I wanted to take a moment to flag everyone’s attention to the James Fallows’ quote excerpted here by David Kurtz over the weekend. The ‘surge’ and the accompanying political jousting surrounding it is important. But it pales in importance compared to the possibility of drifting or getting gamed into a shooting war with Iran. This is what Congress really needs to get on top of right now. As Fallows put it, “War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq.”
More video highlights from the presidential candidate speeches at the DNC winter meeting on Friday.
Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) can’t say goodbye to Capitol Hill.
Joe Klein: McCain has been “entirely consistent” on Iraq war.
Here’s an aspect of the president’s new escalation strategy that hasn’t been discussed enough: it creates two chains of command, one of them under an Iraqi commander, the other under a U.S. commander — an arrangement against military doctrine and, some argue, common sense.
Spencer Ackerman gives you the rundown.
This was started on a lark. But our TPM Fans group at Facebook.com has more than 500 members now. So if you’re registered at Facebook, stop by and join.
I don’t know who else gets it or where else it gets published. But for the last month or two I’ve been on the mailing list for something called “Dick Morris Reports.” I didn’t sign up. Someone else must have. But I don’t know who since it’s on my personal email address. In any case, today’s just showed up and the message today is that John McCain is now officially no longer the frontrunner for the 2008 GOP nomination. At least in MorrisWorld, though I think I’d agree. Anyway, a few snippets.
Until now, the status of front-runner in the Republican primaries for president was jointly held by Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain is clearly no longer the front-runner. In the last week or so, Giuliani has moved out to a clear lead.
* McCain’s latest fund-raising report, for the fourth quarter of 2006, was pathethic: He raised only $1.7 million and has only pocket change – $472,454 – on hand.
* A Fox News poll of Jan. 30-31 shows the former mayor jumping out to a significant lead among Republicans – 34 to 22 percent.
* A Gallup poll taken Jan. 25-28 shows Giuliani is better liked by Republicans than McCain -74 to 21 percent and more trusted to handle a crisis (68-20). Some 60 percent say Giuliani “better understands the problems of the average person,” against 33 percent who pick McCain. By 58-34, America’s Mayor is seen as the stronger leader.
Conversations with conservative activists also show a remarkable openness to supporting Giuliani – a belief that he can overcome (perhaps finesse) his pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and pro-immigration positions. Feelings seem bitterer over McCain’s role in Washington battles – his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his support for “amnesty” for illegal immigrants and for campaign-finance reform.
I think even some DC folks are clueing in to the reality that Republican just don’t really like John McCain. But this why these are fun days not to be a Republican. Let’s run that sentence again: “Conversations with conservative activists also show a remarkable openness to supporting Giuliani – a belief that he can overcome (perhaps finesse) his pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and pro-immigration positions.”
Let’s be frank. On most or all of these issues, Giuliani is to the left of a good number of Democrats outside the northeast and the west coast.
Basically, for social conservatives, Giuliani is way on the wrong side of every signature, litmus issue. But there’s a “remarkable openness.” How about remarkably desparate? They just don’t have anybody in this race at the moment that’s catching any kind of fire in the nomination process and has any chance in a general.
We had our late afternoon editorial meeting here at TPM this afternoon. And the five of us on the call had a difficult time figuring out just what the Republicans were fighting for other than using the filibuster to prevent the senate from voting a vote of no confidence in the president’s war policy. But this article in the Washington Post explains pretty neatly what’s up. The nominal issue is the Gregg Amendment which, pretty ridiculously, claims that the Congress has the responsibility to fully fund any mission the president decides to authorize for the US armed forces. But the key is they won’t let the senate vote on the Iraq War. It’s that simple. No vote, no debate on Iraq that can’t get over 60 votes. That simple.
That’s fine. The senate allows for that. The filibuster is an important right that sizeable minorities have in the US senate. But you take responsibility for what you try to filibuster. So let’s note exactly what’s happening here. The Republicans — even ones who say they’re against escalation — are using the filibuster to prevent the senate from opposing the president’s war policy. That simple. That’s all this is about. Every Republican vote here is for a free hand for the president in Iraq.
Both sides try to spin these things to their own advantage. Sometimes they make them sound simpler than they are. But this one’s just clear. They’re using the filibuster to protect the president’s war policy.