Open thread

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, what else is new? Read the rest of this post...

Unitary Executive Won't Win the Filibuster Debate

I've seen a lot about written today referencing the "unitary executive" line of argument that some have put out as our saving grace in the battle to take down Alito.

The crux of the problem with this line of argument is that it ISN'T the language that everyone is using. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you polled the American public today and asked them if they even knew what the phrase unitary executive means, fewer than 2% of the country would have a clue what you're talking about. (Remember, in aggregate the left wing blogs speak at most to 0.3% of the total U.S. population.) If you have to spend half of your money opposing a nominee just explaining what your rationale is, you're doomed from the start.

And therein lies the problem, and John's point in his filibuster post below. In order to say you're taking a principled stand against something, and taking the extraordinary step of filibustering a Supreme Court nominee, you best not bring a knife to a gun fight. Twisted legal theories like "unitary executive" are meaningless to average Americans - unless you spend $30-40 million trying to explain yourself to the American people. Absent that size and scale voter education effort, you're just shooting blanks.

Moreover, that won't even move a single vote in the Senate. What moves votes in the Senate? Fear of voters' retribution when they find out what a vote for Alito means. You want to bring the gun to the gunfight? That's what you needed. You needed a public pressure campaign on people like Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee - they shouldn't even have their seats in the first place given the overwhelming support Democrats have in their states. Unless and until you have the TV ads and money available, ready to spend LITERALLY millions of dollars running ads saying that Olympia Snowe is going to be THE DECIDING VOTE on whether Roe v. Wade is overturned, you're not going to win.

And we can't even agree whether we would even run with the Roe v. Wade argument as the lead argument. You know, the one that John points out the American people agree with us on?

This is a very heated discussion, and understandably so given what's at stake. John has clearly agitated things here, but the reality is the discomfort should be felt in the strategy offices of leading Democrats and issue groups. It's their failure that should be the recipient of our collective anger. Read the rest of this post...

Hagel: Bush "Can't Unilaterally Decide That A 1978 Law Is Out of Date And Violate The Law"

From ThinkProgress:

Karl Rove wants the American public to believe only one political party disagrees with Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program. But this morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said the program was illegal:

HAGEL: I don’t believe, from what I’ve heard, but I’m going to give the administration an opportunity to explain it, that he has the authority now to do what he’s doing. Now, maybe he can convince me otherwise, but that’s OK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not yet.

HAGEL: Not yet. But that’s OK. If he needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law. He needs to come back, work with us, work with the courts if he has to, and we will do what we need to do to protect the civil liberties of this country and the national security of this country.

Hagel joins other prominent conservatives - including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) - who have questioned the legal basis of Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program.

But Hagel brushes by one point. It's not "ok" when the president willfully breaks the law. Especially when the law in question deals with US government agencies illegally spying on innocent Americans. That's a big deal. Read the rest of this post...

Why I Oppose the Filibuster

Before you post any searing criticism of me in response to this post, I ask you to at least give me the decency of actually reading my analysis below. Then go for it. Thank you, JOHN

I understand that my friend Cenk at the Young Turks radio show is taking me on, on the air, about why I have concerns about the effectiveness and wisdom of John Kerry's filibuster of Alito. Now, if I were going to be a prissy queen I'd point out that I was against Alito's confirmation while the Young Turks were still undecided. But I'm not that bitchy of a queen :-) Anyway, I was going to hold off on any detailed analysis of the wisdom of this particular filibuster campaign until after the vote was over, as I didn't want to all-out criticize a campaign my friends were working on, but since I'm already getting heavily criticized publicly by a number of folks on the Web for my lack of joy over this effort, I feel my hand has been forced. You want to know why I'm not thrilled about this filibuster? Fine, you're gonna find out.

So here goes:

1. I want a filibuster of Alito. He's a terrible nominee, he's bad for America, he's going to overturn Roe v. Wade which will overturn rulings in favor of gays, women, and more, and thus I want to see his nomination go down in flames.

2. But, it is bad politics, and dangerous, to launch a filibuster if you do not have a campaign in place to get the votes you need, and equally important, if you do not have a separate public relations/grassroots campaign in place to get public opinion on your side.

3. Why is it bad politics? Why not just go ahead anyway? Isn't it better to fight and lose than do nothing at all?

a. If you launch a filibuster and don't complement it with a smart well-funded campaign to get the public on your side, the public will think even less of the Democrats than they do now, and that will hurt us in the polls now and in November when we want to take back the Congress. Why will they think less of us? Because they'll see us as obstructionist rather than as standing up to defend a noble cause. The only way they'll see us as noble is if we have a public relations campaign to educate them to that fact. But we don't have that campaign, so the public will likely not agree with what we're doing. That will hurt our standing in the polls, and could hurt us in November. And doing something today that hurts us in November is not helpful.

