Election 2008 JUNQUE

'Fearmongering' and loathing on Sunday talk shows

by Christi Parsons

At first it looked like Sen. Evan Bayh might be about to make news on Face the Nation.

He's a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he said, and had been told that it's not a question of whether the U.S. will be attacked again by al Qaeda, it's a matter of when.

But then pressed on the matter, Bayh said he just meant that "Our intelligence people have said that publicly," and that the point he was trying to make is that voters should think seriously about which presidential candidate will handle the terrorist threat properly.

It was a theme on the Sunday talk shows this morning, as surrogates for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama heightened the debate about that "red phone" moment: Who do you want answering the White House phone when there's something scary going on?

Bayh, a Clinton backer, said "I don't think it's fearmongering" for her to raise the point with her new TV ad, which shows children sleeping while, in the background, the White House phone is ringing.

But Sen. Chris Dodd argued that Obama is the guy you want, and not just because he has the "character, integrity and life experience" called for.

For authority he invoked another Senate committee, and another Indiana senator. He noted that Dick Lugar, when he was chairman of the Foreign Relations committee in 2005, picked Obama as his travel partner to Russia to visit nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites.

"It's not just who picks up that phone,"

Dodd said,

"it's what they say."

Over on ABC, they went over similar ground. Obama advisor David Axelrod argued that the question of judgment has already been illuminated. Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq while Obama spoke out against it. (If you feel like you've heard that before, that's because it's such a conversation-ender for the part of the Democratic base motivated mostly by hatred of the war.)

But Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, countered with a new turn of phrase likely to come up, at least in concept, in the days between now and the Tuesday Democratic contests.

Obama got his point of view on the record with a speech in 2002, when he was a member of the Illinois Senate, Wolfson noted, not a member of the U.S. Senate who actually had to vote on the matter.

And that speech, said Wolfson, is a "metaphor for his career."

"Powerful speech, powerful words," said Wolfson, "followed up by no action."

When Obama got to the Senate, said Wolfson, he voted pretty much like Clinton did, and didn't act on his concerns about the threat in Afghanistan. He never held a substantive hearing of the Senate subcommittee on European Affairs, which he chairs and which has jurisdiction over NATO, the U.S. ally in Afghanistan.

Think this is turning nasty? So does New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the former presidential candidate now trying to preserve his options with both campaigns. Indeed, on Face the Nation, he praised and critiqued his former rivals equally.


Posted by Christi Parsons on March 2, 2008 11:01 AM |

The House Moves for More Debate on Reconciling Spy Bill, While Republicans Can Keep Walking, by Matt Janovic

"I guess you got to come to the conclusion that there's a threat to America, or not a threat. ...I mean, evidently, some people just don't feel that sense of urgency. I do. And the reason I do is I firmly believe that there are still people out there who would do us harm." --Our ostensible President, George W. Bush, engaging in political theater today.

Washington D.C.--The yelling, squelching, and fear-mongering by the White House and her allies in Congress and the media continues today on the issue of renewal of the Protect America Act, blessedly expiring on Saturday. Will letting it expire make us less safe? No. FISA requires that any president who wishes to conduct a wiretapping operation within the United States must first go to the secret court (already questionable in-itself) and apply for a warrant. But that wasn't good enough for the Bush White House, an fear-ridden administration that has rightly seen enemies everywhere--especially within the continental United States. Could we have a better Valentine's Day gift? Who needs chocolates?

There is no legitimate study that has ever connected the failures surrounding September 11th, 2001 to the requirement for warrants and all the other requirements that must be met to obtain judicial permission for investigative surveillance by the executive branch. Not one. Why would logic stop the president when he's facing legal difficulties? He didn't want the cookies anyway. Today, even the poker-faced Associated Press wrote that, "In a day of high political theater, President Bush said Thursday he'll delay his trip to Africa if necessary to get the House to finish a bill about how the government monitors phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists." ("Bush Criticizes Congress on Terror Bill," AP, 02.14.2008) Great, stay in Washington, go ahead, but isn't that endangering all of us by neglecting urgent diplomacy?

