The Republican Party is in serious danger of losing political ground in November elections if it does not enact reforms that eliminate waste and hold the federal bureaucracy to higher standards, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday.

Considering that all these Republicans are talking about reform 12 years after taking over Congress, I don’t know which is sillier: Them running from their achievements or Democrats just waiting to let them off the hook.

===============
**UPDATE 5/18/05: Reform this:

Because of our achievements, the American people see the Republican Party as the party of reform and optimism, the party of ideals and vision.

===============
Originally posted 2/1/05

Washington Post headline, 2/1/05

Bush Vows Reforms, Praises New Education Secretary

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

Pappy O’Daniel: Languishing! Goddamn campaign is languishing! We need a shot inna arm! Hear me, boys? Inna goddamn ARM! Election held tomorra, that sonofabitch Stokes would win it in a walk!

Junior: Well he’s the reform candidate, Daddy.

[Pappy narrows his eyes at him, wondering what he's getting at.]

Pappy O’Daniel: …Yeah?

Junior: Well people like that reform. Maybe we should get us some.

[Pappy whips off his hat and slaps at Junior with it.]

Pappy O’Daniel: I’ll reform you, you soft-headed sonofabitch! How we gonna run reform when we’re the damn incumbent!

The top U.S. military officer faulted U.S. political leaders on Friday for failing to get across what he portrayed as the huge stakes in Iraq and elsewhere in the U.S.-declared global war on terrorism.

“The most important thing we have … right now in this kind of conflict is our will and our resolve,” Gen. Richard Myers, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff…adding the U.S. public does not get the stakes. “I think it’s incumbent on the national leadership, writ large, to help communicate this to the American public.”
[...]
He contrasted the national mood with World War II, when Americans planted “victory gardens” of vegetables and took part in scrap metal and paper collection drives to boost the military effort. “And that of course is not the case today. And so I think it’s easy for people that don’t have individuals indirectly or directly involved in this to forget for a minute that we are a nation at war,” he said.
[...]
“This military can do anything as long as they have the will and resolve of the American people,” said the general.

An interesting bit of revisionism from Myers, who is facing the end of his term and a legacy generously described as disappointing. The chairman of the JCS is responsible for building consensus among the branches of the military, presenting options and recommendations to the President and communicating with the media, and thus is part of the national leadership. By willfully spinning next to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in his daily disinformation briefings, Myers has utterly wasted literally hundreds of opportunities to communicate with the American people in favor of toeing the administration line. Assuming he’s not referring to himself, which members of the “national leadership” should be better communicating? Chuck Hagel? Russ Feingold? Both have called for bringing the troops home. Rumsfeld? The President? What kind of plan could the people who couldn’t predict an insurgency come up with to defeat it?

Maybe he has seen the light, but more likely he is lobbying for favorable coverage in the inevitable features that will run in every paper upon his retirement, and his remarks ring just as hollow as those from the President’s weekly radio address:

“Our efforts in Iraq and the broader Middle East will require more time, more sacrifice and continued resolve.”

With no ebb to the violence in Iraq and the long-anticipated constitutional stalemate dragging down the President’s approval ratings, the “we’re building schools” and “women will have rights” happy talk has become inoperative. The theme of sacrifice and resolve from Myers, the President, and others would be welcome if it had come four years ago when it might have produced results, and more importantly if they were actually advocating real sacrifice and resolve.

The situation in Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afghanistan) is now probably past the point of no return. In the early days of the insurgency, it was official dogma that we could win a war of attrition, reaching the end of the stream of rebel fighters before we depleted our own infantry. Through poor theatre intelligence, shortages of armor and other matériel and unmet recruiting goals, it is now clear that we have lost the initiative and are well on our way to losing the war. Resolve is now another word for burying our collective head in the sand and hoping for a miracle. Hope isn’t a plan, and miracles aren’t taught at the service academies, but they are standard operating procedure for our leaders who place faith above fact, prayer above preparedness.

That Myers and the President are calling for resolve, though unproductive, is no surprise–they have been doing it since the days of “wanted dead or alive” when Osama bin Laden was still a man that we would stop at nothing to catch. But the idea of sacrifice has enjoyed no such emphasis from the President or any of his political allies; just the opposite when shopping (to “get about the business of America“) was the most patriotic thing that came to the President’s mind in the wake of 9/11. While the only Americans the President has asked to sacrifice are military men and women and their families, Democrats (both pro- and anti-war) have called for repeal of the President’s tax cuts to pay for the billion-dollar-a-week war, proposed legislation that would conserve oil in an effort to reduce foreign dependency, and Rep. Charles Rangel even introduced a bill that would have reinstated the draft in order to more evenly distribute the sacrifice. The President may have learned the political lesson of Jimmy Carter‘s “cardigan sweater” chat, but his insistence on promoting wasteful consumption hasn’t done much for his popularity.

Even now, his call for more sacrifice is undefined. If the resolve of the American people is needed, why wouldn’t real sacrifice be even more important? Resolve, for 99.9% of the population, simply means not organizing a revolution to remove this administration from power. All Republicans and virtually all Democrats in Congress ceded their Constitutional responsibility to declare war to the President in 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq. Since then, nothing (even electing John Kerry) could be done to stop what has been started. Resolve is a nothing more than the President’s word for stubbornness. But sacrifice is something more, and by refusing to provide leadership by letting the people know what they can do, he leaves only military families holding the bag. Or does he?

Practically every day, another group of people is asked to sacrifice, only not in so many words. Those who do not support the war in Iraq are being asked to sacrifice their voice and right to dissent. While the government nibbles around the edges of the First Amendment with the USA Patriot Act, they ask us to finish it off by voluntarily giving up our free speech when it comes to criticism of the architects of the war. Those who refuse to censor themselves often face being labeled un-American, appeasers, and worse, traitors. But all the opposition has is talk–and when Republicans were the opposition, they certainly didn’t keep quiet.

