mattgunn.com

- 3Q03 -

September 29, 2003
All the recent polls suggest that Gray Davis will be recalled, and Arnold Schwarzenegger will be elected Governor of California. Ouch.

Are there more scandalous details from Arnold's past that politically interested folks are waiting to drop at the last minute? Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

A very, very serious Bush Administration scandal is starting to unravel. The Washington Post dropped this bombshell on Sunday:

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.

The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.

The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law.

The officer's name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

An article in today's Post suggests Bush may try to stonewall this one, which is fine with me because it's terrible politics:

White House officials said they would turn over phone logs if the Justice Department asked them to. But the aides said Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer who is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, one of the most visible critics of Bush's handling of intelligence about Iraq.

Democrats can have a field day with this, especially as long as you have someone as corrupt as John Ashcroft ultimately responsible for the sole investigation. If Clinton senior adminstration officials had done something so monstrous, Republicans would call for military tribunals. And I'm not sure that's such a bad idea. Blowing the cover of a CIA officer for political ends is an absolutely immoral, monstrous act. Whoever these two people are who leaked her identity should be fired and face trial, and if it's all true they should go to jail for a long time. I wholeheartedly agree with what George Herbert Walker Bush said in a April 16, 1999 speech:

We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.

If you're interested in covering all the angles on this story, the always thoughtful Josh Marshall does a great job writing about them.

When dabbling in the monstrous and immoral, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Dick Cheney. There's another article in today's Post worth checking out, one which showcases Cheney's buffoonish ineptitude when it comes to distinguishing solid intelligence from conjecture:

In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation.

The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq.

Is Dick Cheney an actual human being, or did he walk right off the screen as a character from Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb?

Cheney's an incompetent political thug, an empty shell of a man. It's disillusioning and appalling that a man mainly characterized by his own inhumanity could have risen to his role in our government. Truly sad.

September 25, 2003
First, a few general comments about this afternoon's Democratic Presidential Debate in New York:

Howard Dean is definitely still perceived by the other candidates as the frontrunner, despite Wesley Clark's superior standing in recent nation-wide polls.

Political commentators like to repeat that boring old conventional wisdom that there's a weak field of candidates ill-prepared to take on the incumbent. As I've watched these debates, I've become increasingly impressed by how relatively strong our Democratic field is.

That said, the sooner 4 or 5 of these candidates drop out of the race, the better. That way each candidate can get more time and the debates will become more focused, and the nominee will be in a stronger position to take on King George II one on one rather than saying whatever ear-grabbing thing it takes to distinguish himself as one of 10. Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosley Braun, Graham, and probably Lieberman are pretty much wasting our time right now. The real contest is between Clark, Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, and Edwards.

And we definitely don't need anybody else to throw their hat in, especially Hillary Clinton. Although I think Hillary could definitely make a pretty good run at the White House one day, Josh Marshall makes a pretty good argument suggesting she will never be elected. In short, fairly or unfairly, she's a divisive political figure in a time when Democrats need, more than ever, uniters and not dividers.

Now, on to grading the individual debate performances:

Wesley Clark: A
It's pretty clear that Clark won't have a honeymoon. Republicans are scared shitless about him being the nominee, as you see when guys like William Safire, Bob Novak, and Matt Drudge devote considerable time trying to take him down. The Democratic candidates are equally scared, of course, and are trying to discredit him, mostly behind the scenes. He hurt himself badly last week by muddying his war position, which is one of his greatest assets.

But yesterday with his unveiling of a reasonably specific and politically sellable economic plan, and today with his debate performance, I think he's begun to reassure those many, like me, who are so excited by him.

He appeared confident, relaxed, and knowledgable throughout the debate. He was also arguably the best looking and most charismatic guy on stage (as my friend John Cabrera said to me, "Is there any one else running whose face you could imagine on a coin? Of course not.") Some have accused him of being vague, but I think that's a little bit of a self-fulfilled prophecy.

On his second question from NBC moderator Brian Williams, he poked some fun at himself and winked at those who may have been concerned over the interview he did last week with four leading newspaper jounralists: "Brian, if I've learned one thing in my nine days in politics, you better be careful with hypothetical questions, and you've just asked one." Perfect.

But it was this exchange – the very first question and answer of the debate – where Clark hit the home run:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: On May 11th of 2001, as reported in US News and World Report, you addressed at the Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner in Arkansas, expressed your support for the leadership of Ronald Reagan, for that matter, the leadership of our current president, George W. Bush, his immediate staff and Cabinet, and indicated they were needed in place.

Did you believe it then? Do you believe it now?

CLARK: I think it's been an incredible journey for me and for this country since early 2001.

We elected a president we thought was a compassionate conservative. Instead we got neither conservatism or compassion. We got a man who recklessly cut taxes. We got a man who recklessly took us into war with Iraq.

I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only party to come to.

I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat.

That's why, if given the chance, he'll beat George W. Bush.

AL SHARPTON: A
Sharpton is a straight-A student in debates. He's had at least one or two one-liners in each debate that have made me laugh out loud.

He welcomed Wes Clark into the race by saying, "It's better to be a new Democrat that's a real Democrat than a lot of old Democrats up here who've been acting like Republicans all along."

Responding to a question about free trade, he said "African-Americans are here because of a bad trade policy."

Maybe his best line, though, was, "Today, we have 8 career politicians, an officer, and [signaling to himself ] a gentleman. That's the Democratic Party."

JOHN EDWARDS: A
The other candidates should keep on eye on John Edwards. If Clark falls and Dean takes Iowa and New Hampshire, Edwards is well-positioned to be the alternative to Dean. He's leading polls in South Carolina and has been edging up in Iowa. He's very, very difficult not to like. He's a Southerner, but no rube. And he's honed a sharper campaign message on the economy than anybody. Today, he hit his home run on his usual stuff about how G.W. favors wealth over work. That's a winning message. Edwards is still an extreme longshot to win this race, but he's an attractive Vice Presidential candidate, especially for Clark and Kerry, who don't need someone to bolster their foreign policy credentials.

By the way, I recently read that Ghandi had his own version of the Seven Deadly Sins. The very first sin he'd always talk about was "Wealth Without Work."

John Edwards is in good company.

John Kerry: B+
Wes Clark's entrance certainly hurts Kerry, but he's picked up an impressive slate of endorsements recently, including the most popular politician in California, Dianne Feinstein. Jeanne Shaheen, who's got a vaunted ground operation in New Hampshire, and who helped Al Gore decapitate Bill Bradley there in 2000, has also joined his campaign as Finance Chairman. He's used Clark's arrival as an opportunity to highlight the fact that he's the most well-rounded candidate in the race on national and international issues, and he's right. He let the Democratic establishment escape his grasp by lacking a simple message these past few months, but I wouldn't count him out.

In this debate, he hammered Dean and Gephardt on their proposed middle class tax hikes (I'm afraid this would kill either in the general election), and he hit the long ball on his specifics about energy policy. He also seized upon an opening Howard Dean gave him to attack Dean's policies after Dean claimed that the candidates had to discuss their policy differences. If these 2 ever got in a debate one on one, I think Kerry might explode him.