Yet, the president and his allies insist we could actually be attacked "in-the-interim" (while they were doing their walk-out, which is just as logical as their own assertions). Never mind that it took the 9/11 hijackers and their backers five-years to plan-and-expedite the attacks, the president--shock-and-awe--is going to do his own hijacking of the diplomatic process again, this time to protect himself and everyone else who was involved with his administration's roving, warrantless wiretapping program from investigation. This is unacceptable, and it's a direct threat to our collective security as a nation. That's nothing new under the Bush administration.

We can safely assume that one of the primary enablers of illegal surveillance by the White House is Senator Jay Rockefeller. Around the time of the New York Times article on the NSA program, Senator Rockefeller produced a sealed copy of a note he sent to Vice President Cheney on his "reservations" about the legality of the program. Sponsoring an amendment that flies-in-the-face of the thrust of the note story suggests the senator's involvement in the program is substantial, especially considering his direct-ties to A.T.& T.

But growing-a-spine could be good for House and Senate Democratic incumbents, and the elephant in the room is that House Democrats are doing exactly what the majority voted them in to do in midterm elections in November of 2006 regarding this issue. The main issue is corruption, something the public has been wearying of for several years. The rest of the incumbents are being given their cue to repent to the public, and the stragglers and wafflers are going to lose if they continue to throw their lot in with the nearly expended Bush White House.

Democrats chairing the Intelligence and Judiciary committees in both Houses are already talking about compromises, Pelosi said, and the House Rules committee has left open the possibility of adopting compromise legislation on Thursday or Friday, before the President's Day weekend break. But Bush says he will veto any bill that does not include amnesty for the telecoms that helped with his five-year warrantless spying program, saying that if Congress does not do so, companies will be reluctant to help in the future. (Wired online, 02.14.2008)

It's a hollow argument, like all the others the administration has foisted on us. We want total power, but we cannot tell the big telecommunications corporations what's important to our national security. This seems confusing when you think of the administration as separate from corporate America--they are not. Again, there are the enablers in the ranks of the Democrats: Senators like Indiana's Evan Bayh, who could lose very big indeed by not being nominated for the post of Vice President. Besides having no personality, it would be for his "up" vote for the Protect America Act and his long-term support of funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The milquetoast Bayh is not alone in Congress by any means. Taking the moderate path--which in America means hard-right--isn't going to save these wafflers, and they're likely to regret their votes for the renewal of the PAA. The public will remember this across the political spectrum, and the real electoral showdown is coming sooner rather than later. The majority of the American public will not accept retroactive immunity in any version of the bill.

However, the stakes are much higher, and trials and prison could await co-conspirators like Rockefeller if a wider investigation of the warrantless NSA wiretapping program occurs. Hence the reason for retroactive immunity and its "broad support" in Congress: many of them stand to loses if the lawsuits of the 40 plaintiffs against America's biggest telecommunication companies go through. The outcomes wouldn't even be as important as the revelations that would come out in the trials, and political damage could be acute. For this reason, the American public isn't supposed to know what their own history is.

As Senator Chris Dodd stated before the final vote in the Senate, it would "close the door" on what happened for a very long time. In the spirit of all this today, the president made some evasive statements on the bill and why he felt so compelled that it be passed immediately:

Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts. And that, of course, would put the American people at risk. Now it's the House's turn to act. It is clear that the Senate bill would pass the House with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can put partisanship aside, and pass a good bill. There's no reason why the House cannot do the same, and pass the Senate bill immediately. (whitehouse.gov, 02.14.2008)

The president isn't missing-the-point--he's avoiding it on purpose. The fact is, there is already ample-proof to investigate wrongdoing by the White House in so many areas that it's mind-boggling. What's well-known is that the president authorized an illegal wiretapping program expedited by the NSA and the telecoms that did wide-sweeps netting information on millions of Americans. It was all done without warrants. This is illegal, and should be handled by our legal system, not the legislative or executive branches. And what of the Republican "walk-out"?