The strategy of focusing on resolve and sacrifice isn’t going to change any minds nor will its lack of substance advance the war effort. Though Myers, to his credit, sidestepped it, the below-the-line modus operandi is the continued bashing of the media for “only reporting the bad news” in Iraq. When reporters on the ground in Iraq who aren’t embedded with military units can’t venture into the worst regions, how much worse would the news be if they had the whole story? Still, it is impossible to watch a debate on Iraq without a Republican moaning about all the schools and hospitals we’re opening not receiving coverage because all the reporters are too busy covering the insurgency. In short, more positive, less negative. Who knows, maybe reporters are too busy getting killed to cover ribbon-cuttings. But looking back at the coverage as a whole, what is the pattern?

etc

The only negative images that have made it through the filter have been the photos of Abu Ghraib and flag-draped coffins. Both were fought vigorously by the administration, and mark their only failures at controlling reality. Even today, 2 1/2 years into the war, images of the death and destruction, both on the battlefields and in the cities, are deemed by the media (with pressure from the government) to be too disturbing. It’s almost laughable that they still get away with talking points that criticize the bad news when they created the situation through insufficient planning and atrocious diplomacy, and have successfully spun the media away from reporting scandal, carnage and failure–yet it’s never enough.

And even if it was enough, it wouldn’t be enough. The only number that matters is the toll in lives that the war has reaped. Obscuring that number would certainly fool the public into a rosier outlook, just as hiding the official injury count complete with amputations, paralysis, blindness and post traumatic stress has. Good news isn’t a plan any more than hope is; it’s the reward for winning. And that’s not what’s happening in Iraq. It’s not the fault of the powerless masses who are accused of insufficient resolve. This war is being lost by a handful of men who long ago decided that since Iraq would be a cakewalk, it should be fought on the cheap with a minimum of impact and almost no sacrifice, which is the only reason it ever enjoyed more than 50% support. Now that we’re in such bad shape, their resolve consists of little more than pointing fingers at anyone brave enough to question them, now a majority of Americans.

Myers will be replaced at the end of his term by another general equally as willing to stand at the podium next to Rumsfeld and say that everything is under control. It won’t be any more true then than it is now, and only the body count will have changed. If the President won’t ask his constituents to sacrifice, then he should sacrifice his political capital and do the right thing: bring the troops home now.

The reason that it is important to track the statements of people like Grover Norquist, James Dobson, Pat Robertson et al is that, free from holding elected office, they are not bound by the same rhetorical constraints as their counterparts in government. Their candor produces quotes like this Norquist classic:

“Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.”

There are others of course, but those words crystalize why it is important for Democrats to never back down from a Republican challenge. After NARAL pulled their ad criticizing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the RNC wasted exactly zero time before taking a victory lap, and as predicted is preparing to attack the next ad in the same manner: (RNC email 8/13/05)

Yesterday, it was announced that the outrageously false ads aired by NARAL attacking Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts would no longer be seen on television screens across the country. Despite Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi‘s refusal to condemn the false ads, the American people have spoken loudly against this degradation and NARAL has conceded to the overwhelming pressure. But now we must prepare for NARAL’s next planned advertisement and the liberal Democrats’ efforts to push their next round of attacks against Judge Roberts.

Unsurprisingly, the email rants on, stacking distortion after lie after fabrication into a tower of nonsense that probably raised a few hundred thousand dollars and produced more calls to Senators than the ad that NARAL paid for. Just in the above paragraph, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman managed to lie about how widely the ad was seen, (“across the country” vs. Rhode Island & Maine), manufacture outcry (“the American people have spoken loudly” vs a few insiders), and raise an interesting double-standard (criticizing Democratic leaders for not condemning the ad when no one in the Republican party has ever spoken out about the untrue attack ads of the last three campaign cycles). But it was the declaration of victory and the spoiling for the next fight that caused the tent in Mehlman’s slacks. They live for this stuff because it proves their superiority and keeps the donations flowing.

The irony is that, despite Republican caterwauling, it was Democratic pressure that weighed more on NARAL’s decision to switch ads. The public tension, detailed in twin New York Times and Washington Post stories, is almost certainly a faint echo of what was being said in private.

“You could see from Naral pulling their ads down that the public is not going to tolerate going too far,” said Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, who says Democrats will face difficulty if they frame the Roberts nomination solely in terms of abortion rights.

“We have to define the reckless left of our party and differentiate ourselves,” said former Clinton aide Lanny Davis, who denounced the NARAL ad. He said such “smear and innuendo” has caused his party to lose recent elections.

It’s a sad day when fact-checking nominal allies and enemies is equally necessary, but Kerrey did sit on the deeply flawed 9/11 Commission and Davis was a legal advisor to President Clinton during Monica-gate, so their lust for the unadulterated truth may stop somewhat short of the standard set by those who consider NARAL’s ad “dishonest”. Kerrey appears to have no problem whatsoever repeating false Republican spin about what the “public” will tolerate, and also needs to be reminded that NARAL ≠ Democrats. For his part, Davis outs himself as someone who hasn’t a clue. NARAL is absolutist on choice, that’s their mandate, and it doesn’t get any more left than that. Telling them that they are too far “out there” is the same thing as saying Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform should ease up on tax cuts: single-issue groups who moderate their mission are doomed. But it’s Davis’ latter quote that really gets to it. “Smear and innuendo” has caused Democrats to lose elections, because Republicans have no compunction about playing dirty. With the newspapers of record quoting Democrats like these, it’s no wonder NARAL wilted.

