Joe Lieberman tells Chris Wallace he’s not sure he’ll support a Democrat for President in 2008:

WALLACE: Let’s look ahead to 2008. Are there any Democrats who appear to be running at this point that you could support for president?

LIEBERMAN: Are there any Democrats who don’t appear to be running at this point? Look, I’ve had a very political couple of years in Connecticut, and I’m stepping back for a while to concentrate on being the best senator I can be for my state and my country.

I’m also an Independent-Democrat now, and I’m going to do what most Independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country.

So I’m open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there’s a strong one. Stay tuned.

. . .

WALLACE: . . . You’re saying you might vote Republican in 2008.

LIEBERMAN: I am, because we have so much on the line both in terms of the Islamist terrorists, who are an enemy as brutal as the fascists and communists we faced in the last century, and we have great challenges here at home to make our economy continue to produce good jobs, to deal with our crises in health care, education, immigration, energy.

I want to choose the person that I believe is best for the future of our country. What I’m saying is what I said last year and what I think the voters said in November. Party is important, but more important is the national interest. And that’s the basis that I will decide who to support for president.

Implied in Lieberman’s comments is that he’s new to this whole idea of putting the national interest first. I guess in elections past he just checked the name of the Democrat. Wonder what he really thought of Al Gore.

One thing that’s on the agenda for 2008: the fight for a Lieberman-proof majority in the senate. That’s certainly a big deal. Will Lieberman switch parties over the next two years? I think it’s extremely unlikely for the simple reason that at least at present the odds look better than not that the Dems will expand their majority in the senate. That would mean that if Lieberman switched parties and swung the chamber to the Republicans, he would likely go back into the minority in 2008 with a majority that would be committed as a major agenda item to screwing him in whichever way they could.

So Joe won’t switch because it’s not in his own interest to do so.

Having said this, let me be clear that I am by no means saying the Dems are assured of expanding their majority. The national political environment could be very different in two years and very bad for the Dems. But right now, largely on the basis of the number of seats both sides will be defending, the senate Dems will have the wind at their backs two years from now. And that, I believe, will keep Joe in place. Still, the man gets worse by the day, so the fight for a Lieberman-proof majority is an important one.

So how serious is the Bush Administration about its newfound commitment to addressing global climate change? Never mind. We all know the answer to that.

The better question is: To what lengths will the Bush Administration go to avoid cutting greenhouse gas emissions?

How about physically blocking sunlight?

From the Sydney Morning Herald (via Balkinization):

The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: “Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.”

. . .

The US submission complains the draft report is “Kyoto-centric” and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported “the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting”.

It also complains that overall “the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change”. It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

Basically it’s the same old song and dance, with the added twist of using additional dramatic manmade alterations of the Earth’s climate to solve the problem of manmade alterations to the Earth’s climate.

So here’s a good story for an enterprising environmental reporter. Which U.S. companies or industries are most likely to benefit from an official policy of creating “sunglasses” for the planet itself? Of the various technologies considered potentially feasible (if that’s not giving the idea too much credence), who stands to benefit financially? And how much money have they contributed to the GOP?

Seriously. You expect the Administration to go to great lengths to avoid the regulation of emissions. But this policy alternative doesn’t just bubble to the surface without someone outside of government pushing it. So who’s the culprit?

Update: I may have set myself up for a slew of emails about why this idea is or is not technically viable. For more on that separate issue, you might check out this BBC report on “global dimming” and this blog post on geo-engineering.

NYT:

At least 250 militants were killed and an American helicopter was shot down in violent clashes near the southern city of Najaf on Sunday, Iraqi officials said.

For 15 hours, Iraqi forces backed by American helicopters and tanks battled hundreds of gunmen hiding in a date palm orchard near the village of Zarqaa, about 120 miles south of Baghdad, by a river and a large grain silo that is surrounded by orchards, the officials said.

It appeared to be one of Iraq’s deadliest battles since the American-led invasion four years ago and was the first major fight for Iraqi forces in Najaf Province since they took over control of security from the Americans in December.

I’ll be interested in learning the extent to which Iraqi forces truly took the lead in this battle.

Wonderful little line at the end of Dave Kirkpatrick’s piece on the man behind the Obama-Madrassa smear …

After Insight posted the article on Jan. 17, Mr. Kuhner said, he was disappointed to see that the Drudge Report did not link to it on its Web site as it has done with other Insight articles. So, as usual, he e-mailed the article to producers at Fox News and MSNBC.

Negged by Drudge, so forced to peddle it to Fox and MSNBC.

Laura Rozen has a piece in the current Washington Monthly titled “Cheney’s Dead-Enders” that is worth a read. But I wanted to home in on this parenthetical:

(When I inquired about a staffer’s rumored move to the Veep’s office, a Cheney press officer answered sweetly, “If we have a personnel announcement we’d like you to know about, we’ll tell you.”)