The nature of the walk-out is being reported in some areas incorrectly: it was staged and urged-on by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.-thanks-a-lot, Ohio.) because contempt citations would finally be issued against former Bush aides and counsel for not appearing before Congress regarding the U.S. Attorney firings flush to the 2006 midterms. This sole constitutional standoff has lasted for at least a year. On the walk-out:

Republican leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is giving a press conference on the Capitol steps right now [Ed.-the original article was posted at 2:02 PM ET], saying that the decision of the House to debate a contempt resolution involving former White House officials instead of taking up the Protect America Act jeopardizes national security. He said the House Republicans would stay in Washington as long as necessary to finish the bill.

Pelosi and the Democratic leadership believe there isn’t enough time to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the act, which would make adjustments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permanent, giving the government more power to monitor phone calls and emails without a court order in certain circumstances. The Democrats want a second extension of the current act to work out the differences. ("FISA Faceoff: Republicans walk out," The Swamp, Baltimore Sun, 02.14.2008)

But never mind that Congress should be given ample time to hammer-out the differences, why not let the courts decide all of this so that we have the normal traditions of our cherished checks and balances restored? And so, the Republicans walked-out, refusing to vote on the contempt citations for former Bush counsel Harriet Miers and former White House Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolten, who the Bush administration is terrified of seeing testify under oath. If the threat is so great to America, why walk-out? Why not stay and attempt to reconcile the bill?

The vote in the House was 223-32 to hold former presidential chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for not appearing before Congress. The citations charges Miers with failing to testify and accuses her and Bolten of refusing Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006 firings of at least nine U.S. Attorneys. One of them was Carol Lam, who was likely fired for her successful investigation and conviction of former GOP Representative Randall Cunningham. Both the issues of the contempt citations and inquiries into warrantless surveillance by the Bush administration and her allies are the real issues. They are the genuine domestic threat to our national security. It would be good for America if the GOP did more walk-outs, we might have a reasonable pursuit of happiness for a change...

And so, if "time is wasting," why walk-out, then pronounce that you're going to "stay in Washington to work on the bill"? Could anyone but a Republican make such bizarre, even contradictory statements than that? Yes, Bill Clinton could, and he figures-into the same political culture as the supporters of the Protect America Act. They all want retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies to preserve a crumbling imperial presidency. Al Gore would vote the same way, as would Hillary Clinton.

It's also likely that Barack Obama would have voted for this version of the bill if he wasn't running for the office of President of the United States. This why they avoided the actual vote on the bill in the Senate. Interestingly, so did Lindsay Graham. Nonetheless, the pressure against these measures from the public is real, and it's not going away anytime soon. They hold little popular support at all. Lack of popular support hasn't stopped the GOP yet, and so only the courts can do this job.

A word-of-advice to the Republicans who walked-out today: keep walking, and don't look back. Many of your aren't by not seeking reelection, and we're getting ready out here to hammer the next brew of corrupt candidates. You're finally serving the public interest for once in your lives by leaving office.

The Republican walk-out is all just a ruse, bad political dinner theater to deflect any solid inquiries into the Bush administration's crimes. It should be obvious now that a number of co-conspirators in the warrantless surveillance program reside in Congress, and a few of them are Democrats on powerful committees. The inaction towards the Bush administration should come as no surprise in this context.

Criminals aren't known to investigate and arrest themselves. Next-time-around--if there is one--candidates Obama and Clinton should vote on such questionable legislation as the PAA so that we know where they really stand. What do they have to hide? One could imagine that it's a lot. Being a registered Democrat doesn't mean you trust the people in Washington, or take them at their word. It's time to deliver, or leave office. Retroactive immunity isn't delivering, and their will be a price-to-pay, and it will be a big one.