The minute NARAL tried to skirt the boundaries of propriety, they got hammered by Republicans, Democrats with weak stomachs, and Democrats attempting to make truth and facts into a vice. Now it’s clear that the ad could have been better and more accurate, something Kevin Drum‘s rewrite displayed. But is objective truth the best weapon here? We’re drowning in truth about the misdeeds of the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress. The Downing Street Memo, the President’s National Guard service, breaking rules on Congressional votes—the list of examples of provable malfeasance should be enough to cause a revolution. But these facts have been underreported or unnecessarily muddled, deemed by the media to be too bitter a pill or unpatriotic to receive adequate coverage. What’s a party to do when facts are on their side, yet truth has deteriorated in effectiveness?

Whether or not you believe that the NARAL ad was appropriate or not, the weekend’s events should be proof positive that pulling the ad has done nothing but make a bad situation much worse. It would be enough to say “NARAL screwed up and they have to fix it” if politics took place in a vacuum. But the array of influencing outside factors renders that unworkable, and turns the standard into “Can NARAL fix this, or will any change make the problem worse?” It’s now obvious that their original mistake was only compounded by their capitulation. The two days of coverage the ad received while it ran was followed by two days’ coverage of its pulling, and when the new version begins running this week, there will undoubtedly be two more days of controversy. In many cases tripling the newsworthiness of an ad campaign would get someone a promotion, but not when no one stops to cover the facts (real or insinuated) of the case. And rather than a promotion, NARAL’s communications director is out of a job.

This should be a wake up call, and an opportunity to change certain behaviors that plague our collective cause. Enough of the intra-party criticism on the front page. Until the twitchier members of our coalition understand that protecting their cocktail party invitations is not a good enough reason to attack their allies in public, the media will continue to propagate the idea that the left is divided. NARAL isn’t the Democratic party, and there is a difference between the dirty business of campaigning and the nobility of governing. But as long as the more strident refuse to accept these facts, the pattern of losing will continue.

NARAL must also accept their responsibility. It’s not their responsibility to get approval from Democrats before running an ad, but the courtesy of communication before airing shouldn’t be out of the question. And let’s not forget that NARAL made their own bed by endorsing Republicans Lincoln Chaffe, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, who then had to be targeted by NARAL’s own advertising. They’re overdue for another look at whether it might be wise to sit out races that pit pro-choice Republicans against pro-life Democrats.

We don’t need to cross over to the dark side to win, but ignoring what it takes to win does a disservice to our goals, our party, and especially the voiceless who need the protection our policies provide.

On Thursday, NARAL buckled under pressure from pro-life groups and pro-choice Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter:

“We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts’ record,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public,” she said in a letter Thursday to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who had urged the group to withdraw the ad.

Specter, himself an abortion-rights supporter as well as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will question Roberts next month, earlier Thursday had called the ad “blatantly untrue and unfair.”

This is bad policy, bad politics, betrays a critical lack of foresight on NARAL’s part, and is emblematic of exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party and Democratic-leaning issue groups. We will simply never win like this.

Was the NARAL ad misleading? I think it was, and worse, there wasn’t much need for it to be. Kevin Drum did a rewrite of the ad that made it both better and less misleading by focusing on the implications of Roberts’ brief rather than linking him to violent groups. The link isn’t important, the consequences are. But the last few years have seen political ads forsake any claim to reality in favor of polarizing the electorate and demonizing the opponent. That’s the game we’re all in right now, and Republicans and their allied groups have been firing away with abandon. Recent examples aren’t hard to remember: Morphing Max Cleland with Osama bin Laden in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, accusing the AARP of being anti-military and pro-gay marriage, the Swift Boat Liars’ attacks on John Kerry which cost him the Presidency, and even a Specter ad that distorted the record of his 2004 Senate opponent Joe Hoeffel.

NARAL apparently calculated (if they even bothered to calculate) that a more incendiary ad would get greater attention and have a better chance of provoking calls from Maine and Rhode Island residents to what NARAL considers to be “swing votes” in the Senate. And it worked, at least in terms of raising the issue; besides being a big blog topic this week, it made significant inroads into the media. What started as an ad buy in two small northeastern states crossed over to the national news. Even taking into account the criticism from nearly all Republicans and some Democrats, this result was the best NARAL could have hoped to achieve. Anti-choice groups would have cried foul and attacked NARAL no matter the message in the ad, but with two-thirds of Americans opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade, you weather the storm and keep fighting.

But not NARAL. By ending the campaign, they are weakening themselves and their cause while handing their opponents a victory and added power. The right isn’t going to issue a statement praising NARAL for pulling the ad, and they won’t hesitate to battle the next ad NARAL runs:

The replacement campaign, which Naral officials said would begin on Monday, will examine Judge Roberts’s records on several points, the officials said, including an argument he made as a government lawyer in 1991 that Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided.”

On the other side, NARAL supporters will look at the capitulation and wonder if their donations and volunteer efforts are really worth it.

Making matters worse is the timing of the fold. Responding to Specter’s call to halt the ad proves the futility of NARAL’s support of pro-choice Republicans:

“The NARAL advertisement is not helpful to the pro-choice cause which I support,” Specter said in a letter to Keenan.

Specter’s letter should be tossed in the coffin when the pro-choice movement is dead and buried, an outcome I have little doubt Roberts wishes to hasten. Specter supports the pro-choice cause so much that not only is there a 0% chance of his voting against confirmation, there’s less of a chance that he will exercise his power as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to stall the nomination entirely. In fact, after vowing to oppose nominees who oppose abortion, Specter had to beg and promise to help confirm the President’s judges just to ensure his committee chairmanship. Wonder how NARAL feels about their endorsement of Specter now?