This is not the first time I’ve seen a reporter denied information about who even works in the Office of the Vice President (I can’t find where I’ve seen this refusal reported before, although I think it was about the time Cheney shot that Texas lawyer in the face; if anyone recalls, please forward me the link).

Think about that. The Vice President of the United States refuses to divulge who works in his office. Rozen’s article provides an estimate of 88 persons on the VP’s staff, which I take to mean that the OVP won’t even say how many people are on staff. These are people on the public payroll. Wouldn’t you say the public is entitled to know?

Most of the debate over the nexus between national security and official secrecy is about where to draw the line. That is, how to balance the necessity of openness and transparency in a democratic society with the need to protect important operational details of the nation’s defense. I lean heavily toward transparency, but I will acknowledge that there is a legitimate question of where to draw that line.

But Cheney’s policy of refusing to reveal who works for him–for us, actually–isn’t about balance. It’s about a perverse sense of entitlement and a deep aversion to scrutiny and accountability. It is anti-democratic.

Perhaps a committee chair should consider requesting a roster of employees in the OVP. Just on principle.

Update: TPM reader PG comes through in a pinch with a link to the story I alluded to above but couldn’t put my finger on. It was in The American Prospect last May. Here’s the key passage:

His press people seem shocked that a reporter would even ask for an interview with the staff. The blanket answer is no — nobody is available. Amazingly, the vice president’s office flatly refuses to even disclose who works there, or what their titles are. “We just don’t give out that kind of information,” says Jennifer Mayfield, another of Cheney’s “angels.” She won’t say who is on staff, or what they do? No, she insists. “It’s just not something we talk about.” The notoriously silent OVP staff rebuffs not just pesky reporters but even innocuous database researchers from companies like Carroll Publishing, which puts out the quarterly Federal Directory. “They’re tight-lipped about the kind of information they put out,” says Albert Ruffin, senior editor at Carroll, who fumes that Cheney’s office doesn’t bother returning his calls when he’s updating the limited information he manages to collect.

Time to shine some light on the OVP.

Today’s Must Read: Iran returns fire in the PR war with the U.S.

Sen. Schumer (D-NY) is going to stop by TPMCafe tomorrow afternoon between 2:30 and 3:30 to discuss his new book and answer your questions. Get in your questions now.

The senator’s first post is up here.

Critics of President Bush talk a lot about his abuses of power, the increasing opacity and corruption of the federal government under his management and his theory of presidential power which owes much more to foreign philosophers and political scientists than the text and history of the United States constitution. But is this more than a sound-bite and political cudgel? As long as President Bush is in office and even more so before this year when he still possessed unified control of the federal government, it was enough simply to oppose his war on the constitution. But the virus of anti-constitutionalism President Bush has injected into the body politic is now so deepseated that a renewed constitutionalism should now be a central element informing our political priorities and political identification.

Garry Wills gets us into some of this with his weekend editorial on the militarization of our politics as expressed through the increasingly ubiquitous references to the president of “commander-in-chief”, as though this were the principle basis of his authority as president. A quarter of a century ago Ronald Reagan got this underway (or perhaps further advanced it along) with his penchant for saluting Marines after he got off Marine One — the Marine helicopter the president uses to fly to Andrews Air Force Base — a habit every subsequent president has adopted, but something no previous president did. That was symbolic and campy. But under President Bush it has led to the president assuming to himself what amount to discretionary dictatorial powers

To approach this subject candidly and forthrightly we need to recognize, as Wills does, that some of the militarization of our politics and constitutional disfiguration traces back to the beginnings of the Cold War. But I think Wills understates the qualitative expansion of anti-constitutionalism in the last 6 years, if sometimes only at the level of pretension rather than in execution (signing statements being a good example of this).

But if we’re interested in evaluating candidates for high office on the basis of their constitutionalism, what are some of the key points, planks and issues?

In no particular order but to start a conversation …

1. Abuse of presidential signing statements.

2. Use of the president’s ‘commander-in-chief’ powers to invade the realm of civilian politics.

3. Attacks on habeas corpus, general evasion of oversight by the federal judiciary.

What are the other key points? To me, most of the issue stems from item #2, the over-great pretensions of the president based on the idea that his ‘commander-in-chief’ powers extend beyond control of the military into the civilian realm as well. On a softer level, we might include the tendency to politicize the military and the federal administration of justice and the increasing reliance on government secrecy. Historically, the presidency has been a great bulwark of progressive change in this country. So key to my mind is to preserve a powerful executive while instituting a renewed respect for the limits to presidential power. The heart of the matter is that the current president and his court poet lawyers see the constitution principally as a problem to be worked around to release the president’s untrammelled power. Fundamentally, they’re against the US constitution and outside the traditions of American history.

What do you think the key points are? And what would be the planks of a revived constitutionalism?

McCain endorsed by two GOP Senators — both moderate, both opposed to escalation.