Oh, and the conventional wisdom criticism against the Democrats is already beginning. This from Newsweek's Periscope "conventional wisdom" meter:

Ted Kennedy and John Kerry's quixotic Alito filibuster campaign is typical Democrat slapdash failure. Next time, try planning.

And before you say you don't care if Newsweek likes what you're doing. You'd better care. They influence a lot of people, and their conventional wisdom meter is quite often spot on. In politics, the public's perception matters. And that doesn't mean you don't do something just because the public doesn't agree with you YET, but you most certainly don't do it when you have NO PLAN whatsoever to win the public over.

b. If you launch a filibuster and don't get the public on our side, you give Senator Frist a perfect opportunity to launch the so-called "nuclear option" where he takes away our right to filibuster, permanently. Frist has threatened before to launch the nuclear option, but then backed down, because he didn't have the public's support to go ahead and kill the filibuster. If we launch a filibuster without also launching a campaign to convince the public we are right, we are handing Senator Frist the perfect opportunity to kill the filibuster once and for all. It is counterproductive to make a move that helps Frist take away the filibuster.

c. If you launch a filibuster without getting the public on your side, the public will very likely savage the Democrats who support the filibuster - per se if we don't win the public over, they're not on our side. That makes it much less likely that the Democrats (who are already pretty spineless to start with) will support a filibuster in the future, even if sometime in the future we actually have a REAL campaign to make that future filibuster work.

Why? Because those Democrats won't realize that the filibuster failed this time around and blew up in their faces in terms of public opinion because we didn't have a real public relations campaign supporting the filibuster. Rather, those Senators will conclude that it was supporting a filibuster per se, ANY filibuster, that did them in - i.e., they'll conclude that it's dangerous to support filibusters, as a rule. And that will make them less likely to support filibusters, or fight back more generally, in the future - even less likely than they already are now. How it's a good strategy to do something that convinces Democrats to be even MEEKER in the future?

d. By launching a campaign that isn't well thought out, that doesn't have a public relations plan supporting it, and therefore, ultimately, won't have the support of the public, you set the Democrats up for a public relations disaster. And who do you think the Democrats are going to blame afterwards? Those "crazy bloggers" and their crazy "far left" followers.

Now, I couldn't give a damn if someone criticizes me or us or you. That's not the point. The problem is that the right, and many inside the Democratic party, are hell-bent on portraying the Netroots as a bunch of far-left kooks. They want to make YOU the third rail of politics. Crazy people who shouldn't be listened to. This kind of a campaign, where the Netroots forces the Democratic party into fighting a battle it isn't prepared to fight, only helps convince the party, the media, and the rest of America that working with us, listening to us, is dangerous. And that doesn't help us accomplish our agenda one bit. Again, it's not about winning a popularity contest, it's about our voices and our concerns being taken seriously. I think this effort undercuts that.

4. So the question remains, what possible good comes from the Democrats launching THIS filibuster now? No one has been able to answer that question for me. If you are going to support a filibuster, you support it because you think it is going to, on average, help and not hurt Democrats, when all is said and done. You do not do it just because it feels good. That's political masturbation. It's not politics. It's not smart. It achieves nothing, other than an endorphin high.

I'm here to make a difference in the world, not get high, and not base my political moves on what feels good. I support filibusters, or any other in-your-face political move, when they accomplish something beneficial for our side. I don't support them simply because John Kerry wants to be president, and decides to use the Netroots in a futile, unwise, half-cocked effort that he knows is bad politics, but that he runs with anyway because he wants to win the hearts of the Netroots in order to get our support for his future run at the presidency - to hell with how much damage he does to us.

The man announced the filibuster from Switzerland, people? What, he couldn't get a camera on his windsurfer? If John Kerry were serious about this filibuster he wouldn't go off gallivanting to Swizterland in the middle of it. He'd have stayed in DC, met with the million-dollar groups, met with the blogs and the grassroots, and coordinated a REAL campaign to win this, a REAL campaign to win public support, or at the very least he'd try to lose this in a way that's still "a win."

5. You don't have to win to win, but...
And let me expand a little on that last point. It's not always necessary to win in order to win. You can win by losing. Democrats have a big problem with the public. The public thinks we stand for nothing, and even if we do believe in something, we have no backbone. So, yes, I can see why some people might think this filibuster at this time meet both needs - shows we stand for something and shows we have backbone. But I'd submit to you that neither need is being met by this particular campaign.

