitulation. And the inverse proposition - the rejection of all negotiation even at the price of open conflict - is just as rigidly obtuse. We call it war-mongering.I don't particularly mind that our President has chosen to air a domestic dispute abroad - that's his perogative. And I've always been miffed by the notion that foreign policy is for the experts, and too delicate a matter to be subject to public debate or the people's will - what the establishment terms 'politicization.' But I'm incensed that the coverage has focused on whether or not Obama's support of negotiations constitutes appeasement, as if this were subject to dispute. It's not. He has never proposed giving in to our enemies. His support of negotiation constitutes, ipso facto, a rejection of appeasement.
There are not two valid sides to this dispute. For the media to accede to this kind of slander, just because it's what the GOP demands, well, it borders on appeasement.
As long as we're insisting on a non-nonsense discussion of foreign policy, let's note that Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain must be terribly illiterate of our history or extremely cowardly to compare the current president of Iran (who helps govern a country with a tanked economy and a third or fourth rate military) to Adolf Hilter who had regrouped and tossed the restraints from what was the greatest military, scientific and economic powerhouse in Europe.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Terrymania!
As I noted a couple days ago, in recent weeks, Terry McAuliffe has managed to turn projectile nonsense into something approaching the sublime. But with the primary battle now rapidly winding down, Terry's tear may be coming to an end. So before it's over, in today's episode of TPMtv we bring you some of Terry's greatest recent moments ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Josh Marshall
No Phony Backstories
As the general election begins to ramp up, it's worth marking off a number of Sen. McCain's claims that are demonstrably bogus, despite being accepted more or less at face value by national political press.
First, McCain a critic of President Bush's war policies?
Please.
Sen. McCain has consistently supported all of the president's war policies. His dissents have been atmospheric and marginal, at best.
Indeed, his embrace of the advisors, outside supporters and policies of President Bush's neoconservative foreign policy shows that it is President Bush's failed foreign policies that he is most intent on continuing and expanding. Whatever McCain might do on cutting upper-income taxes is clearly not something he's got his heart in. These are topics he doesn't have a great deal of interest in and he's espousing policies he denounced only four or five years ago. They are simply the necessary scaffolding of building a conservative coalition to support his war policies where are his real interest very evidently remains.
On foreign policy, McCain is 100% with President Bush's policies.
Given the president's abysmal public approval ratings, it's in the Democrats' obvious political interest to portray a McCain presidency as a continuation of President Bush's foreign policy. But this charge has the benefit of being true. Simply listen to what he says. On every particular, it's staying true to President Bush's course.
--Josh Marshall
McCain: Obama unfit to defend America (from second rate regional power, Iran).
--Josh Marshall
Complain or Attack?
TPM Reader JS reacts ...
I agree with you that Bush's remarks today at the Knesset were disgusting, not to mention historically inaccurate. For me, it brought to mind your bitch-slap theory of politics. It seemed like the Democratic response in this instance was fairly direct, quick and unanimous in condemning the President's speech. Thus, on one-level, they avoid being bitch-slapped. At the same time, I worry that simply complaining that the President's remarks were disgusting or "malarkey" or "absolutely outrageous" might just be another example of the Democrats playing into the bitch-slap theory once again -- wherein they look like complainers while the President looks like an attacker.Which is it? Do you think that today's response represents an effective new level of solidarity and backbone for the Democrats, or is there some better way to respond that plays less into the bitch-slap theory?
For me personally, the best response is one that makes it clear upfront that Bush's Iraq War has strengthened Iran and thus put Israel in greater danger. I've seen this argument buried in a few of today's repsonses, but I'm not sure that that is the message that is coming across to the public.
On balance I'd say that each time President Bush shames his office by transgressing the unwritten rules of the American polity, it's incumbent on everyone to rebuke him. As a political matter, though, it doesn't amount to that much. Every time the president does something like this, the Democratic nominee needs to point out again that President Bush bungled the country into a disastrous war that has damaged America, failed to find Osama bin Laden, funded it all but driving us further into debt to China and various Gulf sheikdoms. And McCain supports it all 100%.
