A blog about politics and policy.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Remains the Law

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – regarded as one of the most liberal in the land – decided Monday that the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars openly gay men and women from serving in the military stays in place, at least for now.

Marines marching in Kuwait / DoD photo

A 2-1 ruling extends a stay preserving the ban as the Justice Department appeals a federal district court ruling that found the 17-year old policy unconstitutional. It means it's likely to stay in place for months as an appeal winds its way through the legal process – or if President Obama can convince Congress to repeal the law. The President and Pentagon leaders want to end the ban, but only after surveying troops and rolling out training to prepare them – and modifying myriad regulations on barracks, benefits and other issues – in preparation for the change.

The court basically sided with tradition and precedent, saying it was giving the military wide berth to run its operations the way it sees fit. "The public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military – if that is what is to happen – strongly militates in favor of a stay," the court ruled.

          

Predictions

I hate predictions. Refuse to make them. Journalists are never so stupid as when we make predictions--it implies an inside knowledge that we simply don't have (we're pretty good about reporting things that have already happened; less good at explaining them). But if think Matt Yglesias, who is so smart about so many things, may be pretty close to the mark here.

As for me, I'm going to be paying especially close attention to some of the Congressional candidates I met on my cross-country road trip--in particular, Kathy Dahlkemper in Pennsylvania. Among the Senate races, it'll be interesting to see how the Teasies do in places like Colorado, Wisconsin, Nevada and Alaska. I expect surprises, going both ways...some Dems who seem safe will be whacked, some who seem in peril will survive. (I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if Boxer lost in California and Reed won in Nevada...because, in the end, who knows?).

In the meantime, I expect 100% attendance at the polls among Swampland readers who are U.S. citizens. Hasta manana.

          

Morning Must Reads: Election Day

Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell smiles after casting her ballot in Wilmington, Delaware on November 2. (REUTERS/Tim Shaffer)

--Walking up the big vote, our own Michael Duffy writes about the crucial yet fickle independents who are poised to deliver major gains to Republicans. A taste:

But in this pendulum-driven environment, perhaps the only thing harder than winning the independent vote is keeping it, for the most pivotal group of voters in the country today are also the hardest to please.

--Election Day basics: Final predictions from the pros, poll closing times, weather and recount laws.

--Following up on his five reasons the Republican wave might be bigger, Silver susses out five reasons the Democrats may outperform expectations.

--Mark Blumenthal asks if the polls could be wrong. (Probably not.)

--The Wall Street Journal hears the first shots of the inevitable circular firing squad.

--Don't stay up waiting for definitive results in Alaska.

--Illustrating how unshakable the issue appears to be, Mitt Romney fields questions on health reform on election-eve.

--National Journal starts profiling the likeliest congressional newcomers.

--State assemblies follow the House.

--Damian Paletta predicts an interesting lame duck.

Read More…

          

This is change you can believe in. Just two years ago, Tom Tancredo was a veritable outcast of the Republican Party. Karl Rove was screaming at him, John McCain scoffed at him, GOP pollsters viewed him as a saboteur within their midst. Tancredo's one issue--a near-apocalyptic warning about immigrant-driven dilution of American culture--was seen as radioactive among the Republican elite.

And now, Sarah Palin, who is as big a leader in Republican politics as there is, has endorsed Tancredo as a protest candidate in the Colorado governor's race, running on the American Constitution Party. Here is one of Tancredo's spots from his 2008 presidential campaign.

          

1,000 Words

Picture by Larry Downing/Reuters. For more, check out our White House Photo Blog.

          

Top Searches/Videos of the Midterms

Google sends over some interesting stats on the most searched/watched political content of the cycle:

Read More…

          

Barack Obama's "Enemies" UPDATED

UPDATE: Barack Obama has corrected the record since this post was originally published. On the Michael Baisden radio show Monday afternoon, the president admitted to misspeaking: "And you know, it's interesting right now, there was a -- I had a conversation with a Hispanic radio outlet, Univision. . . ." the president said. "And I said, well, you can't punish your friends when  -- the folks who've been supporting it.  Now, I did also say if you're going to punish somebody, punish your enemies, and I probably should have used the word, 'opponents' instead of enemies.  Now the Republicans are saying that I'm calling them enemies.  What I'm saying is you're an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different."

---

Last week, President Obama made a blunder. In a radio interview with Univision, he called Republicans "enemies." Here is the quote.