Tell me exactly what clear message John Kerry, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the million-dollar non-profits are telegraphing to the public about why Alito is bad? Tell me, seriously, because I haven't heard any clear message at all from any of these people. We know Alito is going to overturn Roe, but the Dems and the groups are terrified to talk about abortion - even though the majority of the public supports OUR position on abortion - so that issue is gone from the debate. So again, tell me, what's the clear anti-Alito message the Dems and the groups are channeling to the public right now - the clear standing-up-for-something position they're standing up for? I can't enunciate it, and neither can you, because they don't have one.

As for showing you have a backbone, great, I'm all for showing backbone, otherwise I wouldn't have taken on (successfully) both the Vice President of the United States and the richest man in the world last year. BackboneRUS, I'm all for it. But how does it show backbone to launch a half-assed campaign that the public will likely interpret as shrill, extremist, and ill-planned? How does that make us look strong in the eyes of the public?

6. I get the desire to do something, but...
I understand the anger out there. The frustration. The desire to do something, ANYTHING. Our party stinks. Our groups are horrible. Yet our rich donors continue to give money to the same failed politicians and the same failed advocacy groups.

Far too many in the Netroots think that the choice before us is fighting for this filibuster or doing nothing. And in the grand scheme of things, they're tired, we're all tired, of sitting back and watching the Democratic party do nothing. Therefore they're excited to at least try the filibuster because at least they're doing something. I hear ya.

7. There is a third option...
But, you need to recognize that those are not the only two options available to us. There's a third. Destroy the Senate Democrats who did nothing to launch a REAL campaign to convince the American people that Alito must be defeated. Destroy the traditional non-profit advocacy groups who took our millions of dollars and did NOTHING to launch a real campaign to win the public to our side. And go after the rich donors who continue to enable these failed Democratic politicians and these failed advocacy groups like some addict who only needs one more fix, then promises he'll get better. If we do not go after them, if we do not force them to change or get out of the way, the same problem, the same failure, the same ineffectiveness will continue to plague our party and our movement, with no change in sight.

We have a choice. We have the ability to make change in our party. We have the power to make the Democrats stand up and fight like real Americans for real principles in a way that shows how fierce and tough and committed we can be.

8. John Kerry is using you.
A leader who uses you for his own personal gain - who plays on your understandable angst and tricks you into supporting a filibuster with no plan whatsoever for victory, who has no plan to win the war of public opinion regardless of the outcome of the vote, who simply is doing this because he wants to win the Netroots' support for his 2008 presidential campaign, to hell with how much it hurts the very goals that Netroots wants to achieve - is no leader in my book.

Tell me WHY a filibuster done RIGHT NOW and in the manner Mr. Kerry is proposing actually MAKES SENSE, actually BENEFITS the Democratic party and the goals of the Netroots, and you'll have my support.

But don't expect me to jump on the bandwagon when that bandwagon is running off a cliff, simply because it would make some of you more comfortable to have me join you on the way down.

(Read Matt Stoller's further analysis here.) Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Have at it Read the rest of this post...

The Filibuster

Folks have asked why I'm not posting like a madman about the filibuster.

Well, I'm not going to give a detailed response until the vote is over, so as not to undercut my colleagues. I have some concerns about the wisdom of launching a filibuster when it's not associated with an actual campaign (online, offline, media, grassroots, etc.) to convince the public and the media that we are right in filibustering. I have yet to see that campaign coming from either Mr. Kerry, who is leading the effort in the Senate, or from the multi-million dollar non-profits who are in charge of fighting this nomination.

Why not fight anyway, what do we have to lose, some of you may ask? A lot, I believe. But again, I'm not gonna go into my thoughts on this until this is all over. The filibuster train is out of the station and I don't want to undercut my friends who are helping out on this issue, even if I very strongly disagree about what will happen if we fight this battle without a very smart campaign to convince the American public to support us in this rather high-profile action (think what the GOP did with Terri Schiavo, lots of brute force but not a lot of public support).

So, I'm simply writing this to let you know why I'm not rah-rah'g on this issue. I just can't in good conscience. But also, in good conscience, I don't want to undercut my friends by writing a lengthy critique, so this is all you're getting for now. I'll be writing an extensive post-filibuster analysis, no-holds barred, after the final disposition of Alito's nomination.

In the meantime, feel free to visit these links for more info on the filibuster effort.
- DKos
- Democrats.com
- Make Them Accountable Read the rest of this post...

Even GOPers want Bush to fess up on Abramoff dealings

Last week, the Washington Post ran a scathing editorial about the Bush/Abramoff scandal. They noted that White House press secretary Scott McClellan considered requests for information about the interactions between the President and Jack Abramoff (who was one of the Bush campaign's leading fundraisers) as "partisan politics." Well, Scottie, it's not so partisan anymore. Your people want you to release the records:

Republican lawmakers said Sunday that President Bush should publicly disclose White House contacts with Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who has pleaded guilty to felony charges in an influence-peddling case.

