New data from the Des Moines Register offers poll watchers plenty to mull over. Here’s how the Dems rank in the first caucus state:
Hillary Clinton — 29% (up from 21% in May)
John Edwards — 23% (down from 29%)
Barack Obama — 22% (down from 23%)
Bill Richardson — 8% (down from 10%)
Joe Biden — 5% (up from 3%)
Chris Dodd — 1% (up from less than 1%)
Dennis Kucinich — 1% (down from 2%)
Mike Gravel — less than 1% (down from 1%)
And among Republicans:
Mitt Romney — 29% (down from 30% in May)
Fred Thompson — 18% (up from N/A)
Mike Huckabee — 12% (up from 4%)
Rudy Giuliani — 11% (down from 17%)
John McCain — 7% (down from 18%)
Tom Tancredo — 5% (up from 4%)
Ron Paul — 4% (up from less than 1%)
Alan Keyes — 2% (up from N/A)
Sam Brownback — 2% (down from 5%)
Duncan Hunter — 1% (unchanged)
The U.S. embassy in Baghdad, nowhere near complete, is a 21-building, 104-acre compound, a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington’s National Mall. It is, according to the International Crisis Group, the largest embassy any country will have anywhere on earth — a fact that has not gone unnoticed by frustrated Iraqis, who not only resent the ongoing U.S. presence, but who also lament the failures of the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq.
And just to add insult to injury, the entire project grows more embarrassing all the time.
The massive U.S. embassy under construction in Baghdad could cost $144 million more than projected and will open months behind schedule because of poor planning, shoddy workmanship, internal disputes and last-minute changes sought by State Department officials, according to U.S. officials and a department document provided to Congress.
The embassy, which will be the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, was budgeted at $592 million. The core project was supposed to have been completed by last month, but the timetable has slipped so much that the State Department has sought and received permission from the Iraqi government to allow about 2,000 non-Iraqi construction employees to stay in the country until March.
Two key office buildings, including the new chancery, will not be finished until early 2009, according to the document.
How serious a boondoggle is this project? Now, even the sprinkler systems meant to contain a fire do not work. Given that the electrical system in the kitchen facilities recently malfunctioned — the wires melted — a working sprinkler system seems rather important.
As Sullivan put it, “The Baghdad embassy is a metaphor for this administration’s re-colonization of Iraq.”
It would appear that Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” flap has largely run its course. When the National Republican Congressional Committee tries to raise money off an incident in which a right-wing blowhard blasted U.S. troops who dare to disagree with him about Iraq, it’s safe to assume Limbaugh isn’t going to lose his audience over this.
But before the controversy fades, Jonah Goldberg, in a New York Post piece attacking Media Matters, offers one last defense for Limbaugh.
The press didn’t care much about the Limbaugh “phony soldiers” story in which Limbaugh was referring to one anti-war activist who pretended to be a military veteran. Journalists for the most part saw it for what it was: a phony story.
Greg Sargent explains just how wrong Goldberg is.
Progress on most major policy initiatives has been difficult in the Senate this year, due entirely to the fact that the chamber’s Republicans have decided to filibuster practically everything that moves. Indeed, the Senate GOP is on track to block more legislation in the 110th Congress than any in history — filibustering at triple the usual rate.
According to a report in Roll Call the other day, some of the same Republicans who’ve been blocking bills are working on a plan to improve the way the Senate does business.
In what could be a new incarnation of the successful bipartisan “Gang of 14,” Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) hosted a meeting this week with a handful of the Senate’s most notable compromisers to figure out how to unclog the gridlock that has slowed the chamber’s progress this year.
About half a dozen moderate and independent-minded Republicans and at least one Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) — participated in the Members-only huddle, which was held quietly in Lott’s Capitol office Tuesday morning. Afterward, few Senators offered much detail, but several said there’s a feeling among them that the narrowly divided chamber no longer can operate at an impasse and they want to find ways to avoid the growing number of filibusters sidelining Senate legislation this year.
I don’t doubt that this is the kind of initiative that will make David Broder swoon, but this whole endeavor strikes me as kind of silly. If Senate Republicans want to help unclog the gridlock they can stop blocking legislation. It’s not rocket science.
Indeed, it’s kind of ironic that Trent Lott would even be involved in this. In April, he was the one boasting, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail … and so far it’s working for us.”
All of a sudden, though, they’re interested in starting to move legislation again. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who has supported nearly all of the GOP filibusters, said, “We’re all impacted by the failure of being able to do the things that people sent us here to do.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) added, “We need to get back to being a deliberative body.”
It’s mystifying. These guys are making it sound as if there’s some kind of mysterious hurdle standing in the way of legislative progress. There isn’t. They don’t want popular, progressive legislation to pass, and they don’t want to generate dozens of presidential vetoes, so they’re blocking legislation on everything from Iraq to habeas to voting rights.
If they want to stop, they should stop. If they’re tired of the gridlock, they can end the filibusters. If they want to deliberate, they can debate the merit of legislation and then vote, up or down, on whether they support the bills or not.
There’s no need for a new “gang” or “working group.” There’s simply a need for the Senate minority to stop standing in the way of every important bill that comes to the floor.
I’ve been enjoying pearls of wisdom from The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes for quite a while, but this might be the single most entertaining thing he’s ever said. (via Atrios)
On the October 6 edition of Fox News’ The Beltway Boys, co-host and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is “not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is.” He explained that when Obama delivered his 2002 speech against going to war with Iraq, “it was back in a time when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that he would probably be willing to use them himself at some time or pass them along to terrorists who would use them. And yet, Barack Obama was against going to the war at that point.” According to Barnes: “I don’t think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be.”