Bob Graham: B+
Graham is a good debater – it's no wonder he's won every office he's ever run for. He'll end his winning streak running for President, but if he's actually running for VP, as many suggest, he improves his chances with these debate performances.

Dick Gephardt: B+
I'm liking Gephardt more. He had this great line about Dean: "Now, you've been saying for many months that you're the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party – I think you're just wingin' it." True. Dean is the ultimate loose cannon. Gephardt's also probably the least hurt by Clark's candidacy, although some polls have shown, confoundingly, Gephardt losing the most ground since Clark came in.

It's gonna be fun to see who wins Iowa, and defeating Dean as the frontrunning money king could establish Gephardt as a giant killer in Iowa, instead of just a place he's supposed to win.

Howard Dean: B
Dean had a good response to Gephardt linking him to Newt Gingrich: "Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich." He also speaks credibly on a variety of issues. But to me he always seems on the verge of snapping. He's really got a chip on his shoulder. Some may think that's what we need to beat G.W., but I disagree. We need a guy who inspires calm and confidence, and Dean excels at discomforting folks. In politics, fighter = good, but coming off as a terrier = bad.

I've become increasingly swayed by the idea that Pit Bull Howard could really hurt the Democratic Party if he's our nominee.

Joe Lieberman: B
Lieberman was funny enough on some answers to deserve an A, but he's Lieberman, so I give him a B.

Carol Mosley Braun: I can't remember a single thing she said, so it wouldn't be fair to grade her.

Dennis Kucinich: F
If this guy were elected President, I'd support a Congressional resolution eliminating the Executive Branch, because it would be totally irrelevant.

Lastly, I'd just like to say that Chris Matthews' post-debate analysis on CNBC was so shallow and wrong that he can't be taken seriously as a professional. As much as I'm repelled by pit bulls in politics, pit bulls in journalism are even more misfitting. The guy's an idiot.
September 17, 2003
Thank God for Wesley Clark. I've been following him for years, and wholeheartedly believe he's a brilliant man who would make a great President. And he's by far our best chance of beating Bush in 2004, a man capable of replacing this President's ignorant, empty, dangerous vision with a vision that's informed, realistic, and progressive. Some smart people say he's too late to the campaign, but I think by the appeal of his credentials and demeanor, along with his organizational and fundraising abilities, he could dispel that opinion in a matter of weeks.

Dick Cheney's Meet the Press appearance this Sunday could only be described as sinful. He tells so many ridiculous lies in such an unwaveringly cold way that I could almost sign on to any conspiracy theory that suggests he's some kind of evil robot. The man's absolutely immoral, a disgrace, one of America's all-time embarrassments. At no point does he ever show that he feels any sympathy whatsoever to those soldiers maimed and killed in the war so far, which I suppose you might expect from a guy that admitted he sought deferments from serving in Vietnam because he had "other priorities."

I watched an old 60 Minutes interview with the late, great Johnny Cash earlier tonight, and he repeated these beautiful words from a song by the also late, great Roy Orbison:

A diamond is a diamond
And a stone is a stone
But a man is part good
And part bad

I think that's really beautiful, and I don't mean to mess with it at all, except to maybe make a slight revision:

A diamond is a diamond
And a stone is a stone
But a man is part good
And part bad
Except maybe Dick Cheney
Who's all crap

On Charlie Rose the other night, Thomas Friedman, who had just returned from Iraq, mentioned that he was robbed in broad daylight on the main highway to Baghdad and later made this startling observation: "Do you know how many troops are there, protecting the border? Two." He was serious.

I don't know how big an area he was talking about, although I imagine he meant it was all the troops he had seen as he moved along the border. Whatever the case, I've heard the critique about unprotected borders from analysts of all political stripes. It's absolutely incomprehensible that war planners would not protect the borders of a country post-invasion. I can't wait to hear the Dick Cheney rationale on that one.

Friedman brought good news from Iraq, though, as well:

I believe that we and the Iraqis – the silent majority of Iraqis, and I'm talking about 90% of the population – actually have an overlap of interests of a very fundamental nature. We the United States and the vast majority of Iraqis actually want the same thing. We want Iraq not to be Iran and not be Saddam. To be some decent, alternative, pluralistic in-between.

Although Friedman thinks that we're headed in the "net right direction," if ever so slowly, he also said a bunch of people should be fired for being so ill-prepared for the post-war.

On March 27 of this year, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, representing the Bush Administration before Congress, made the following statement:

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

Five months + later, our President gets around to telling us they only need, say, $100 billion dollars from us. Any thinking person can deducet that you can probably multiply that a few times for the next few years if we're gonna do things right. So I think we can figure Wolfowitz was only off by about half a trillion dollars.

Oops.

September 16, 2003
"Nobody believed me when I said Hillary Clinton would be the next senator from New York. And nobody believes me now. But Wesley Clark will be the next president of the United States."

-- Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.)

The only thing Rangel may be wrong about here is that no one believes him now. Democrats everywhere are catching Wes Clark fever, and it's a wonderful disease. I've got a little case of it myself.

September 10, 2003
In last night's debate, Howard Dean made the following statement:

I'll tell ya' why I connect with African-American audiences – I'm the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences.

Today, John Edwards documented several times when he talked about race before white audiences, proving Dean a liar, and Wolf Blitzer asked Dean about that. Dean just said, "I said the same thing at [a forum ] a couple months ago, and didn't hear a peep from any of the candidates." In other words, in Dean's mind it's okay for him to make completely unfounded, false statements as long as the injured parties don't complain about it. That's a crock of shit. If this were the only time Dean said something completely false about the other candidates, it wouldn't be that big a deal, but Dean has consistently lied about other candidates. In fact, he's had to apologize on a few different occasions, and should have apologized in a few more. As a nominee, he doesn't seem ready for prime time.

Edwards said today that Dean's statements on race were divisive and that in the future he hopes Dean leads by example rather than by division. Damn right. In looking for a viable alternative to Dean, Democrats will need to look for a true uniter to go against Dean the divider.

Also, I saw a little clip of Dean talking about a time when he actually told a group of African-Americans that, "You should vote for me because I've got soul." Uh-oh. He could be a disaster for us.

Lastly, Lieberman's attacks on Dean on Israel might stick a little more than I thought when writing about it in the wee hours of this morning. Some time ago, Dean called for more "even-handedness" when dealing with Israelis and Palestinians. Such a comment is politically stupid because it could be taken to mean that you treat Israel's democratically-elected leaders the same way you treat, say, a Hamas leader. Dean was very defensive and bad on the whole issue on Wolf Blitzer Reports. He's genuinely pretty unattractive when he's on the defensive, and I think we can be pretty damn sure that our nominee will spend a lot of time on defense after the primaries.

If anybody has any doubts about who's the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination, I think they'll be erased once the details of the candidates' 3rd quarter fundraising totals start to trickle out late this month and in early October. Howard Dean will far outraise the rest of the pack, and I predict that he might actually double the next highest raiser. It's an open secret to the other campaigns, I think, which makes it pretty curious that the 2 debates this week have taken shape as they have.

Rather than several candidates teaming up to take down Dean as frontrunner in order to redefine the race, the anti-war candidates (Kucinich, Graham, and Sharpton, with Mosley Braun keeping quiet and Dean doing what a frontrunner should, staying above the fray) have teamed up to discredit the candidates who voted to authorize Bush to go to war (Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt).