There’s a saying in AA that Democrats in general and NARAL specifically need to come to terms with right now: “simple not easy.” Given the pressure from the media and right wing groups, it’s not easy to stand up for what we believe in, but it’s simple to figure out that it must be done. We’re fighting against an opponent who will never stop, will never give us credit for being “decent,” and will never, ever play by the same rules they demand we follow. It takes force of will, a strong stomach, and thick skin to win this game, and almost no one on our side is displaying any of these qualities. The result is a string of losses that shows no signs of abating. The rank-and-file right see their proxies contest every minute detail on every issue important to them, while our rank-and-file see the leading pro-choice group fold a playable hand on the issue most Democrats point to as their top priority. Is it any wonder the other side has almost unlimited funding and we have to hold bake sales?

I hold out little hope that Roberts will be denied a seat on the Supreme Court despite many reasons that he shouldn’t even see a vote in the Senate. In politics there are four general outcomes: looking good while winning, looking bad while winning, looking good while losing, and looking bad while losing. NARAL looks about as bad in this loss as is humanly possible. Barbara Boxer has promised to hold up Senate business until she gets answers from Roberts and documents from the White House. She looks about as good losing as can be expected. Boxer is one woman who has to face statewide elections; NARAL isn’t answerable to anyone except women who want abortions, and you can bet your last dollar that they would have wanted NARAL to see this battle to completion.

As I have said over and over again, it’s time to start playing the game by the rules in place, not the rules we wish were in place:

There are no deals to be made with this crop of Republican power-brokers. Did they think that Grover Norquist was kidding when he compared Democrats to neutered farm animals? Do they think that Stephen Moore is just messing around when he funds primary challenges against moderate [Specter himself] Republicans? Any rational look at the last decade will reveal that these men and others like them will never deviate from their mission. Compromise? Maybe on what brand of cigar to have after dinner. Maybe.

With about six weeks left until a final vote on Roberts, NARAL needs to get back in this game. Their relevance is on the line along with an issue central to our side. Stand up or step off.

Bush pushes very hot button

President’s comments embolden anti-evolutionists

Last week, I thought the President’s remarks calling for equal classroom footing for evolution and “intelligent design” were not even significant enough to justify comment. In the days following his unfortunate words, he was roundly criticized and even found himself in the awkward territory at the (religious) right of Senator Rick Santorum, who decided that he’d rather flip-flop on the issue rather than stand with the President. But a funny thing happened in the blind spot created by my complete lack of respect for the man who occupies the Oval Office: I underestimated the power the office carries, and how little encouragement is needed by his born-again constituency.

It’s not a mistake I’ve made before, nor one I’ll make again thanks to a deft headline writer who jolted me back to reality. Taking a look at what the President said ["I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught. I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."] reveals another link in a shockingly effective strategy that has served the administration well, but the nation ill. On every controversial issue a dichotomy is set up, often between non-equivalent objects, allowing the media to write the only type of story they know these days: “he said / she said.”

In the past, (in some cases as recently as September 10, 2001) such controversies were settled by science. Whether economics, medicine, statistics / probability, climatology or any number of other disciplines, a factual answer awaited anyone who sought one. Fringe beliefs and their accompanying reverse-engineered theories were discounted in favor of what could be proven using data and the scientific method. But four years of with-us-or-against-us-ism has created a new reality aided by the depreciation of science and the marginalization of those who attempt to explain events using the language of nature in favor of faith-based dogma and spin.

With Republicans firmly in control of all three branches of the federal government, only science can restrict their efforts to help campaign contributors, discredit the idea of federal government, and fully implement their agenda. And by implementing a campaign against facts, the administration has managed to place their spin on equal footing with science. A small thought exercise: How surprised would you be to see the following headline in tomorrow’s papers?

US company detects decrease in gravity

Readies line of weighted shoes and boots as government agency confirms possibility

Said company would only need be a donor to Republican candidates to attain such “validation,” as a quick look at the effect of Tom Ridge‘s “duct tape & plastic sheeting” warning on Home Depot’s stock clearly demonstrates. But most of the anti-fact chicanery happens either on hot-button social issues or topics more complex than the majority of Americans care to examine.

In the Reagan years, Republicans invented supply-side economics and its main tenant the Laffer curve as a method to cut taxes and de-fund the government by conning the country into thinking that their goals weren’t insane. Yet after the largest tax cut at the time, Reagan was forced to raise taxes to address the problems supply-side caused.

Since he took office, George W. Bush has pushed the same tax cuts under circumstances ranging from massive budget surpluses to skyrocketing budget deficits. When it became clear that his first two rounds of tax cuts weren’t working as advertised, the third was labeled the “Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003,” and along with all the other giveaways has been credited by the administration with creating millions of jobs. But that doesn’t take into account how slow and weak the recovery has been in terms of jobs, nor the exorbitant cost of the tax cuts per job created.

From the St. Louis Fed:

So the administration spin about healthy job creation is a myth not borne out by the facts that a smaller percentage of Americans are working, yet the story continues to be “Democrats point to weak job growth – Republicans say their plan is working”. And to bolster their claims, Democrats point to numbers like those of the St. Louis Fed that show poor job numbers and the six-figure cost of each job created, while Republicans point to the long-since discredited work of Arthur Laffer and his curve.

On several occasions, the President has belittled the Kyoto climate treaty and the underlying problem of global warming it was designed to address. After first denying that global warming was caused by humans, and mocking a report that contradicted him, he then said that implementing Kyoto would have “wrecked” our economy. And he wasn’t alone is going after the scientists whose findings exposed his lies; the chairman of the House Energy Committee joined in the fun. But laboratory science isn’t the only proof that responsible environmental stewardship is possible without breaking the bank:

Newly released data show that Portland, America’s environmental laboratory, has achieved stunning reductions in carbon emissions. It has reduced emissions below the levels of 1990, the benchmark for the Kyoto accord, while booming economically.
What’s more, officials in Portland insist that the campaign to cut carbon emissions has entailed no significant economic price, and on the contrary has brought the city huge benefits: less tax money spent on energy, more convenient transportation, a greener city, and expertise in energy efficiency that is helping local businesses win contracts worldwide.