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

The proper word here is "opponents." No doubt this was the word he meant to use. "Enemy" is, in fact, exactly the kind of rhetoric that Obama opposed both as a candidate and a president, the sort of militant escalation of the debate that he identifies with the worst parts of cable television. It was a small mistake, but it was compounded by his advisers who refused last week to admit that it was a mistake. Asked in a press briefing Thursday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to admit the president had blundered over a word.

Read More…

          

Harry Reid's (Last?) Stand

This morning on TIME.com I have a look at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's fight for his political life in what is sure one of the wackiest races in what has been a weird and wonderful midterm election -- certainly the most interesting I have covered. Interestingly, John Ralston, the desert guru of Nevada politics, thinks Reid will pull it out, polls be damned. But that hasn't stopped speculation from building about who will be Majority Leader should Reid falter: Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin.

          

Newsweek's "Power" List Miss

My professional conflicts aside, if you haven't read Newsweek recently, you should pick it up. Transition has, ironically, been good for the magazine. There seems to be more reporting, more interesting takes, a bit more of an excited, carefree attitude. Eve Conant had a great piece last week about Marijuana and the GOP. A couple weeks earlier, there was a piece about the religious politics of Vladamir Putin's latest puppet in Chechnya.  But I write not to praise, but because I just read the magazine's current cover story, The Newsweek Power 50.

This is a list, and everyone loves lists, but it is a list with a novel premise: That money equals power in politics. "In an oversaturated, hypercommodified media culture of 2010, the most influential political figures are generally the ones who make the most money peddling their perspectives," runs the thesis. Note the use of the word "generally," a pretty big qualification that gets left out of the pull quote in the layout of the magazine. But even with that hedge, the thesis is balderdash. Herewith is my own list explaining why:

1. Money is a poor approximation of power in just about any field. Don't believe me, tune into Game 5 of the World Series tonight. On opening day, the San Francisco Giants had a payroll of about $100 million, less than half of the New York Yankees. The Texas Rangers had a $55 million payroll, down about $13 million from 2009--the fourth lowest in Major League Baseball. Look at CEO pay: The top CEO earner over the five year period that ended in 2009 was Larry Ellison of Oracle, a smart guy with a good company who took in $944 million. But try to make an argument that he has more power in the industry than Apple's Steve Jobs, who took made about one third less in the same period. Lew Frankfort of Coach, the handbag company, ranks #7 over five years with $220 million. Good for him. But try and make the case that Frankfort has more power than Goldman Sach's Lloyd Blankfein ($137 million) or General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt ($71 million). So it goes.

2. Earning power in political entertainment is not the same thing as political influence. Over the last two years, there has been no hotter political punditry stock than Glenn Beck, who comes in #2 on the Newsweek list and usually gets between 2 million and 3 million viewers a night. That is a big number for cable television, but not a big number in politics. Barack Obama got 69 million votes in 2008. In 2006, California Senator Diane Feinstein was reelected with 5 million votes. But numbers only begin to tell this story. The vast political entertainment machine, which traffics in outrage on the left and the right, has proven that it can make money in all kinds of ways (radio, television, books, live shows) from niche audiences. But it has not proven that it can control the fate of the nation. Despite the protestations of Talk Radio, the Republican Party abandoned many of its core conservative values during the presidency of George W. Bush. Rush Limbaugh (#1 on the Newsweek list) had a bigger audience than Tom Delay, but Delay decided what happened in the U.S. House, not Limbaugh. So it will be the next time Republicans regain control of Congress and the White House.

3. The Newsweek list is arbitrary.

Read More…

          

Marco Rubio "Makes Grown Men Cry"

So says former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to the WSJ:

"The only privilege that I was born with was to be a citizen of the greatest nation in human history," he tells a breakfast crowd of supporters at the Original Pancake House in Palm Beach Gardens. "What makes America great is that anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything." The Obama agenda puts this unique inheritance in jeopardy, he says. Yet he keeps it all upbeat, inclusive, and to many people who see him in person, Reagan-esque.

"He's the only guy I know on the scene today who makes grown men cry," says Jeb Bush. Mr. Rubio is a political protégé of the former Republican governor. They share a preference for (in Mr. Bush's words) "hopeful aspirationalism" to broaden the party's appeal. He adds, laughing, that the younger man is a "much better speaker than I am."

In our new issue, Von Drehle writes that Rubio's decision to challenge Charlie Crist for Senate was the true kickoff to the 2010 campaign and the volatile Tea Party politics that defined it.