As a Democratic true believer who desperately wants to see a Democrat in the White House by January '05, I don't like the race taking such shape. First, because the question of authorization of the war is past tense, and general election voters are much more concerned with the present and future. You don't want to get tagged as a party stuck in the past – that's something we should label Republicans with, not be vulnerable to ourselves. Secondly, because an up and down yes or no vote on the war's authorization put those in Congress at a terrible disadvantage over those who didn't have to vote, and it's easy to misrepresent a thoughtful and complicated stance as one that means only "But you agreed with the evil George Bush and wanted to go to war!" Thirdly, because Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt are more experienced, well-rounded candidates than those who opposed the war (although Dean's campaign has been so spectacularly impressive so far that they challenge my thinking there). And if you subtract the pro-war candidates, Dean has no credible competition from the current crop.

As I said after the last debate, Democrats have to brighten their messages or we'll become entrenched in sad sackdom. One thing that should help here is Wes Clark's expected announcement next week that he's joining the race. Clark was decidedly anti-war (and his opposition was much, much more substantively reasoned than Howard Dean's), and along with John Edwards, he'll add an optimistic, forward-thinking voice to the race. He'll be hobbled by a lack of money in the early-going and may be flat-out too late, but he'll get a lot of free media attention and will immediately shake things up.

Some other notes on tonight's debate:

• Howard Dean referred to "When Saddam Hussein was President" [of Iraq ]. I hope somebody in his campaign has the courage to pull him aside and tell him that Saddam Hussein was never elected to jackshit and that he doesn't need to give the Bush people any more material for their Spring/Summer '04 "Howard Loves Saddam" ad campaign.

On the other hand, his closing statement, which focused on Bush's misunderstanding of defense and his own aims to "restore honor, dignity, and respect for the United States around the world" was the class of the field.

What he had to say about race illustrates my ambivalence about Dean: "I'll tell ya' why I connect with African-American audiences – I'm the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences. Black folks have heard lectures from white politicians for a long time – we always talk about race. White folks need to talk to white people in America about race."

When I first heard this, it struck me as refreshingly candid and rang true – the kind of frank talk that can garner support from unexpected corners – but then I realized it's a lie. How does he know that the other candidates don't talk to their white audiences about race? I've heard John Kerry speak at four different fundraisers, 2 of which had predominantly white audiences and 1 which had an exclusively white audience, and he talked about race/minority issues at every single one of them. This is the kind of rhetorical shit that Dean has to refine if he wants to be a formidable Presidential candidate. He'll also probably have to issue his umpteenth apology to his opponents tomorrow.

• Bob Graham's quoting the actual language of the Congressional war resolution was devastating to the pro-war guys, particularly Kerry: "The President is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

Graham had another fine moment when he responded to the request of the so-called journalist Ed Gordon for a "more straightforward answer" than Kerry on a question he'd asked earlier:
"Do you believe the President intentionally misled the American people?"
"Yes" was Graham's simple, emphatic response.

Gordon's negative characterization of Kerry's earlier response was totally unprofessional, irresponsible, and even unwarranted, but Graham capitalized. His Presidential campaign is D.O.A., but he may have bolstered his VP credentials tonight (although, when you think about it, he certainly didn't bolster his VP credentials with the Kerry camp.)

• As much as there is to like about John Kerry, his answers on his war authorization vote have by and large been shit, and I think they're killing him right now. I don't understand why he doesn't say this: "Saddam Hussein is not some bogeyman invented by George W. Bush. He's one of the worst serial mass murderers in human history, and that's been verified by the hundreds of thousands of mass graves that have been discovered in Iraq. The Clinton Administration policy was regime change, as it should have been, and I'm certainly not going to apologize for my desire to make Saddam Hussein impotent in Iraq and the region. What I didn't foresee was that this Administration could botch the diplomacy behind our international effort so abysmally, so incredibly, so completely. But, as a matter of record, I did everything I could to push international diplomacy then, and as President I will work to exhaustion to repair and indeed reverse the damage this Administration has done to our international standing."

Many of Kerry's other answers were pretty good, but until he takes a different approach in explaining his war vote he'll remain stalled.

• Dick Gephardt was once again convincingly impassioned. He also continued his concise "miserable failure" theme, and had some good lines, including, "He (Bush) only has one idea in his head: tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Followed by... tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Followed by... tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." He's performed well in these debates.

Only...

He got tagged by Dennis Kucinich, who looked him in the eye and asked him: "Dick, when you were spending time in the Rose Garden with the President, and you were giving him advice, I wish you would have told him 'no.'"

It was Kucinich's most effective moment yet in the campaign, by far. And if he continues to perform well like tonight, some Dean supporters and would-be supporters may start to turn his way. Of course, Dennis has about as much chance of being elected President as Gary Coleman has being elected Governor of California, but there are scenarios where he could hurt Dean in a meaningful way.

Kucinich also called for replacement of ALL U.S. troops with U.N. troops, which is both totally impossible and if I can assume what he actually means by it (foreign armies? UN peacekeepers? 200,000? from where? paid for by whom? what the hell is he talking about?), it's totally dangerous. Kucinich may as well live on Uranus.

• Al Sharpton, who's one of the most entertaining debaters in history, continued to show off tonight. He even threatened to "take care" of these Lyndon LaRouche protestors who continually interrupted this debate, which was sponsored by the Black Congressional Caucus. You have to have a black belt in assholism to protest a Black Congressional Caucus debate, and the LaRouchites certainly have that.

Sharpton joined Kucinich in side-swiping Gephardt on his war stance and on his repeated hammering of Bush as a "miserable failure": "I've never heard of people acting like they didn't know we needed an exit when they gave him the entrance. That is a miserable failure."

He also said, "I'm a man of action. And unlike Schwarzenegger, I never have a stunt man do my hard work."

• Joe Lieberman was once again the only person to really take on Dean, this time questioning Dean's support for Israel. If Kerry and Gephardt think they can lay back and watch Lieberman hurt Dean, I don't think they're right. At this point, I think Lieberman's anti-Dean arguments are looking more like an endorsement to Dean's supporters.

Lieberman's got about as much chance of winning the nomination as Kucinich.

• John Edwards was very, very impressive talking about education and just about everything else he talked about. He's been impressing the hell out of me lately, with his policy knowledge, his optimism, and his articulation of both. He announced this week that he's not seeking re-election to the Senate, so you know he's dead serious about winning. His numbers have started to move up slightly lately, and I anticipate that he may move up some more because he doesn't seem as tarnished by his pro-war vote as Kerry and Gephardt (perhaps in part because of his flying under the radar so far) and he also doesn't seem to be hurt as much as Dean or Kerry by a Clark candidacy (I don't think the "another Southerner" thing hurts him much, as some people say).

All in all, this is shaping up to a be a competitive race, and we've got some smart people running. I love it.