While the President uses the bully pulpit to discredit global warming and its entirely logical solutions, Portland has (along with other cities) a working solution.

The ACLU put out this report (PDF) demonstrating the targeting of science, but like Portland, its message is drowned out by the President’s ostrich act.

One of the President’s second-term priorities is legal reform, in effect restricting the rights of Americans to pursue relief in court. Upon the recent passage of legislation in the House that would cap “pain and suffering” and malpractice awards, Bush had this to say:

“The nation’s medical liability system is badly broken, as frivolous lawsuits are threatening access to quality health care and raising health care costs for all Americans,” Bush said in a statement. “The medical liability crisis is driving up health care costs through higher insurance premiums, higher medical bills and the practice of defensive medicine.”

And of course his invented crisis completely overshadowed the facts that run contrary:

The Texas study found little to support those assertions. By virtually any measure — from number of claims filed to damages paid out — the data reflect amazing stability in the tort system.
[...]
“It’s very hard to take the position malpractice is a major factor in the increases in the cost of health care. The actual cost of malpractice payouts is really quite modest.”

Again, the he said / she said game works to further the goals of the administration while keeping citizens in the dark.

In each case, independent, non-partisan facts were available (some provided by the government itself), but were outweighed by simple poll-tested phrases repeated by the President. The disingenuousness is bad enough when it comes from the legions of true believers who wouldn’t know a fact if their saviour came back to life and personally handed them one on a pillow made of clouds. But coming from a man who supposedly graduated from Yale and received a Harvard MBA, it’s Presidential malpractice. The reason that there is a federal bureaucracy is to remove opinion from major decisions and replace it with fact and institutional memory. This administration uses ideology and opinion to trump their career professionals’ advice and influence the national debate. They’d be considered crackpots if they weren’t in power, but because they are, their nonsense passes through the media whole.

As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes…everyone’s got one. Unfortunately, the President has is the biggest one of all.

In our Memorial Day post, we took a look at “green card soldiers” who enlisted in the military in exchange for citizenship:

The most heartbreaking sight at the rally was Fernando Suarez del Solar stoically holding a photograph and a handwritten poster memorializing his son Jesus, a U.S. Marine who died in the first week of the war in Iraq. He and other parents of fallen soldiers patiently answered questions from reporters for much of the day, but apparently there was bigger news the next day because there was no mention of Suarez del Solar or Veterans For Peace. In fact, it was only recently that I learned about how Jesus came to be a Marine in a story about his father’s activism against the creation of ‘green card Marines:’

Three years ago, President Bush offered accelerated citizenship to any green card holder who has served in the military since Sept. 11, 2001.
[...]
“Immigrants are generally the first on the front lines,” Suarez said. “They should know where they’ll end up.”

Then, a month later, it was MTV‘s True Life “I’m Dead Broke” following 19-year-old DeMarlon trying to pass a basic literacy test in order to escape the abject poverty in which he and his family lived. He wasn’t able to pass.

On Sunday, the New York Times ran a feature focusing on the search for recruits in the poverty-stricken U.S. Pacific territories:

From Pago Pago in American Samoa to Yap in Micronesia, 4,000 miles to the west, Army recruiters are scouring the Pacific, looking for high school graduates to enlist at a time when the Iraq war is turning off many candidates in the States.

The Army has found fertile ground in the poverty pockets of the Pacific. The per capita income is $8,000 in American Samoa, $12,500 in the Northern Marianas and $21,000 in Guam, all United States territories. In the Marshalls and Micronesia, former trust territories, per capita incomes are about $2,000.

Since the United States went to an all-volunteer Army in 1973, no one can say that they’ve been forced to join the military (though soldiers subject to stop-loss orders and post-discharge call-ups have a case). But with the jobs situation barely back to pre-recession levels after four years, and employee compensation stagnant, Americans at the low end of the workforce who have few options available may see little difference between “volunteering” and being drafted. That the poor are choosing the Army is not necessarily a new phenomenon, but the combination of an adverse economy and a Commander-in-Chief whose motto is “Bring it On” is unique. There’s a reason why Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced a bill reinstating the draft: He was sick of seeing poor young black men coming home in boxes while the children of his fellow Congressmen sat out the fighting.

But it was the dateline of the Times feature that really drove home the problem: Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands. In the continuing investigation into lobbyist Jack Abramoff‘s criminal activities, it was revealed that the government of the Northern Mariana Islands paid Abramoff millions of dollars to lobby Tom DeLay. The purpose of such an intense lobbying effort? Fighting off labor laws in an effort to keep the Northern Marianas a haven for sweatshops, and not subject to a minimum wage, humane conditions or union activity.

DeLay fully approved of the working and living conditions…”You are a shining light for what is happening to the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America and leading the world in the free-market system”

Later, DeLay would tell the Washington Post‘s Juliet Eilperin that the low-wage, anti-union conditions of the Marianas constituted “a perfect petri dish of capitalism. It’s like my Galapagos Island.”

DeLay’s disgusting words and deeds mock the reality faced by young people in the Northern Mariana Islands. There’s nothing “perfect” about their situation, and capitalism has failed them to the point that the possibility of becoming one of the 1800-and-counting dead has become an attractive option. The United States isn’t doing right by our soldiers or our poor. The fact that it’s the same elected officials that misuse the military and mistreat the least fortunate among us isn’t a coincidence. It’s just how they do.

Commander Eileen Collins said astronauts on shuttle Discovery had seen widespread environmental destruction on Earth and warned on Thursday that greater care was needed to protect natural resources.
[...]
“The atmosphere almost looks like an eggshell on an egg, it’s so very thin,” she said. “We know that we don’t have much air, we need to protect what we have.”

Spaceballs (1987):

Colonel Sandurz: There it is: Planet Druidia.