Wired magazine's blog on the walk-out: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/democrats-confr.html

"Bush Criticizes Congress on Terror Bill," 02.14.2008:

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20080214/47b3cad0_3ca6_1552620080214-1893195281

"FISA Faceoff: Republicans walk out," February 14th, 2008:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/fisa_faceoff_republicans_walk.html

Crosspost:: Welcome China's Money: Pragmatism Refreshed

Pragmatism Refreshed

[This is the intro to the blog. Item of interest just below.]

Knowledge is warranted belief -- it is the body of belief that we build up because, while living in this world, we've developed good reasons for believing it. What we know, then, is what works -- and it is, necessarily, what has worked for us, each of us individually, as a first approximation. For my other blog, on the struggles for control in the corporate suites, see www.proxypartisans.blogspot.com

12 January 2008

Welcome China's Money

In November I wrote an entry in this blog about sovereign funds, in connection with what I saw as an amusing editorial lapse on the part of The New York Times.

Click here.

As a refresher: these are what the name suggests: pools of capital amassed by governments in countries where revenue exceeds government operating expenses, generally managed by a quasi-public authority.

The issue underlying that little chuckle at the Times expense, though, wasn't all that compelling to my mind. It took a while for that to change.

Later in November, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on the subject, "assessing the economic and national security implications" of such funds and their investments in the U.S. After all, at least on first blush, such a fund's managers would act for political reasons. They've got no significant "bottom line" contraints such as private sector hedge funds or banks, wherever they might be headquartered, do have.

Evan Bayh chaired the hearing. That is a straw in the wind right there. Evan Bayh is the fifth ranking Democrat on the committee. When the fifth ranked chairs a hearing on a subject, that subject clearly doesn't yet have a high profile on the national radar screen.

And in his opening remarks, Bayh did his best impression of a high-wire walker at the circus. On the one hand this. On the other hand that. Let's find the right balance. Okay, and let's yawn on cue.

Click here for his scintillating opening statement.

So ... the Banking Committee hearing did nothing to make the issue seem worthy of a close watch from yours truly.

But then in December, (on the 10th) Judge Posner discussed it at some length on his blog, a vent he shares with professor Becker. I came across Posner's comments only this week, and they are -- as the best of Posner's writings often is -- both logical and counter-intuitive. I love it.

Here's a quote:

"[The] purchase of assets by foreign nations, even when they are hostile or potentially hostile to us, does not threaten U.S. welfare or security. The purchase of a company from its owners places money in the hands of those owners that they can invest for a higher return--if they did not think they could do this, they would not sell the company. So such a purchase is wealth-enhancing. It does not undermine our national security just because the purchaser is a foreign government, but on the contrary enhances our security because the investment is a hostage. It's as if to guarantee China's good behavior the president of China sent his family to live in the United States."

This week, the GAO has acknowledged the receipt of a request from a Senator to look into various questions about sovereign wealth funds and their interests in major US institutions. We'll see if Posner's view (call it pragmatic complacency?) gets a public airing as a result.

Posted by Christopher

Evan Bayh or Weslie Clark for Hillary?

Unless something drastic happens, it's HiLIARy for President, so who WOULD be the Veep? Here's one person's take .. point is ALL these guys are going to be STRATEGIC in implementing the Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda ..