September 10, 2003
On Charlie Rose last Thursday night, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, became the first serious foreign policy thinker I've heard question whether we should entirely pull back our troops from Iraq before things get worse. It's fairly surprising to hear as formidable a thinker as Mathews (indeed, many of her anti-war warnings at the beginning of the year are looking fairly prescient right now) ready to surrender, but even more surprising was U.S. News and World Report's Fouad Ajami, another foreign policy expert, searching ineptly for arguments why we shouldn't withdraw and not coming up with much more than "because we can't."

Mathews may have won the debate, but she's wrong. The only thing more unpardonable than the Bush Administration's planless post-war Iraq planning would be to leave a failed and hopeless state behind us. If we did, it would be brutally unfair to the long suffering people of Iraq who need the U.S. and the U.N. to get them back on their feet. It would instantly give international terrorists free, unchecked reign in a big country with lots of oil to trade for arms to kill innocents. It would blow to bits America's standing in the world, and our credibility in the region; after 9/11, experts on the Middle East have suggested that one of America's great problems is that people in the region doubt our sincerity in wanting to stay the course in improving their way of life. If we withdrew, we'd lose them forever.

We absolutely need to do better in Iraq. We need to leave a stable government in our wake, and this is going to take at least 5 years, probably several more.

I think G.W. Bush is a buffoon who didn't prepare us at all for the magnitude of this war and who's botched diplomacy before and after the war almost beyond belief. But he's absolutely right in his calls to remain committed to rebuilding Iraq at all costs.

Thankfully, Mathews' questions are academic right now. Congress will approve an $87 billion + Iraq appropriation, and every Democrat running for President (except for maybe Kucinich) agrees that we can't cut and run.

September 5, 2003
Dick Gephardt's two impassioned, simple sentences pretty much summed up tonight's Democratic debate: "This President is a failure. [Pause ] He is a miserable failure."

A couple other good quotes:
John Kerry, on Latin American policy: "It would be wonderful to have a President of the United States who could find the countries in his own hemisphere. And I will do that."
John Edwards, on jobs lost: "The President goes around the country speaking Spanish – the only Spanish he knows when it comes to jobs is, 'Hasta la vista'."

While I enjoy Bush-bashing as much as the next guy, and think it's important for our party to rally with it, I fear that many more debates with non-stop Bush- heckling will define the winner as someone who is first and foremost contemptuous of G.W.. It'll be important for somebody – and I hope it's Kerry, because he's still looking and sounding the most Presidential to me – to stand up at the next debate after everybody's been railing against Bush and say, "Look, it's obvious that we've got a jerkoff in the White House, but the real reason I campaign so hard everyday is so we can (insert a substantive, meaningful, hopeful, and succinct vision for America here)."

The first George Bush only got 37% of the vote in 1992, which is about as bad as a major party candidate could possibly do. Bill Clinton did a good job picking away at his weaknesses, but he did a lot more prescribing than he did criticizing. We're gonna need our nominee to follow that example.

September 2, 2003
Labor Day presents an opportunity to look at G.W.'s labor record:

With over 2.7 million jobs lost, G.W. stands to be the first President since Herbert Hoover responsible for a net loss in jobs.

G.W. wants to turn back the clock on overtime pay, and rid employers of their current responsibility to pay time and a half for hours worked over the 40-hour work week.

G.W. is adamantly opposed to raising the federal minimum wage, meaning thousands of mothers and fathers work full-time but still fall below poverty level.

Just a couple months after taking office, G.W. backed a Republican repeal of a federal requirement for employers to ensure worker safety standards.

And those are just a few highlights. If you ever wondered why labor unions hate Bush so much, or why their leaders feel it's so important to dump money into Democratic campaign coffers, that's why.

Schwarzenegger's turning out to be a big phoney on all his "I don't have to take money from anybody – I've got my own money" promises. He's taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from all kinds of Republican groups. It's a blatant lie, and I'm surprised he's not getting hammered for it more in the press. It's certainly of more relevance than his interest in group sex in 1977.

Also, Arnold came out with this gem on The Sean Hannity Radio Show:

"I think that gay marriage is something between a man and a woman."

John Kerry was very, very good on Meet the Press Sunday. He officially launches his campaign with an announcement tomorrow. And then he'll debate with the other Democratic candidates Thursday night (on PBS – check your local listings). A lot is riding on the debates for him, with so many Democrats being undecided and Howard Dean's flash compelling him to show some more substance. He's got a reputation as an excellent debater, and there's no better time than now for him to prove it.

August 29, 2003
Here's a link to Arnold's entire 1977 Oui Magazine interview, which became big news today. He talks about group sex, his penis, smoking dope, hanging out with hookers, dating a stripper, and more – which is definitely gonna drive California's religious conservatives even deeper into the frigid embrace of Dan McClintock. So I suppose that's good news for Democrats. But I hope to God I don't hear any Democrats using this against Schwarzenegger.

Democrats and Republicans generally cling to principles about personal behavior and politics that will be forever at odds: we believe casting stones at personal behavior that doesn't impact public policy is absolutely wrong, and they believe they MUST expose what they consider unsavory private behavior so such behavior won't be tolerated by the public. I think they're view is totally immoral, and I was glad that today I didn't hear any Democrats chastise Schwarzenegger for his behavior back then, or, like Bay Buchanan, suggest that they were "sickened" by it.

I also like Arnold's response, which was non-chalant and direct: "I didn't live my life to be a politician." He's consistent, too, because when Republicans hyperventilated over Clinton's sexual indiscretions, Arnold claimed publicly that he was "ashamed to be a Republican."

I definitely find the interview amusing. Although, because I've seen "Pumping Iron," it's also unsurprising. Schwarzenegger certainly is a singular American character, and a textbook example of an immigrant who's been the great architect of his own American Dream. Group sex and hookers aside.

Howard Dean's campaign may be unstoppable. He's burned across the country this week, speaking before crowds unprecedentedly large (thousands) for this time in an election cycle. He's practically bathing in the Democratic zeitgeist. And a Zogby Poll taken in New Hampshire this week shows Dean a whopping 21% ahead of John Kerry there. Most interestingly, though, he mentioned in a Sunday interview that he may forgo federal matching funds for the general election (meaning that his spending wouldn't be capped at about $50 mil., and he can spend whenever he sees fit), which shows how powerful his internet fundraising engine has become. I figured that the Democratic nominee would be outspent by the Bush fundraising juggernaut by at least 4 or 5 to 1, but Dean challenges that. He's run a spectacular campaign. But he should reverse himself on a couple things if he's gonna have a shot in the general, starting with his idea to raise taxes on the middle class. It'll be interesting to see if Kerry gains traction as he hammers away at Dean on this.

General Wesley Clark is expected to announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination soon, probably sometime in the third week of September. Political analyst Larry Fitzgibbon makes a good point when he says, "I'm going to view Clark as a Johnny-Come-Lately, until he proves otherwise," but I think his candidacy could take off and certainly shake up the race. Writing for The Washington Monthly, Amy Sullivan makes a great case for his viability:

Arguably, Clark matches each of the strengths of the current crop of contenders, and then raises them one. His Army background--stretching from Vietnam to Kosovo--out-oomphs Kerry's military record. His service as commander of NATO forces compares favorably to Dean's executive experience as governor of a small New England state. He adds gravitas to Edwards's aesthetic appeal, charisma to Lieberman's thoughtfulness, and sincerity to Gephardt's liberal policies.