Always stay on the offensive.
--Josh Marshall
Marriage in California
E.J. Graff with some context for today's California Supreme Court decision.
--Paul Kiel
Kerry on Bush's "Absolutely Shameless" Act
Sen. Kerry blasts President Bush's "shameless" act of launching a domestic political attack in front of a foreign parliament.
In case you hadn't heard yet, the president attacked Sen. Obama as a terrorist coddler on the order of the late 30s Nazi-appeasers in a speech before the Israeli Knesset.
As the president who's probably done more to damage this country than any in 150 years, I can't say I'm exactly surprised that he'd do this. But it really was disgusting, even for him.
--Josh Marshall
All's Well That Ends Well
We seem to have arrived at an equitable compromise: Sen. Clinton is staying in the nomination race while Sen. Obama drops out to move on to the general.
--Josh Marshall
Asking the Tough Questions
I had not seen this interesting OpEd on Myanmar by Robert Kaplan in today's Times. Kaplan approvingly sifts through the arguments for mounting an "humanitarian invasion" of Myanmar, but nevertheless says we must realize that our invasion and possible overthrow of the government could lead to unforeseen complications. "It seems like a simple moral decision: help the survivors of the cyclone," he writes. "But liberating Iraq from an Arab Stalin also seemed simple and moral. (And it might have been, had we planned for the aftermath.) Sending in marines and sailors is the easy part; but make no mistake, the very act of our invasion could land us with the responsibility for fixing Burma afterward."
It's hard not to have a lot of respect for Kaplan's willingness to play the devil's advocate's role and point out that our coming Burmese invasion may not be a bed of roses after all. More seriously, though, I'm surprised that it's so easy to publish this kind of hooey as if the last five years had never even happened. Here, meanwhile, Matt Yglesias answers those pushing for an invasion by noting two big potential pitfalls in the present international context -- legitimacy and sustainability, as Matt goes on to note.
But I have an even simpler idea. Why don't we not invade any more countries for a while?
I know that will strike some as too flippant or isolationist. But it's not meant as the former and I'm confident it is not the latter. Many of our foreign policy thinkers seem to be developing the kind of character damage suffered by children who can buy the best toy every time their parents go to the mall -- the inability to distinguish between necessities, simple wants and the mere desire for kicks which is born of pervasive moral boredom. Add to this the fact that we are now managing two foreign occupations -- one of which is going poorly and a second which can only be described as a national catastrophe of historic proportions -- and you see the true level of the disconnect.
It's not simply a matter of having our hands full. More than this, it's an obliviousness to the reality of the downsides of our proposing to invade or actually invading countries more or less for the hell of it -- both in the sense of creating a more dangerous global political environment and the squandering of material resources and global political capital in advance of actual threats to our security we will likely face in coming decades. In the 90s, when most of our global rivals were flat on their back, such thinking may simply have been arrogant and short-sighted. Now it's just nuts.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
The U.S. cuts off contact with Ahmed Chalabi. This time for real. Really.
--Paul Kiel
Gravity. What a Concept ...
Atrios has a post riffing on today's Times article, which begins (the Times, that is): "The Republican defeat in a special Congressional contest in Mississippi sent waves of apprehension across an already troubled party Wednesday, with some senior Republicans urging Congressional candidates to distance themselves from President Bush to head off what could be heavy losses in the fall."
But, as Duncan asks, how can they really do that?
When you step back for a second, what's weird is that we even see the Mississippi special election result as a surprise. The Republican party is tightly defined around George W. Bush. And his job approval has not consistently gotten out of the low thirties (deep crisis numbers) for almost two years. And amazingly, over that period, the congressional party has made little attempt to get out of under his mantle.
I think what we're seeing here is the fall-out of the confidence game tactics that defined Bush's early presidency -- and has oddly persisted into the present. Whether it was the Iraq War or early tax cuts of various other policy moves, the idea was always to brashly push ahead even in the face of widespread public disapproval for particular policies. Such inexplicable confidence could goad adversaries into thinking the given policies were more popular and the president's position more powerful than it was. Later, as some of these policies went south, the president's message to congressional supporters was that if they maintained a united (you support me and I'll support you) that they'd pull through notwithstanding public opinion.