It’s almost impressive in its absurdity. In 2002, Barnes was wrong about Iraq; Obama was right. That Obama didn’t follow the mistaken judgment of the DC establishment, Barnes said, necessarily means that Obama isn’t strong on national security.
What’s more, Barnes believes this insightful criticism of Obama’s accurate judgment would be “used against him… by Republicans in a general election,” should he win the Democratic nomination.
Oh, things one learns from Fox News….
The situation is bleak at the National Republican Congressional Committee. The GOP’s House committee has $1.6 million in the bank, but is $4 million in debt. The NRCC has struggled to convince incumbents to avoid retirements, and its recruiting efforts have largely been busts. Two weeks ago, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was so discouraged by the campaign committee’s plight that he threatened to fire its chief strategists, and NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) considered resigning.
So, when Cole sat down this week with David Broder, putting on a brave face and insisting the Republicans will do just fine, one suspects Cole struggled to keep a straight face. And yet, according to his column today, Broder seems to have bought the spin without question. As Broder explained it, Cole’s optimism is reasonable because, “The Democrats are also looking like dogs.”
Cole, who admits Republicans hurt themselves in 2006 with scandals and out-of-control spending, said the [latest Washington Post] poll confirmed for him a comment he heard this week from a Republican colleague. Speaking of the Democrats, he said, “My God, they’re dragging themselves down to our level.”
It all adds up, Cole said, to a political environment reminiscent of 1992 — a tough year for entrenched incumbents of both parties who suddenly saw their margins shrink or disappear. “The American people are rising up in disgust,” Cole said, “and incumbents will pay. It’s not anti-Republican anymore. It’s anti-Washington.”
Cole argues that the House Democratic leadership has made a strategic error by wielding its narrow majority to craft partisan bills that invite a Bush veto. That was the case with several resolutions to shorten the Iraq war, and it will be the case later this fall with a series of appropriations bills. Polarization is exactly what the voters hate, Cole said; they are looking for cooperation and agreement.
It’s not surprising that Cole would offer this take on the landscape; a more accurate one would be too dejecting for his party. What is surprising is that Broder would pass along such nonsense without criticism.
First, the poll numbers Cole cites show ample public discontent, but it’s primarily directed at Republicans, not “Washington.” Democrats enjoy a significantly higher approval rating than the GOP, and while Americans are frustrated by the lack of progress in DC, by a 2 to 1 margin, they blame Bush and Republicans for the inaction, not the congressional majority.
Second, Cole argues, and Broder passes along uncritically, the notion that voters are looking for “cooperation and agreement.” According to the same poll Cole cites, that’s wrong, too — Congress’ approval rating is suffering because Americans want to see lawmakers challenge the president more, not less.
Third, Cole’s argument that Dems are inviting vetoes with “partisan bills” is transparently ridiculous. Dems worked with Republicans, and drew bipartisan majorities, on everything from children’s healthcare to rest for the troops to stem-cell research to the minimum wage. In some instances, GOP obstructionism blocked passage; in other instances, Bush vetoed the bills. But where are all of these “partisan bills”? Broder’s column didn’t point to any examples, in large part because they don’t exist.
Indeed, one almost assumes Broder should be praising the congressional majority — they’re doing exactly what he usually says he wants. They’re reaching out to Republicans, striking bipartisan compromises, sticking to major agenda items, following through on campaign promises, and offering policy proposals that enjoy broad public support. For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, Broder characterizes this as Democrats “looking like dogs.”
It’s easy to understand why Cole is desperately spinning a bad situation. It’s much harder to understand why Broder is buying it.
At Friday’s White House press briefing, Dana Perino insisted, repeatedly, that lawmakers had been briefed on the secret legal opinions from the Bush administration, which endorsed “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.” By my count, she repeated the claim 14 times during a 27-minute press briefing.
“The appropriate members of the Congress were briefed”; “Intelligence Committee members were briefed”; “I have been told they were fully briefed”; and so on. Asked specifically if lawmakers had been “fully briefed on the actual memos,” the White House spokesperson said, “Yes.”
Since then there have been quite a few lawmakers who’ve said the opposite.
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he has not been briefed. “I find it unfathomable that the committee tasked with oversight of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program would be provided more information by The New York Times than by the Department of Justice,” Rockefeller told acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she has not been briefed. Asked on Fox News this morning whether she’d been briefed about the secret memos, Pelosi said, “No, not about the secret memos.”
And Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 and a member of the “Gang of Eight,” said the same thing: “We were not fully briefed. We were told about operational details but not these memos. Jay Rockefeller said the same thing, and I associate myself with his remarks. And we want to see these memos.”
The White House has its own private definition of the word “torture.” Maybe the word “briefing” means something different to the Bush gang, too?
Sometimes a headline and subhed sort of hit you with a certain frisson of understatement.
Here from WaPo …
Departing Bush Staffers Wonder About Legacy
The cumulative exodus of so many key people at once has transformed the White House as it heads into the dwindling months of the Bush presidency.
It seems we’re again peeling back another layer of the ‘liberal hawks’ question. Todd Gitlin has a post I heartily recommend to you about the Times Mag’s piece on Kanan Makiya, the Iraqi emigre intellectual who was so much grease on the slope into the abyss.
And from the article itself, if you’re familiar with Fouad Ajami — he on Chalabi — âPersuading the Americans to take down Saddam was Chalabiâs finest hour.â
Finest hour? How many hours does he have? Is there anything else of note or consequence he’s responsible for save for this catastrophe? I’m not sure Ajami’s come up with something that good since he called on President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby to honor the principle that a fallen soldier should never be left behind on the battlefield.
Iraqi government, not backing down, calls Blackwater shooting in Nisour Square “deliberate murder.”