That's why more and more Democratic insiders are beginning to argue that--at least in theory--Clark is the best candidate to beat Bush in a general election.

Those insiders may be right. If Clark, who's already the second most popular internet candidate, catches any of Howard Dean's fundraising lightning, watch out. And unlike Dean, I can't think of anything he's said or done that might come back to haunt him.

The Democratic race is getting real, real interesting. Just in time for a slew of debates over the next couple months. I love it.
August 26, 2003
I'm gonna have to backtrack on my assessment that Arnold will definitely be California's next Governor unless he's caught in bed with bin Laden. Although Sunday's L.A. Times poll differs greatly from some others that are out there, it's a reminder that Schwarzenegger must clear some serious hurdles to win.

The poll's most obvious revelation is that Democratic Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante is beating Arnold 35% to 22%. But if I were in Arnold's camp, I'd find his favorable/unfavorable ratings even more worrisome. 46% look on him favorably, 44% unfavorably, with only 10% not knowing or deciding. Not good, especially for a guy who hasn't had to make any divisive policy decisions. And now, as he tries to put some muscle on his platitudes, he faces the horrible predicament that all California Republicans face – how does he reach out to bedrock conservatives in the Republican Party while avoiding alienating the state's solid plurality of liberal voters? California has grown only more Democratic since Pete Wilson, the moderate who was the state's last prominent Republican, won a race, so Arnold hasn't got a blueprint. He'll have to invent one, or he'll continue to be hammered by both the left and the right until his terminating abilities are roughly equivalent to a manual can opener.

Bill Simon dropped out, which you could take to mean that Republicans are uniting behind the Austrian, but it really doesn't help Arnold much because Simon is extremely conservative and the extreme conservatives have an obvious candidate in Tom McClintock. Watch out for this guy. He'll have trouble raising money to be competitive against the well-financed Arnold, but he's a proven Republican vote getter who will divide Arnold's vote until Karl Rove or somebody else can convince him to drop out of the race. As long as McClintock's in, I think Bustamante has the advantage. Hell, if Arnold screws up a few things he might even finish 3rd or conceivably 4th, which would be sweet revenge for Lou Ferrigno, and a fitting thing to happen to a guy with Schwarzenegger's ego.

August 15, 2003
In her E! True Hollywood Story that's been airing this week, porn starlet Jenna Jameson reveals something funny about "fair and balanced" buffoon Bill O'Reilly of the Fox News Channel. Although the moral-crusading O'Reilly has repeatedly called her a slut and attacked the shoe company Pony for having an ad with her, "a quasi-prostitute," in it, after his aggressive on-air interview with Ms. Jameson last summer he asked off-air if she could send him some of her movies. She hadn't intended to reveal the off-air conversation, but after his Pony attack, felt compelled to write his show:

I hope Bill understands the difference between a porn star and a hooker. I assume he has done some research on the subject matter, because he requested some of my videos after we finished taping my appearance on his program last summer. I imagine he wanted them for professional reasons, of course.

To his credit, O'Reilly did read her letter on the air. He then shrugged off her statement without denying it, claiming that "of course it was for research." I can't figure out whether he actually expects his audience to believe that, or if it's an acknowledgement that she nailed him, or both. Whatever the case, I think a fair question for him is, using his own logic, if Jenna Jameson is a quasi-prostitute for filming a sex scene for money that he then pays to watch, then isn't he a quasi-john?

I won't disparage "quasi-prostitutes" or "quasi-johns," but I can't stand hypocritical stone throwers like O'Reilly.

August 13, 2003
President Bush and his economic team went before cameras today to tell us how "upbeat" they are about the economy. But there are more informed opinions out there about the state of the economy and the Bush team's fiscal management. Last February, 10 Nobel Laureates for Economics and over 100 economics professors from across the country signed a petition opposing the Bush tax cuts. Yesterday, one of those signatories, 2001 Nobel Winner George Akerlof, cut to the heart of the matter by calling the criticism of the Bush economic policy "much too polite" while stating firmly that "The proper reference point is that the Bush fiscal policy is the worst policy in 200 years." If you need an even blunter translation, here it is: our President is the biggest dumbass on economic issues in the history of our country.

In an interview back in February, Professor Akerlof gave a more detailed view of the Bush policy:

The deficits being contemplated are out of sight. Each and every measure in this package contemplates long-term cuts in revenues, which means that the government will not have the revenues it needs to pay its bills. These bills fund extremely necessary things like Social Security, Medicare, and an effective military. In addition there's a grab bag of fairly small government expenditures, surprisingly small but nevertheless important, which includes such items as support for science, the justice system, Medicaid to help the disadvantaged, and some federal aid to education.

The budget deficits being contemplated are so very large and extend so far into the future that one doesn't see how in fact these needs are going to be met. These needs are only going to escalate as the baby boomers retire; more important than the population bulge, however, is the fact that people will be living longer and requiring more healthcare. The revenue will not be there over the longer term.

Slipped into the middle there is Akerlof's point that we won't be able to pay for an effective military if we follow Bush's policies. This is of vital political signifigance, but I haven't heard any Democratic candidate make the link yet. One of them should say something like this loud and clear every day: THE ECONOMY IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE. WE CAN ADEQUATELY MAINTAIN OUR MILITARY SUPREMACY ONLY IF WE MAINTAIN OUR ECONOMIC SUPREMACY. GEORGE W. BUSH HAS GUTTED OUR FEDERAL BUDGET, AND OVERSEEN THE WORST FISCAL MISMANAGEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY. THIS JEOPARDIZES OUR MILITARY SUPREMACY, AND WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN.

Some California Democrats acknowledge even publicly that Gray Davis is dead. Our Democratic alternative, Cruz Bustamante, is almost as boring as Davis himself. And he's absolutely clueless when it comes to political theatre (contrast his campaign announcement – before a puke-painted brick wall – with Arnold's Tonight Show splash). I'll probably vote for Bustamante. I'd love to see a Latino govern California. But right now, unless Arnold Schwarzenegger is caught on-camera sharing a post-coital cigarette with Osama bin Laden, it looks like he's our next Governor.

August 10, 2003

How is Arnold Schwarzenegger a Republican? It probably won't be too long before he throws some red meat to conservatives, but from what I've heard so far he's pro-choice, pro-gay adoption, and pro-common sense gun control. On top of that, his most substantive political experience in California politics so far has been his successful advocacy of Proposition 49, which sets aside half a billion dollars for after school programs – a traditionally Democratic thing. On the surface, he's a Republican in which almost any Democrat could imagine themselves nestled in his ample bosom.

The Washington Post featured an article Friday on what's known about the Kindergarten Cop's political background. Several things are notable in the article, one being that Arnold's dad was a member of the Nazi Party during WWII, but that he's dealt with it in the best possible way:

Schwarzenegger also has been a major financial contributor to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a prominent Jewish institution in Los Angeles. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the center, which promotes human rights, said that his relationship with the film star began with an unusual phone call more than a decade ago.

"It came from out of the blue," Hier said. "He wanted to know if we could research his father's background. We did, and we showed him that his father had been a member of the Nazi party. Since then, Arnold has taken great interest in what we do. And it has definitely had an impact on him."