Meanwhile, Nate Silver predicts at 93% chance of victory for Rubio in the state's tangled three-way Senate race.

          

Tomorrow

The Republican Party is likely to win a major victory tomorrow. But I'm not sure how big it will be. A cause for uncertainty is the nature of modern polling. Too many polls are done on the cheap, robotically, these days--and, as Michael Blumentual points out here, more than a few of them don't call cellphone users, who tend to be disproportionately younger. Another cause for uncertainty is the amorphous nature of the Tea Party--it can stage fist-shaking rallies but can it get out the vote as the more proven sectors of the Republic Party, like the evangelical community, can...and how amped are the evangelicals, whom we've not heard much from this year, anyway? A third mitigating factor is the President's relative popularity: 48% favorable v. 48% unfavorable, according to the latest CNN poll*, much better than Clinton or Reagan at a similar moment in their presidencies. A fourth mitigating factor is the continuing unpopularity of the Republicans in Congress (even more unpopular than the Democrats) and widespread public skepticism about their (same old) solutions.

But this is still likely to be a big Republican year. Why?

Read More…

          

Morning Must Reads: One Day Out

Left: President Obama attends a DNC Rally at Cleveland State University in Ohio, October 31, 2010. (REUTERS/Larry Downing). Right: House Minority Leader Boehner arrives at a rally for Jim Renacci on October 30, 2010 in Canton, Ohio (Matt Sullivan/Getty Images).

--Nate Silver chews over five reasons the Republican wave could be even bigger than expected.

--The last round of polling is not pretty for Dems. Gallup is either an outlier, or the wave will be a tsunami. A Democratic pollster offers this gem: "I'm resigned to the fact that it sucks."

--Expecting the third cycle of upheaval in a row, the Wall Street Journal weighs volatility.

--Desert sage Jon Ralston predicts Harry Reid will win. For what it's worth, his predictions in January have largely borne out.

--The White House prepares to deal on the Bush tax cuts, reportedly working on a temporary extension of the top tier breaks and a permanent extension of everything else.

--The powers that be conspire against Palin 2012.

--Romney is the workhorse of the field, writes Dan Balz.

Read More…

          

Stewart v. Olbermann

I think Jon Stewart's final plea for sanity at Saturday's rally was among, well, the sanest statements of the political year. Keith Olbermann didn't like it. Message to Keith, in language he should understand:

You, sirrrr, have gotten a bit too full of yourself. You're not a charlatan like Glenn Beck, but you do go on...and on, in a crashingly inflated manner...with little of the irony and whimsy that used to make you fun to watch--the irony and whimsy instilled in both of us by our beloved high school English teacher, Arthur Naething.  You've become mockable, which is tragic. Lighten up, dude! As the man used to say, Go forth and spread beauty and light!

Update: Andrew Sullivan nails it , as commenter Oathdoover suggests.

          

A Remembrance

Ted Sorensen, a speechwriter, strategist and adviser to President John F. Kennedy, died yesterday at 82. His nephew, Swampland's own Adam Sorensen, penned a moving remembrance that is well worth a read.

          

"Know The Enemy"

Sun Tzu, the Dave Petraeus of 500 B.C. China, coined the phrase. So just who is the enemy in Afghanistan? As we near President Obama's promised December review – likely to lead to tweaking, rather than shifting, U.S. strategy there – it's a vital question. Bill Roggio of Long War Journal has distilled the contents of a newly-released al Qaeda martyrdom video. He gleans insights into the five foreign al Qaeda commanders it documents whom were killed in Afghanistan in recent years, and what it tells us about al Qaeda's presence there. He contends it's deeper and more extensive than U.S. officials are saying.

Each of the senior leaders killed had about a decade's worth of experience in al Qaeda and commanded significant forces across wide swaths of Afghan territory. "These are perfect examples of the relative unknowns that make up al Qaeda's deep bench of middle management and talent pool they can draw on for senior leadership positions," a U.S. intelligence official tells Roggio. Three came from Saudi Arabia, with the others from Pakistan and North Africa.

"The profiles of these commanders reveal that, in sharp contrast to the current, official assessment of top US intelligence officials, al Qaeda has an extensive network in Afghanistan as well as a deep bench of experienced leaders," Roggio writes. "Also, the martyrdom statement shows how al Qaeda rotates its cadre of leaders to ensure that seasoned commanders are on hand in critical areas."

Which recalls something else Sun Tzu (whose China shares a 47-mile [76-km.] border with Afghanistan) noted:

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened…if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.