Releasing the records would help eliminate suspicions that Abramoff, a top fundraiser for Bush's re-election campaign, had undue influence on the White House, the Republicans said.

"I'm one who believes that more is better, in terms of disclosure and transparency," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. "And so I'd be a big advocate for making records that are out there available....Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who appeared with Thune on "Fox News Sunday,", said all White House correspondence, phone calls and meetings with Abramoff "absolutely" should be released."

The longer that White House holds out, the shadier it looks. But is no wonder the Bushies are worried.

We learned this weekend that Bush appointee David Safavian tipped off Abramoff about an impending action by the government against one of his clients:

The document, filed Friday by federal prosecutors, asserts that David H. Safavian, the former chief of the General Services Administration who is under indictment, learned in November 2003 that four subsidiaries of Tyco were about to be suspended from obtaining government work. The filing, which was reported on Saturday by The Washington Post, said Mr. Safavian told Mr. Abramoff of the impending suspensions, along with some of the confidential discussions within his agency involving the issue.

Clearly, Jack Abramoff benefited from his relationship with the Bush White House. That's why they're trying so hard to cover it up. Read the rest of this post...

The Pre-SOTU analysis is in full swing -- time to watch the Bush team spin

The Washington Post notes Bush's precarious standing:

Tuesday's speech, with its massive prime-time audience, may be the most important forum Bush has all year to try to seize the initiative from the Democrats and frame the election season on his terms. But he will be standing in the House as a far less formidable politician than when he stood on the same podium a year ago. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Bush with a lower approval rating than any postwar president at the start of his sixth year in office -- with the exception of Richard M. Nixon, who was crippled by Watergate.

Bush's approval rating now stands at 42 percent, down from 46 percent at the beginning of the year, although still three percentage points higher than the low point of his presidency last November.

Okay, that basically means his approval rating has dropped this year. Most polls have Bush's approval in the high 30s to lows 40s. Meanwhile, over at the New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stohlberg seems to think Bush's approval is on the upswing, although she doesn't reference any specific polls. She apparently was swayed by the smooth talking Trent Lott:

The president's poll numbers, which plummeted last year, are beginning to inch up. The vote on Judge Alito's confirmation is likely to give a big boost for Republicans heading into the State of the Union address. Party leaders say Mr. Bush's hand will grow only stronger after the speech, in which he is expected to offer smaller-scale legislative initiatives on topics like health care and immigration.

"His rhetoric was more impressive than I've seen it in a while," Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, said after Senate Republicans went to the White House on Friday to discuss their agenda with Mr. Bush. "He still has a great reservoir of support among Republicans."

Bottom line: This is a weak President. The scandals will keep coming. Abramoff isn't over. Fitzgerald still has some work to do. Iraq isn't improving. That means a concerted opposition strategy can prevail. In fact, the Washington Post/ABC News Poll shows stronger support for Democrats:

The poll also shows that the public prefers the direction Democrats in Congress would take the country as opposed to the path set by the president, that Americans trust Democrats over Republicans to address the country's biggest problems and that they strongly favor Democrats over Republicans in their vote for the House.

The Democrats have an opportunity. They need to be smart. They need to be strategic. The American people are ready for their leadership and their ideas. Read the rest of this post...

Sunday Morning Open Thread

What's going on out there?

Morning news shows are reporting that ABC News Anchor Bob Woodruff and his cameraman are in serious condition following an IED attack in Iraq this morning. Read the rest of this post...

More chaos as the Saddam trial re-starts

What a three ring circus. The Iraqis must be impressed with the democracy and are wondering how they ever survived without it. Read the rest of this post...

New UK book: Bush and Blair conspired for war in Iraq

The Mail on Sunday today is reporting that a book due out this week has more information on Bush and Blair's interest in going to war, regadless of what they said publicly. It doesn't come as much of a surprise, but the facts seem to be increasingly slipping out. When the book hits the street later this week, Blair and Jack Straw should be put back on the defensive.

Immediately afterwards, the two leaders gave a Press conference in which a nervous-looking Mr Blair claimed the meeting had been a success. Mr Bush gave qualified support for going down the UN route. But observers noted the awkward body language between the two men. Sands' book explains why. Far from giving a genuine endorsement to Mr Blair's attempt to gain full UN approval, Mr Bush was only going through the motions. And Mr Blair not only knew it, but went along with it.

The description of the January 31 meeting echoes the recent memoirs of Britain's former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.

Meyer, who was excluded from the private session between Blair and Bush, claimed the summit marked the culmination of the Prime Minister's failure to use his influence to hold back Mr Bush.

In view of Sands' disclosures, Blair had every reason to look awkward: he knew that despite his public talk of getting UN support, privately he had just committed himself to going to war no matter what the UN did.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

And off to bed. Read the rest of this post...