“More than nine months after taking power, about all that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have achieved on the Iraq front is to unfairly share in the blame for mismanaging the conflict…Pelosi, in particular, erred in unduly raising antiwar expectations when she took over as the first Democratic speaker in a dozen years. It was the Gingrich Revolution in reverse, this time with Democrats failing to appreciate the balance-of-power realities of a congressional showdown with an unyielding president, however wounded.” Salon‘s Walter Shapiro puts forth an explanation why Democratic attempts to change direction in Iraq have failed.
Category: Democrats
She Ain’t Like Ike.
“Bush has long taken solace in the example of Harry S. Truman, whose foreign policy was deeply unpopular in his time but is now recalled as far-sighted and sage. Now Bush is stretching the comparison still further beyond the historical pale.” After (Dem strategist?) Dubya hints that a forthcoming Clinton presidency will play Ike to his Truman, Slate‘s Fred Kaplan cries foul. If the next prez channels Eisenhower, Kaplan contends, “it would be not as a continuation of Bush’s Truman but rather as a reversal of Bush’s Dulles.“
Death and Taxes.
“‘Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we’ve got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code,’ he said. ‘This isn’t the invisible hand of the market at work. It’s the successful work of special interests.” In a speech at Washington’s Tax Policy Center, Barack Obama unveils his tax plan. “The plan means billions in breaks by: nixing income taxes for the 7 million senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who make less than $50,000 annually and do not itemize their deductions, and providing 150 million Americans with tax cuts of up to $1,000…Obama proposes funding the tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens and increasing the dividend-and-capital-gains tax for the wealthy, he said.“
Meanwhile, not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton unveils her new health care plan. “A Clinton adviser compares the plan’s ‘individual mandate’ — which requires everyone to have health insurance — to current rules in most states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance…Clinton is the third of the front-running Democratic White House hopefuls to formally unveil her plan, following Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards.” Said Edwards of the Clinton plan: “I’m glad that, today, the architect of the 1993 plan has another care proposal — and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I’m flattered…The lesson Senator Clinton seems to have learned from her experience with health care is, ‘If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.’ I learned a very different lesson from decades of fighting powerful interests — you can never join ’em, you just have to beat ’em.”
Imperial Krongard?
“Since your testimony at the Committee’s hearing on July 26,2007, current and former
employees of the Office of Inspector General have contacted my staff with allegations that you
interfered with on-going investigations to protect the State Department and the White House
from political embarassment…The allegations made by these officials are not limited to a single unit or project within your office.” In a detailed and damning letter to the suspect, Henry Waxman’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform announces it is investigating attempts by the Dubya State Department’s Inspector General, one Howard J. Krongard, to shield the administration from political trouble. “One consistent element in these allegations is that you believe your foremost mission is to support the Bush Administration, especially with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than
act as an independent and objective check on waste, fraud, and abuse on behalf of U.S.
taxpayers.” Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but this sounds all too plausible, given what we’ve already seen from this bunch.
Turning a Deaf Earmark.
“They are trying to change the whole vernacular so that earmarks aren’t earmarks anymore,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.” (Or, put another way, “When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.“) Under the current Congress, it seems, “earmarks” have now become “congressionally directed spending” but, alas for real reform, the intent — to get pet projects into the public agenda by roundabout means — continues. “Members of Congress are now resorting to less obvious tactics that allow them to get money to favored beneficiaries without acknowledging support for what others consider to be earmarks…Government watchdog groups and a few dissident lawmakers have noticed these sleights of hand and have begun to complain. They say the approach deceives the public about how many special spending projects are being handed out, noting that lawmakers’ contacts with agencies usually are conducted out of public view.”
Crossfire, Hard-Wired?
Is political conflict bred in the bone (or, put less charitably, do some among us just have an easier time with higher-order thinking)? A new joint NYU-UCLA neurobiological study finds once again that left- and right-leaning brains function differently, with liberal minds more receptive to change than their conservative counterparts. “Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits. Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances…[In this case] respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed ‘significantly greater conflict-related neural activity’ when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine. Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits ‘despite signals that this…should be changed.’”
At what cost Clinton?
“‘Republicans are upset with their candidates,’ Arnold added, ‘but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls.’” Although few Dems seem willing to go on the record publicly about their doubts, the AP’s Ron Fournier reports on widespread Democratic concern over Hillary’s reverse coattails in the general election. “The problem is her political baggage: A whopping 49 percent of the public says they have an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to 47 percent who say they hold her in high regard, according to a Gallup Poll survey Aug. 3-5. Her negative ratings are higher than those of her husband, former President Clinton, former President George H.W. Bush and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry at the end of their campaigns. A candidate’s unfavorability scores almost always climb during campaigns.”
Sharpening the Knives | She Laughs Last?
“I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism.” The attacks grow more pointed among the Dems at last night’s AFL-CIO debate (which I missed), and it sounds like both Obama and Edwards got in some good zingers. (Edwards: “The one thing you can count on is you will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying I am the candidate that big, corporate America is betting on.“) And yet, a new poll finds Senator Clinton widening her lead over Obama to 18 points and enjoying huge advantages in big states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Hmm. Is the race already over? The inveterate pessimist in me says definitely maybe, but let’s remember, Howard Dean was looking pretty solid in August of 2003. We have a ways to go yet. (I mean, the critical Jolie and di Caprio endorsements are still up for grabs, for example. And Obama does have Bourne and Clooney locked up.)
Democratic Disgrace.
“‘We’re hugely disappointed with the Democrats,’ said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. ‘The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they’re in control — it’s mind-boggling.‘” Um, why did we put these jokers in office again? Surely not to support such flagrantly unconstitutional intrusions as this. Folding completely to White House pressure, a Democratic Senate voted 60-28 and a Democratic House voted 227-183 to sanction Dubya’s illegal wiretapping procedures. ‘The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the monitoring, under certain conditions, of electronic communications between people on U.S. soil, including U.S. citizens, and people ‘reasonably believed to be outside the United States,’ without a court’s order or oversight.” The Dems’ fallback position? They included a six-month sunset provision in the bill, so they’ll get a chance to revisit and repeat their capitulation to the executive throne early next year. But can we expect any more leadership from the congressional Democrats then? Really, this is beyond disgraceful. “‘The day we start deferring to someone who’s not a member of this body…is a sad day for the U.S. Senate,’ Feingold said. ‘We make the policy — not the executive branch.’“
Unamid to the rescue?
“The resolution allows the use of force in self-defense, to ensure freedom of movement for humanitarian workers and to protect civilians under attack.” In a unanimous vote, the UN Security Council agrees to send 26,000 peace-keeping troops and police — a UN-AU hybrid force known as Unamid — to Darfur. “Ban Ki-moon , the UN Secretary-General, called the move a ‘historic and unprecedented operation’ that will send ‘a clear and powerful signal’ of help to the people of Darfur.” That being said, many observers — among them Sen. Russ Feingold — feel this version of the resolution has been excessively watered down to appease the Sudanese government: “If this UN resolution is passed as it currently stands, we can expect the Sudanese government to try to evade its requirements and agreements without a single consequence. Should that happen, the toll of the genocide in Darfur will continue to mount — in lives lost, in persons displaced, and in fundamental human values that the international community has failed to uphold.“