This confidence got a hard knock in the November 2006 elections. But the White House managed an odd after-the-fact success in putting this on the congressional party and removing the blame from the president. And now we're surprised that a party that has tightly defined itself around the most consistently unpopular president in modern political history is tanking at the polls?
Seriously, what's the mystery?
I agree with Duncan. I don't expect congressional Republicans to successfully separate themselves from President Bush. It's too ingrained at this point. And making the effort would be similar to what happens to an Army that breaks and buckles into a free-for-all retreat -- perhaps inevitable but still insuring an even worse result as the stragglers become easier to pick off one by one.
--Josh Marshall
Mission Critical
I'm reassured that we have time to spend on stuff like this ...
Hold on, NFL. Spygate isn't over. Not if the "incensed" Pittsburgh Steelers fan in Congress has anything to do with it. Sen. Arlen Specter on Wednesday called for an independent investigation of the New England Patriots' taping of opposing coaches' signals, possibly similar to the high-profile Mitchell Report on performance enhancing drugs in baseball."What is necessary is an objective investigation," Specter said at a news conference in the Capitol. "And this one has not been objective."
The Pennsylvania Republican was unforgiving of his criticism of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, saying that Goodell has made "ridiculous" assertions that wouldn't fly "in kindergarten." The Senator said Goodell was caught in an "apparent conflict of interest" because the NFL doesn't want the public to lose confidence in the league's integrity.
Late Update: Several TPM Reader confidently assert that Specter is an Eagles, not a Steelers fan. And since he comes out of Philly, that makes sense. On such a life and death issue for our nation, I would expect more accurate reporting from the AP.
--Josh Marshall
More on Obama's Appalachia Problem
Newhouse's Jonathan Tilove explains: It's not a white problem. Obama has an Appalachia problem.
--Josh Marshall
Maybe the Key is Repetition
It hasn't worked yet, but the NRCC signaled today that it will continue to try to tie down-ballot Dems to Obama.
--David Kurtz
McCain: Obama Unfit To Defend America
Launching his most direct attack on Obama's national security cred yet, McCain says Obama doesn't have "the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."
Gay Marriage Ban Overturned in CA
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.
Poll: Two Major GOP Incumbents In Serious Danger -- In Alaska!
- Clinton Aide: "People Understand the Reality"
- Clinton Talks Farm Bill in South Dakota
- Oregon GOPer Responds in Ad to Abortion Accusation
- CA Reps Waxman and Berman Back Obama
- Big Pro-Hillary Independent Group Will Spend Up to $500,000 on Oregon Ad
- South Carolina Edwards Delegates Move to Obama
- Rep. McDermott (D-WA) Endorses Obama, Cites War
- McCain Turns 2013 Utopia Into Web Ad
- House Rejects Bill To Fund Iraq, Afghanistan Wars
- Charles Barkley Admits To Having $400,000 Gambling Debt
- House Passes New GI Bill
- Woman Indicted For Role in MySpace Suicide Case
- Reublicans Kill $163 Billion War Funding Bill
- Gunmen Wound Two Iranian Diplomats
- NY Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand Gives Birth
- Farm Bill Passed With Veto-Proof Margin
- Congress Seeks to Close "Enron Loophole"
- State TV: China Quake Death Toll Could Reach 50,000
- Altercation
- Andrew Sullivan
- Carpetbagger Report
- Conason
- DailyKos
- DemStrategist
- Eschaton
- JuanCole
- JamesWolcott
- Kausfiles
- MattYglesias
- TNR
- Veracifier
- WashMonthly
- WashingtonNote
Editor & Publisher
Josh MarshallDeputy Editor
Paul KielManaging Editor
David KurtzDeputy Publisher
Andrew GolisAssociate Editors
Ben CrawRachel Weiner
Reporter-Bloggers
Paul KielEric Kleefeld
Josh Marshall
Greg Sargent
Research Interns
John AmickJon Comas
Charles Gelman
Rehmat Qadir
Lila Shapiro
Peter Sheehy