President Skroob: Ah, Planet Druidia, and ten thousand years of fresh air.

Dark Helmet: (to Sandurz) The way he runs things, it’ll only last a hundred.

President Skroob: What?

Dark Helmet: shrugs.

Colonel Sandurz: We’re beginning metamorphosis, sir.

President Skroob: Good. Get on with it.

Dark Helmet: Ready, Kafka?

Colonel Sandurz: Metamorphoses is completed, sir. Spaceball 1 has now become…Mega Maid.

Dark Helmet: Good.

President Skroob: Remarkable.

Dark Helmet: Now, commence Operation: Vacu-suck.

President Skroob: As president of Planet Spaceball, I can assure both you and your viewers that there’s absolutely no air shortage whatsoever. Yes, of course. I’ve heard the same rumor myself. Yes, thanks for calling and not reversing the charges. Bye-bye.
[hangs up]
President Skroob: Shithead.

We already drink water from bottles, how long ’til we’re all breathing air out of a can?

It’s rather ironic that though I write about politics here every day, most readers would have a very hard time accurately placing me on a political spectrum (outside of “thinks president is ruining the country,” believes Congress is corrupt,” or “resents the power held by the religious right.”) It’s unfortunate that the last four years (and really the 11 since the Republican takeover in Congress) have forced many people into battling against what they abhor rather than fighting for their principles. But no one can choose their times, so we play the game that is on now.

As it happens, I fall much more on the “free” side of the trade debate because I believe that tariffs and other barriers are counterproductive and will harm the world economy in the long run. But like most free trade Democrats, I would rather be having this debate with someone else in the White House. George W. Bush pushed hard for CAFTA, but his free trade record has largely been a debacle. Massive farm subsidies, on-again-off-again steel tariffs, and stalling the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round are just a few examples of the President’s selective protectionism that rewarded key swing states in advance of his reelection campaign. And to make the situation even more muddled and hypocritical, CAFTA (which passed by only two votes) was nudged over the top by promises of future protectionism including textile tariffs and sugar subsidies. Bush and his allies are interested in free trade to the same extent that they are interested in anything: How many votes or campaign contributions does it win or lose them?

Am I being hypocritical for opposing passage of a bill that supports one of my core principles? I choose to look at it as a strategic decision that would have increased the odds of success in the near term, but CAFTA in the hands of a President who isn’t committed to free trade will cause more harm than good. More importantly, free trade is not more important to me than the fight for things like abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights and others, so I wouldn’t mind delaying things like CAFTA if it meant a black eye for the President and a victory for Democrats in Congress. With such a high profile personal lobbying effort by the President, a loss on CAFTA would have been a major blow. But instead of seeing more stories about the President as lame duck, the headlines read:

Bush victories delay lame-duck status
On Capitol Hill, A Flurry of GOP Victories
Despite Problems, Bush Continues to Make Advances on His Agenda
DeLay’s Week to Reassert Command

It didn’t have to be like this. In fact, 20 Republicans in the House voted against CAFTA because they knew they would be in trouble back home. But 15 Democrats sided with big business campaign contributors and handed the President a win rather than standing with their party and large majorities of their constituents. David Sirota, who has been warning about this has a list of the 15 Democrats, and more importantly, the 9 of them that voted for the atrocious bankruptcy bill and the equally bad class action lawsuit bill. These Democrats, in addition to enabling Republican legislation that rolls back citizen’s rights, are depriving their party of badly needed wins, solidarity, and issues for the ’06 and ’08 campaigns.

What’s causing this breakdown? Ineffective leadership and outmoded advice.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, despite fawning support from many (“go get ‘em Nancy,” “Ooooo, Nancy writes letters,” “future Speaker of the House Pelosi,” etc), isn’t getting it done. Of course it’s difficult to lead a weakened party in the majority-rules House, but Pelosi has proven incapable of even enforcing party loyalty, and is badly overmatched against Tom DeLay. No one is surprised that CAFTA passed; any bill that produces the kind of full-court press witnessed on Thursday is going to pass given the current imbalance of power. But Pelosi was spotted 20 votes by Republicans, and still found a way to lose. Her day late / dollar short threats to punish the 15 Democratic defectors comes about four votes after any chance of working. If Pelosi can’t convince rank-and-file Democrats to do the right thing by opposing a President with a 44% approval rating and a Republican majority with a 37% approval rating, there is little hope that she will ever lead us back to a majority in the House. It’s time to start identifying candidates to replace her unless she can turn it around before the ’06 elections. Rahm Emanuel, never one to shy away from a fight, should be getting a look.

The loss on CAFTA can’t be pinned on Congressional Dems alone. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been pushing CAFTA as if it was their own invention rather than a bill written wholly by Republicans, exclusive of Democratic input. The DLC, no stranger to blog-based criticism, has been eating for a long time off of one Presidential victory (Bill Clinton in 1992) and some House and Senate wins. Their in-house bloggers and flagship magazine seem to enjoy attacking and belittling other Democrats who don’t happen to agree with their “New Democrat” ideas. Now I don’t know anyone in the DLC, so I’ll refrain from speculating about whether they are misguided or actually out to shatter the current Democratic coalition, but it’s one of the two. It’s hard to say why so many beltway Dems think that compromise is a viable option, when for years leading Republicans like Grover Norquist have been spouting quotes like:

“We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals – and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.”

“Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.”

“Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.”

Yet the DLC, for whatever reason, still aims to push an agenda that, rather than starting from a position in line with mainstream Democrats and negotiating a compromise, starts by splitting the difference between Democrats and Republicans and then allows that position to get split once again when the ruling Republicans end up writing the legislation. The old white men of the DLC remind me of the old white men on The X-Files who sought compromise with the aliens who intended to colonize the earth:

State Department staff members have learned that the aliens encountered at Roswell are planning to colonize Earth in a process that will kill all humans. For reasons that are not completely clear, the Colonists negotiate to delay the colonization while the members of the Project develop both a means of distributing the alien Black Oil virus, as well as develop a race of human-alien hybrids that is immune to the Black Oil.
[...]
As time goes by, and no vaccine is developed, some members of the Consortium come to believe that slavery for the human race is better than death. They become more interested in their personal futures and gaining preferred status from the Colonists.