Another interesting discovery is that he was fervently anti-impeachment:

He is a Republican who loathed the GOP's campaign to impeach then-President Bill Clinton, telling George magazine in 1999 that he would "never forgive" his party for that. "We spent one year wasting time because there was a human failure," he told the magazine. "I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period."

Conservative Republicans are already rounding up the attack dogs, like former welfare recipient Rush Limbaugh, and will rally around another candidate (whom I think probably will be Tom McClintock, not 2002 Republican Gubernatorial nominee Bill Simon).

Gray Davis is in an election particularly ill-suited to his previous campaign experience – after all these years of masterfully disparaging his opponents, the only person Californians can vote "no" on is him. He has to pray that the Clintons help him out (they've shown a willingness, and Bill Clinton is still the most popular political figure in the state), and that conservative Republicans and perhaps Larry Flynt start dishing out the unsavory details of Arnold's past.

(Flynt in particular would enjoy a story told about Arnold in Premiere Magazine's March 2001 article, "Arnold the Barbarian," in which Schwarzenegger was caught in his trailer on a movie set giving oral sex to a woman not his wife and looked at the people who walked in on him and said with a grin, "Eating is not cheating." I don't know if it's true or not, but if it's not whoever invented the story is a comic genius.

Another interesting story about Arnold – another which I can't verify myself – was told to me by a special events manager at Planet Hollywood in New York about 8 or 9 years ago. I asked him who the biggest jerk was out of all the celebrities who ever came in, and he looked at his buddy and grinned because they both knew without a second's hesistation: Arnold. They said he had an absolutely bizarre sense of humor, and that one time they saw a young boy, about 9 or 10 years old, hand Arnold a napkin and ask for his autograph. Arnold took the napkin, wiped his sweaty forehead with it, and gave it back to the boy, saying in mock anger, "There. There's your autograph." He then started cackling, and smiled at the boy as if he would get the joke, but the boy didn't and Arnold never gave him an autograph and quickly went back about his business.)

Back to substance, unfortunately. I heard on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning that Arnold supported, maybe even campaigned for, Proposition 187 (which denied even the most basic health care and education to illegal immigrants, and proposed turning all the state's civil service employees against immigrants) back in 1994, which put Latinos firmly into the Democratic camp because it was so anti-immigrant and heartless. If this is true, it could become a signifigant issue in the campaign, because many Republican political careers have been buried throughout the years for their support of it. Justice.

I'm looking forward to learning more about the Schwarzenegger record. He's damned entertaining, that's for sure. And with his liberalism, I even consider voting for him – that is, before I envision him as California Governor endorsing and raising up the arm of Republican Presidential nominee G.W. in 2004. That I can't stomach.

Schwarzenegger wasn't the only Arnold to announce last week. Gary Coleman, who played Arnold on "Different Strokes," will also be on the ballot. Right now, he's not given much of a chance, but everybody's waiting to see if there's a Conrad Bain endorsement that could turn things around.

August 6, 2003
Arnold Schwarzenegger shocked me and nearly everybody else this evening with his The Tonight Show with Jay Leno announcement that he's running for Governor of California. The national splash of his surprise candidacy, plus his masterful job of teasing the media and building hype (his advisors leaked word he wasn't running), are yet more indications that he will probably be the next Governor of California. The one person who probably has the best chance to beat him, Senator Dianne Feinstein, said earlier today that her name won't be on the ballot.

Schwarzenegger has some skeletons in his closet. Premiere magazine had an article a couple years ago about sexual harrassment allegations against him, and there are a lot of other stories here in Los Angeles that he's a pretty prolific hound. But now it's gonna be a formidable challenge for Gray Davis and Arnold's other opponents to get those things out before October 7, election day. Their only hope may be that the election is moved by the courts to March, on the grounds that voting apparatuses state-wide won't be ready in time. I doubt it, but who knows.

Now's a great time to check out, if you haven't already, the fascinating 1977 documentary "Pumping Iron." There's a ton of insight into the young Arnold Schwarzenegger. I watched the film for the first time this weekend and found him to be a supremely confident, extraordinarily intelligent, prodigiously charismatic young guy. But he's also cold, calculating, egomaniacal, and flat-out mean. He has a monologue about not going home for his father's funeral that's more than a little frightening. You also get to hear him say he's always been fascinated by dictators and see him smoke a joint on camera. Check it out.

By the way, if anybody's wondering, our Constitution bars the Austria-born Arnold from ever being President.

Announcing his retirement, South Carolina Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, who's served 37 years, had some choice words for President Bush, as the Associated Press describes them:

... he used his retirement announcement to lash out at President Bush, calling him ``a good fraternity brother'' and the weakest president he's seen in his half century of public service.

``I say 'weak president' in that the poor boy campaigns all the time and pays no attention to what's going on in Congress,'' Hollings said. ``Karl Rove tells him to do this or do that or whatever it is. But he's out campaigning.''

Hollings' retirement isn't only bad because he won't be quoted making such good public points as much, but because South Carolina may be the most Republican of all the states in the Republican South and odds are his successor will be a Republican. Already, Democrat Zell Miller of GA has announced he won't run in '04, and John Edwards of NC and Bob Graham of FL may not run even if they don't find themselves somewhere on the Democratic ticket. The Senate already belongs to the Republicans by a 51-48-1 margin (the one independent is Jim Jeffords, who's usually indepedently Democratic), and GA and NC are also heavily Republican, with FL infamously contested, so us Democrats could find ourselves heartbroken again in '04. We may not even have a chance to filibuster any more, which would give a bunch of budget-busting, right-wing judge appointing, anti-gay, pro-gun, minority-less, socially security suspicious, billionaire-fetishizing Republican leaders carte blanche on public policymaking for the rest of the decade.

If you ever had an urge to donate to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, now may be a good time.

August 4, 2003
Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean. Everybody's talking about him. He's on the covers of both Time and Newsweek tomorrow. He's shocked pundits and the Democratic establishment by leading all Democratic comers in 2nd quarter fundraising. He's leading some recent polls in Iowa, California, and New Hampshire, and is arguably the front runner right now to be the Democratic nominee.

Is Howard Dean a credible Democratic nominee? Is he for real?
Yes, without a doubt. He's articulate, confident, refreshingly candid at times, and has a special genius for harnessing Democrats' antipathy towards Bush. He's got a strong record in Vermont on health care and has balanced every budget he's seen as Governor – two great credentials to have in this race. Despite his frequent pegging as "a liberal", he's a political moderate, fiscally conservative but socially progressive. He's actually pro-gun. And his opposition to the Iraq War isn't kneejerk – he supported the first Gulf War and every subsequent U.S. military intervention before Iraq II. Dean's biggest and most surprising asset has been his ability to raise money. If there's a precedent for an insurgent becoming the money leader so quickly, I don't know what it is. In a two day period last week, he raised $500,000 on the internet, an astonishing total. His campaign manager, Joe Trippi, has been brilliant not just with his cyber prowess, but in almost every facet of the campaign.