V

My List of Possible Dem VP's

Posted by: Matt Lewis at 9:22 AM

I don't spend too much time thinking about the Dem Primaries, but unless something dramatic changes, we're looking at facing Hillary. As such, here are my top 5 Dem VP predictions for Hillary: 1. Evan Bayh - This former Indiana governor endorsed Hillary, gave the key note at the 1996 Dem national convention, and is highly-regarded. 2. Mark Warner - The popular former Virginia governor unexpectedly decided not to run for president in '08. Might he have made a deal with Hillary? Perhaps complicating things, he is currently seeking the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. 3. Bill Richardson - This Hispanic governor from a South-Western state could be a real asset to Hillary. Still, one has to wonder if his presidential bid has helped -- or hurt -- his chances. 4. Ted Strickland - The current governor of Ohio was blessed to follow a woefully inept Republican governor. Because of this, and the fact that Ohio is perhaps the most important electoral state in the country (arguably), he is in contention. 5. Barack Obama - This is the only non-governor on my list. Many insiders have ruled out a Hillary/Obama ticket. But it's not unheard of for former political enemies (Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan/Bush, Dole/Kemp, etc.) to patch things up for the good of the party. Update: Wes Clark? One of my fellow Townhaller's says it's going to be Clinton/Clark. Update: From an email: Don't forget about Brian Schweitzer: Western, populist, pro-gun, culturally conservative. He would help them in Ohio also, and would be very strong in Colorado and New Mexico, I think. The netroots love him (though I don't think the Clintons care about that at all) and he's very charismatic from what I've heard. I don't think it'll be Bayh for that exact reason: he's a total snooze.

so why an article on Hilary Clinton here?
Because she would enormous power over our entire world if elected.
Who would select to run it with her?
And what can we find out about them before it's too late ...

A Clinton-Bayh ticket for 2008?

Russ Pulliam

Is Bayh the guy? It's looking good

The path is clearing for Evan Bayh to be nominated for vice president.

He and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner were on the short list of moderates that Hillary Clinton might select as a running mate. Now Warner is running for the U.S. Senate seat left open by the retirement of Republican Sen. John Warner.

Clinton continues to lead Barack Obama and John Edwards in polls and is strong in fundraising. Obama and Edwards also could split the activist left-wing voters that dominate the primaries.

Bayh, meanwhile, could reap the benefit of a career of cautiousness. He would bring several assets to the Clinton campaign.

He is polite and charming. He's been an articulate spokesman for fatherhood, even writing a book on the subject. As Indiana's governor, he promoted the fatherhood movement and offered other culturally conservative initiatives. He didn't serve liquor at the governor's mansion and reinstated Gideons Bibles in state park inns after an overzealous official thought they violated the First Amendment.

Politically he rebuilt his party from near death in Indiana, helping it win four consecutive races for governor. He captured his own Senate seat after winning two terms as governor. Other Democrats who served under him went on to win their own races, including the late Gov. Frank O'Bannon and Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson. Bayh did all of that in a state that has not gone for a Democratic presidential nominee since the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964.

As governor, Bayh was the opposite of Mitch Daniels, who never seems to shy from taking on controversial issues such as daylight-saving time or leasing the Toll Road. Bayh took a stab at education reform but never put a definitive stamp on a particular policy or issue. He did, however, win elections and returned Indiana to a competitive two-party state.

For Hillary Clinton, Bayh would bolster her attempts to move to the political center. He is stronger on national defense issues than most Democrats and is most zealous about being a moderate.

Former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg of Vincennes thinks a Bayh vice presidential nomination would help Clinton as well as Democrats in Indiana.

"He'd be the ideal candidate," Gregg, a possible Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor next year, said.

"Historically, Bayh is from southern Indiana," Gregg said. "He'll play well in the Midwest and the near South -- Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. He is the modern-day Moses for the Indiana Democratic Party."

Notre Dame professor Robert Schmul said Bayh would balance Clinton's current New York home base geographically and ideologically.

"He would also be a figure who understands how the vice president should campaign and serve," Schmul said. "I don't think he is the kind of person who would try to upstage the presidential candidate."

One obstacle for Bayh could be a strong surge from either Obama or Edwards in early primaries. Clinton, if she wins the nomination, might feel compelled to add the second-place finisher to the ticket.

If she keeps the lead she has now, however, watch for a Clinton-Bayh ticket in 2008.