People outside of D.C. know that Norquist, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay aren’t joking around when they say they want to eliminate their opposition and build a permanent Republican majority. But the DLC and some in Congress continue to negotiate assuming that Republicans are bargaining in good faith and that a “third way” or “triangulated” solution is still possible, even given the choke-hold under which Washington operates. I back the DLC in their support of free trade, but their timing couldn’t be worse. Instead of being patient on CAFTA until Democrats held any power in Congress, they, like those who crossed the aisle, enabled a crucial win for the other side, and lengthened the odds we face in 2006.

Myopia is starting to become a pattern in Democratic-leaning organizations. The trainwreck in Rhode Island over the 2006 Senatorial election is another example: While no one expected NARAL to endorse the pro-life Democrat Jim Langevin, their support of Lincoln Chafee makes it more likely that Republicans will continue to set the agenda in the Senate, an outcome at odds with their mission. Republicans don’t have these sorts of problems, and it’s why they keep winning.

Watching the bad losses and bad advice accumulate on a daily basis is getting old. The same corporate money that buys Republicans and the DLC has rented some Congressional Dems. Real campaign finance reform should be a part of nationalizing the ’06 mid-term elections, complete with DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and others as poster children for “government for sale.” In the interim, I can do without worthless leadership in the House and counterproductive strategy from DLC employee blogs which don’t find it necessary to defend DLC actions and fantasize of a John McCain-Bob Kerrey Presidential ticket.

It’s time to stand up or lean back.

“If you know better
Could you do better?
Or would you sell your soul
Just to roll in the cheddar?”
-Public Enemy – “More Hype Believers Than Ever in ’97“

Largely lost in the subsequent Karl Rove and Supreme Court coverage was a story that, based on its place in history and significance to the current political situation, should have received much more attention. With the President skipping the annual NAACP convention for the fifth time in as many years, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman appeared in Bush’s stead and offered what some termed an “apology” for the GOP’s “Southern Strategy”:

“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” Mehlman said, according to his prepared remarks. “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

Some Republicans. Mehlman glossed over the fact that the Southern Strategy has been the electoral roadmap for Republican politics since 1968, didn’t provide any specific examples of its corrosive and divisive tactics, and worse, offered no assurances that anything would change. And why would he? The Southern Strategy has been enormously effective in peeling off white southern voters just as the “culture wars” have attracted “values voters”. These two lanes make up the highway to Republican dominance in the south and the plains by playing on prejudices to sway voters whose economic interests would clearly be better served by voting Democratic. What’s next, will Mehlman give an interview to The Advocate admitting that it was wrong to turn James Dobson and friends loose on SpongeBob?

But the Southern Strategy is no laughing matter, and its disgrace is only compounded by the fact that it continues unabated by Mehlman’s empty apology. Upon signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, President Lyndon Johnson lamented “There goes the South for a generation.” Richard Nixon wasted little time in seizing upon the discontent that was a byproduct of the Civil Rights Act by running in the 1968 Presidential elections on a platform of “states rights,” which was little more than a euphemism for rollback of the protections the act granted to minorities. Nixon went on to a landslide victory in 1968 by denying Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey formerly reliable Democratic states. In the process, Nixon discovered that code words like “states rights” and “federalism” allow Republicans to appeal to southerners uncomfortable with integration while not alienating northern voters who don’t understand the hidden meanings. Later candidates like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush would combine those and other code words with appearances at sites with ingrained significance to southern racists and racist sympathizers. In 1980 Reagan launched his first Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights activists were killed in 1964, and later gave a speech at the birthplace of the Ku Klux Klan praising Confederate president Jefferson Davis. George H. W. Bush, though considered moderate on race issues, benefitted from the most notorious political ad ever run, the Willie Horton spot which derailed Michael Dukakis‘ 1988 bid for the White House. By visiting Bob Jones University, a school that had strict rules on race including one barring interracial dating, George W. Bush proved that he had more in common with Reagan than he did with his father.

Mehlman is right to admit that it’s plain wrong, but in the very next sentence of his statement, he demonstrates both his party’s insincerity and their craven opportunism:

“But if my party benefited from racial polarization in the past, it is the Democratic Party that benefits from it today.”

Political parties are like sharks in that they have to keep moving forward or they die. The Democratic party rested on their laurels and became something of a permanent minority. Republicans evolved (in the morally neutral sense of the word) and now enjoy solid majorities in Congress and the White House largely because of the strategy enacted by Nixon. They have legislated in a manner that impedes minority progress and litigated to reverse progress made by Democratic legislation to reward and further encourage support from intolerant voters. Bush has taken the Southern Strategy playbook on campaigning and applied it to governance. Civil rights enforcement has fallen each year of Bush’s term, as personnel and funding were shifted away. By using a recess appointment on the weekend of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day in 2004 to elevate Judge Charles Pickering, a judge critical of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and who has displayed anti-civil rights views on several other issues, Bush offended African-Americans and reinforced his support among those who wish to hold them down. In another particularly audacious case, Bush used his pet phrase “the soft bigotry of low expectations” to justify his administration’s anti-affirmative action stance. Mehlman realizes that, while still quite effective, the Southern Strategy has already maxed-out its potential.