Would Dean be a strong candidate to oppose Bush in November '04?
No, I don't think so. I'll start with these 5 reasons:
1. Anger can be great for appealing to partisans in a primary election, but as a general characteristic in a general election, it sucks. American voters definitely like toughness, but definitely don't like anger, and Dean has shown little ability to toe that line. What's worse, if he's not totally humorless, he's damn close – as close as, say, Craig Kilborn.
2. What may be even worse than the anger and the humorlessness is his pessimistic tone. You have to go back to Tricky Dick Nixon for the last time Americans haven't elected a bonafide optimist as President.
3. He's come out to support a repeal of tax cuts across the board. It may be fiscally responsible, but totally unrealistic as something that could pass Congress. And it's politically suicidal.
4. Dean has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. Bill Clinton has talked about the necessity of the eventual nominee meeting a "national security threshold," and Dean doesn't come close. And as a little cherry on John Kerry's and Karl Rove's chocolate sundaes, after receiving a medical deferment to avoid serving in Vietnam, Dean spent the year hitting the slopes in Aspen (and in recent years bragged about what a good time he had).
5. Dean's "straight talk" is neither as straight nor as adroitly maneuvered as was John McCain's. In his June Meet the Press appearance, he came off as hypocritical and cowardly. To Dean loyalists, the appearance was a success because they saw him as fighting back against Russert (who was overly aggressive in the interview), but the appearance was universally panned in the press, as I have no doubt it would be among nearly all independent-minded voters. It may have been the single worst t.v. appearance I've ever seen by a prospective Presidential candidate, and if he gave a similar performance as a nominee, it would be crippling.

There are plenty of other reasons Dean isn't the right man for the job. I have little doubt that he'd be a much better President than the disaster who now occupies the Oval Office (or his Crawford ranch, at least, as he does like to take a couple month vacation around this time of year), and I don't share the opinion that he's flat-out unelectable, but he makes ousting Bush a much tougher job than it needs to be.
The New Republic, ahead of the Time/Newsweek curve with a Dean cover last week, goes into great detail pondering the question many Democrats find themselves asking, "Must He Be Stopped?". Jonathan Chait makes "The Case Against Howard Dean" and Jonathan Cohn makes "The Case Against the Case Against Dean." Each article is well-reasoned and worth reading in its entirety.

On the bright side, I still don't think Dean will be the nominee. Moreover, Dean's emergence could be a very good thing for the eventual nominee. First off, it proves there's a lot of Democratic money and energy out there, and we're still discovering all the people who are hellbent on sending Bush back to Texas for good in '04. Secondly, Dean's campaign has shown that the internet can be used as a uniquely powerful organizational and fundraising tool for Democrats. There are obviously a lot of other things working for Dean with voters right now that his opponents can steal from him, too, and there's a storied tradition here (Bill Clinton stole all Paul Tsongas's most popular ideas in '92). Dean brings more interest and excitement to the race in general, which Democrats sorely need. And perhaps most importantly, even though Dean isn't so liberal (as I mentioned earlier), guys like Kerry and Edwards that have a much better chance of beating Bush can move more to the center on the two most important issues – the economy (specifically what to do about the tax cuts) and national security.

July 30, 2003
I'm not crazy about Gray Davis. In fact, I think his advocacy of California's "3 Strikes" law is nothing less than a moral abomination. However, this recall stuff is a bad idea, no matter what your political affiliation.

California has a population of approximately 35 million people. That number is growing rapidly (for instance, it grew by 571,000 people in 2000 alone). You only need approximately 900,000 signatures to force a recall. Any recall law that sets a fixed total of signatures – instead of a percentage of the population – is seriously flawed to begin with. And it's particularly easy to get those 900,000 Johnny Hancocks when you've got a couple million dollars to blow, as Darrell Issa does. Any effort to reverse a previous election should have to cross an extremely high threshold. But in California, you're always gonna have a few hundred thousand people – Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Nazis, whatever – who could throw a couple million dollars to force a recall vote. If it was your wicked design, you could replace a governor that gets 49% of votes to retain with a wackjob who musters a scant plurality on a crowded ballot. It's ugly, stupid public policy.

Our founding fathers created a republican form of government, not some dial-in democracy. I wish more Californians understood the difference.

July 25, 2003
Good riddance to Uday and Qusay Hussein, two of the worst human beings who ever lived (although the unimaginably horrific Uday almost makes the terribly horrific Qusay look like a boy scout in comparison). I don't think God makes trash, but he's got some explaining to do when it comes to these two guys. Their deaths are a good thing for Iraq and the world.

Joe Klein has a terrific essay, "How Bush Misleads Himself," in this week's Time. I found this paragraph particularly compelling:

Why has the uranium story puffed up so huge? It wouldn't have been a very big deal without the deepening crisis in Iraq. But it also has ballast because it clarifies an aspect of George W. Bush's essential character — specifically, the problem he has with telling the truth. I am not saying Bush is a liar. Lying is witting: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." This is weirder than that. The President seems to believe that wishing will make it so — and he is so stupendously incurious that he rarely makes an effort to find the truth of the matter. He misleads not only the nation but himself. Every worst-case Saddam scenario just had to be true, as did every best-case post-Saddam scenario. Bush's talent for self-deception extends to domestic and economic policy. He probably believes that he's a compassionate conservative, even though he has allowed every antipoverty program he favors to be eviscerated by Congress. This week's outrage is the crippling of AmeriCorps, which he had pledged to increase in size. He probably believes that his tax cuts for the wealthy will help reduce the mammoth $455 billion budget deficit (which doesn't include the cost of Iraq), even though Ronald Reagan found that the exact opposite was true and had to raise taxes twice to repair the damage done by his 1981 cuts. And Bush probably believed, as the sign said, that the "mission" had been "accomplished" in Iraq when he landed on the aircraft carrier costumed as a flyboy. He may even have believed that he was a flyboy.

One thing I'd add to this is that Bush always has struck me as having an unwavering belief in his own essential goodness and integrity. It's something his father and mother have, too. It's more than a sense of entitlement – you notice how he becomes really pouty sometimes when a reporter asks him a tough question, the same way a "good" child might react once they've been reprimanded, like a "What, me? I'm an angel" type of thing. I clench my teeth just thinking about it. That's what drove me nuts about his "I will restore honor and dignity to the White House" 2000 campaign, and what drives me nuts right now with his various evasions, hypocrisies and blame delegating. And what drives me nuts most of all is when his supporters see his simple-minded tunnel vision as courageous leadership.

July 22, 2003
I don't cite polls very often, because they're only snapshots that usually don't tell us a whole hell of a lot, but if I were in the Bush Administration I'd be very concerned about the results of this question in a weekend TIME/CNN poll:

Is Bush a leader you can trust?
Yes        47%
No        51%

Trust used to be this guy's bread and butter. I hope the truth sticks.

I'll be writing more about the Democratic Presidential landscape later this week, but I wanted to post something John Kerry said today on Inside Politics that I think foreshadows how he's going to deal with Howard Dean and George W. Bush:

I believe that I present our party with the ability to bring experience in making America safter and stronger to the table. I think we've learned that we don't need a learning curve in the Presidency on foreign policy and security.