Even if Mehlman had gone beyond his empty gesture and promised a halt to the Republican’s racist activities, the still-viable remnants of their policies are the fruit of a poison tree. How many Republican members of Congress owe their seats to racially divisive campaigns? Will Republicans allow the redrawing of districts affected by racial gerrymandering? Will they force patently racist Senator Trent Lott from office (after only stripping him of his majority leader status in 2002) for remarks praising Strom Thurmond‘s segregationist Presidential campaign? Will Mehlman lead a proper investigation into voting irregularities in minority districts in Ohio? And what about the nasty business of minority voter suppression? In cases where criminals are found to have profited from their crimes, they are often compelled to disgorge their ill-gotten gains in order not to reward their transgressions. Any serious repudiation of the Southern Strategy would require the same, otherwise Republicans are no different from bank robbers who confess to their crimes after the statute of limitations passes, reinvest the money into better tools and promise to do it all over again at every opportunity.

Since the first slave ships landed in Virginia 400 years ago, black people have been oppressed and subjugated. For the vast majority of that time, they suffered from equal-opportunity repression. But 40 years ago Republicans figured out how to take advantage of it for political ends. While the President continued his pattern of ignoring the largest African American group in the country (becoming the first President since the great depression to do so), Ken Mehlman tried to score cheap political points. African Americans would be better served if their votes were less reliable to one party, but if the Republican party wants to do better than 11% of the black vote in the next Presidential election, they will either need to follow up Mehlman’s word with concrete action, or get started on an army of Condoleezza Rice clones. Rush Limbaugh will be pissed either way.

As if getting caught asleep at the switch wasn’t bad enough for Senate Democrats unprepared for the nomination of John Roberts, they punctuated the week with a flat-line by awarding a free pass to Bush advisor Karen Hughes at her confirmation hearing on Friday.

Hughes, nominated to become Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, has been a Bush aide for most of his political career, an architect of his administration’s media stonewalling, and one of the officials called to testify before Patrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury about her knowledge of the Plame leak case. As the minority party, Democrats hold no power to launch investigations or hold hearings, and therefore have no excuse whatsoever for allowing Hughes to go unquestioned. The last few days have seen some rather pathetic speculation that their no-show was somehow part of a larger strategy. Possibly, but since they won’t have another chance to question Hughes on the record, face-to-face, it would be a particularly bad strategy. And even that seems unlikely given this quote from Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Joe Biden:

“I am particularly interested in and supportive of the nomination of Karen Hughes to be undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. ”
[...]
“I believe that she is highly qualified because of her professional background, and, importantly, enjoys the full confidence of the president and the secretary of state.

She will bring new energy and creativity to our public diplomacy efforts. I commend the president for choosing her and persuading her to return to Washington, and I look forward to working with her for the next three years on this important foreign policy priority.”

At this point, it would be pointless to ask Biden which side he’s on. He seems to have already decided.

Setting aside Biden’s puffery and whether or not it is a good idea to push Rovegate or leave it to Fitzgerald, there remain plenty of unanswered questions about Hughes’ advice to the President, and even more importantly, how she intends to do the difficult and complicated job for which she is nominated.

Karen Hughes is a communications specialist, and like Dan Bartlett, Scott McClellan and Ari Fleischer, her knowledge has allowed the Bush administration to achieve goals unpopular with most Americans at little or no political cost. In her role as senior counselor Hughes reported only Bush and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card. She did not have to face election or confirmation, and her responsibility to maintaining the image of the White House trumped any concern for the truth or the common good as it existed outside the administration. She has repeatedly been the one to step in after the President farts in the face of the American people to tell them that it is the latest designer fragrance.

As Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Hughes will be responsible for making the United States’ case to foreign citizens, but she starts with a credibility gap, both her own and the one she assumes as a member of the Bush administration. Before Bush was in office, she was spinning whoppers about the 2000 Florida recount (calling heavily Jewish Palm Beach County a “Buchanan stronghold“), later became a member of the White House Iraq Group (whose task it was to sell the war in absence of actual evidence), and more recently, distorted John Kerry‘s military service (a fact that makes one think that Kerry, a member of the SFRC, would want to ask Hughes about).

Maybe before Biden decided that Hughes is qualified for this position, he should have considered whether someone who freely compares women who seek abortions with terrorists is suited to the delicate work of diplomacy:

“I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life. And President Bush has worked to say, let’s be reasonable, let’s work to value life, let’s try to reduce the number of abortions, let’s increase adoptions. The fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life.”

Anyone holding this position faces an uphill battle, but it’s especially foolish to expect Hughes’ brand of spin to influence the same nations that hold us in contempt for a war she helped sell in the first place. We don’t have a public relations problem in the Arab/Muslim world. They don’t hate us over a misunderstanding that can be patiently explained by a master communicator. In light of our past and current policies supporting murderous tyrants (including Saddam Hussein and many others), we don’t have anything significant that Hughes can promise them as a show of goodwill. Allowing Afghanistan to revert back to warlord control makes even the just war there far from a success, and the chaos in Iraq breeds more hatred and violence with each passing day. The blights on our national conscience that are Abu Ghraib (still subject to cover-up) and Guantánamo (where conditions are so bad that detainees are conducting a hunger strike) make it unthinkable that our credibility and moral authority will every be restored.

Karen Hughes faces what amounts to a fool’s errand. Until the United States stops acting like a slum lord by treating the rest of the world as ghetto tenants, public diplomacy is futile. Not only did Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee have an opportunity to question Hughes on many issues related to her conduct as counselor to the President and her thoughts on how to best execute her new job, they had a responsibility to do it.

Being in the minority means opposing and exposing irresponsible behavior by the majority. The eight Democrats on the SFRC did not serve their constituents or their country well on Friday. Biden, Kerry, and Russ Feingold are all considering runs for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. If they can’t do their job in the Senate, they don’t deserve a promotion. And the rest of the members have no excuse either. They will never learn unless they know that their voters are watching, so if you live in Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, California, Florida, or Illinois, please consider making a brief phone call to your state’s Senator on the SFRC.