As Bill Clinton has said, if the Democratic nominee is going to stand a chance of beating Bush, he's going to have to meet a national security threshold, and expect to hear the words "experience," "strength," and "security" from Kerry's mouth continuously. This is a big advantage for him over Dean to the moderate and conservative wings of the Democratic Party, and, somewhat surprisingly, with a lot of Democratic women in particular. The White House has found that women, especially suburban moms, are so concerned with homeland security that they now refer to them as "security moms" rather than "soccer moms." After a campaign, I wonder whom most "security moms" would trust more with their children's security, draft-dodgin' George Bush or war hero John Kerry?

July 17, 2003
I just watched Tony Blair's speech before Congress, and then the Blair-Bush press conference.

Tony Blair is an absolutely brilliant politician, and a staggeringly eloquent and persuasive speaker. He's as good at delivering a major speech, probably better, than any politician in my lifetime, and that includes Clinton. I'm not as familiar with the specifics of his credibility problems in England as I am with Bush's here, but his arguments for invading Iraq in the lead-up to the war were consistently more varied and substantive than Bush's. He certainly made the humanitarian case for war more effectively than anyone; Bush was late to that argument. And today, Blair's making the same good arguments. Watching him speak after Bush at the press conference was a little like watching Barry Bonds hit after the pitcher.

If Blair lied or drastically hyped intelligence that led to war, then he should undoubtedly resign, but it would be a shame because on balance I think he's a good leader of rare talent.

That said, Tony Blair's eloquent justifications for war don't excuse his or the Bush Administration's sometimes fraudulent claims about the imminence of an Iraq threat. And they certainly can't justify Bush's refusal to accept personal responsibility for false words he spoke in the State of the Union Address, which he again refused to do at the press conference today.

You can see Bush's political strategy – change the subject from his specific words leading up to the war to the overall merits of the war itself. Both have consequences, but they're really entirely different subjects. It's about the words right now, not the actions. This is no time for Machiavellian rationalizations. It's time for Bush to come clean about his words, because they were his and no one else's. It's time for him to accept responsibility like a man.

July 16, 2003
Hilarious. I laughed out loud when I read over the weekend that President Bush said he still has confidence in CIA Chief George Tenet and that he considered settled the matter of State of the Union misinformation. There was a time when I had great confidence in almost anyone who would take responsibility for my mistakes, too, and after they did so I also would declare any discussion of my mistakes over. I think I was about 10 years old. But George W. Bush is well into his 50s and President of the United States. He should be held to more than a child's standard. I'd advise him to recall words he spoke during his 2000 campaign:

Leaders must be responsible and in our great democracy the top responsibility rests with the President of the United States. I'm prepared to assume this awesome responsibility.

Bush and Co.'s handling of this from the beginning has been a complete farce. The State of the Union Address is the most carefully prepared speech of any year, and the information about African uranium had been questionable, even publicly, for months. Condie Rice knew it was questionable, the Vice President's office (and almost certainly Cheney himself) knew it was questionable, and the CIA and State Department certainly knew it was questionable. Even I questioned it when I first heard it (I assumed they'd uncovered something new – I was astonished to hear they were just recycling the Niger stuff, along with the aluminum tube stuff, which people haven't even gotten around to criticizing much yet – this massaging of intelligence is a bottomless pit for Bush, if the press explore it judiciously). If George Bush didn't question it and I did, then it's a perfect example of his well-established lack of intellectual curiosity having a disastrous impact on our country.

Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley takes on the horrific Bush Administration arguments, so expertly that I must post a huge part of it:

The case for the defense is a classic illustration of what lawyers call "arguing in the alternative." The Bushies say (1) it wasn't really a lie, (2) someone else told the lie and (3) the lie doesn't matter. All these defenses are invalid.

(1) Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see -- he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpicking, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business -- he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some preexisting basis for believing whatever-it-is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to "learn" something that is not true? I'm not sure. But it certainly is not possible to say that someone has "learned" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was added as protection only because doubts had been expressed internally.

(2) The Bush argument blaming the CIA for failing to remove this falsehood from the president's speech is based on the logic of "stop me before I lie again." Bush spoke the words, his staff wrote them, those involved carefully overlooked reasons for skepticism. It would have been nice if the CIA had caught this falsehood, but its failure to do so hardly exonerates others. Furthermore, the CIA is part of the executive branch, as is the White House staff. If the president can disown anything he says that he didn't actually find out or think up and write down all by himself, he is more or less beyond criticism. Which seems to be the idea here.

The president says he has not lost his confidence in CIA Director George Tenet. How sweet. If someone backed me up in a lie and then took the fall for me when it was exposed, I'd have confidence in him too.

(3) The final argument: It was only 16 words! What's the big deal? The bulk of the case for war remains intact. Logically, of course, this argument will work for any single thread of the pro-war argument. Perhaps the president will tell us which particular points among those he and his administration have made are the ones we are supposed to take seriously. Or how many gimmes he feels entitled to take in the course of this game. Is it a matter of word count? When he hits 100 words, say, are we entitled to assume that he cares whether the words are true?

If you have any doubt that this issue has legs, listen to some of the things REPUBLICAN Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska had to say on Inside Politics Monday:

"Did in fact individuals high up in the Administration shape and mold this analysis of intelligence to serve their own purposes?"

"There is a cloud hanging over this Administration."

"It wasn't just the CIA involved here – we had the Vice Presidnet, or people in his office involved, Secretary Rumsfeld, Condie Rice, Secretary Powell's people – this wasn't just a one-man show. And this is too serious for this country to not know what happened. And America will want to know what happened, as the world will."

Finally, Hagel made an eye-opening indictment of the Administation's post-war planning:

We didn't think through this very well before we got into it and we're now dealing with the consequences of not thinking through this.

Hagel's a Republican, but he's always struck me as a straight-shooter, and I can't fathom any political reason he'd want to be going up against the Bush Administration on this stuff. He's a Vietnam veteran who saw some grisly combat, so maybe he's just an honest guy who's seen the horror of war firsthand and takes its casualties very seriously.

July 11, 2003
Although White House aides finally admitted Monday that the President should not have claimed that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, Bush himself has refused to accept responsibility. And now things are becoming a whole lot more clear and a whole lot worse for the President. Under the by-line "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False," CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin reports:

Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy. CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.

As much as the Bush Administration would like to downplay this, I don't think they can get away with it. What could be a more serious, injurious lie than giving the American people deliberately misleading information about reasons to go to war in a State of the Union Address? Republicans are damn lucky they own both houses of Congress, or demands wouldn't be for investigations, but for impeachment. As much as I hate dumbed-down partisan drivel, I don't think it's out of line to compare Bush's State of the Union "technically accurate, but misleading" statements with President Clinton's "technically accurate, but misleading" statements in the Paula Jones case – statements that Republicans used to impeach him. I don't think there's a fair-minded person in the country who would claim lying about a sexual affair in a civil trial was as bad as spreading misinformation in a State of the Untion Address intended to lead American men and women into war.

It's early in the scandal, but I don't think it'll be too long before Bush and Cheney start assigning scapegoats. I would expect CIA Head George Tenet to be among the first. Maybe some members of Bush's National Security Council staff, too. Whoever it is, there's undoubtedly one person who is responsible for the State of the Union lies, and undoubtedly one person who should lose his job over them: George W. Bush.