In many ways today's speech was Bush at his best.  He was tough, resolute, and confident - all things which the American people tend to like in their Presidents - but he also effectively emphasized that the policy on the ground in Iraq is "dynamic," "flexible," and constantly evolving and adapting tactics and techniques. He cited specific, tangible examples of progress in training Iraqi forces but did so without rattling off a bunch of eye-glazing statistics. He became emotional when talking about the troops (as he always does), but in the context of today's speech his deeply held belief that finishing the job in Iraq is the only way to honor the sacrifices of our fallen soldiers is something I think resonates with a great number of people.

Will this speech revive Bush's political fortunes on Iraq? Not by itself, no.  Today, supporters of the war heard "we're making progress" and opponents of the war heard "more of the same." Maybe Bush changed a few minds in the middle, but probably not many (how many people are watching cable TV at 9am?). I do think, however, over the next 90 days or so Bush has a chance - perhaps the final one of his presidency - to swing public opinion back in his favor on Iraq with the elections on December 15 and a concerted effort by the President to educate and inform the public on the continuing progress. The trial of Saddam could also provide a boost, as would the capture or killing of Zarqawi, bin Laden, or both.

The President would be in a much better position today if he had given a speech like this or held a press conference on Iraq every 10 days for the last six months. But the White House has done a poor job of defending the most important policy of this presidency, and it's only gotten worse in the last three months since being buffeted by a string of bad news including Hurricane Katrina, Harriet Miers, and the Libby indictment, all of which have indirectly hurt support for Iraq by driving down Bush's overall job rating. At the same time, Democrats have stepped up their attacks across the board and have effectively been handing the administration its hat for weeks with little to no resistance.

In that sense today's speech was important. Bush reestablished an aggressive strategic political position on Iraq not only articulating the current policy and promoting progress, but by saying in plain terms that artificial timetables for withdrawal are out of the question while he is president.  Timetables for troop withdrawals will be private, not public. They will be set by military commanders, not politicians. And they will be based on one criterion: achieving victory. Of course, Bush has now established he is the one who determines what victory is, not Congress.

All in all it was one of Bush's best efforts. The question is whether Bush's best will be good enough to win back the upper hand on the Iraq debate.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 12:10 PM | Email Author | Permalink

In about 20 minutes President Bush is going to give a big address on Iraq at the U.S. Naval Academy. Here's a copy of the 38-page document sent out by the White House earlier this morning titled "National Strategy For Victory in Iraq."

I glanced at the Executive Summary (pages 4-5) and frankly I don't see anything that we don't already know or haven't already heard.  The first page of the document itself says it "articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining."

That doesn't mean this isn't an important address or that it won't be helpful to Bush in trying to turn around public opinion on the war.  I'll be back after the speech with more thoughts.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:29 AM | Email Author | Permalink

SurveyUSA is out with approval rankings for all 50 Governors.  Four out of five with the highest numbers are Republicans (Rell, Hoeven, Rounds, and Huntsmann) as are five out of six with the lowest (Taft, Murkowski, Fletcher, Schwarzennegger, and Blunt). John Lynch is the highest ranked Democrat (#5) and Kathleen Blanco the lowest (#47). 

Taking a quick look at 2006, of the 18 governors currently with approval ratings under 50%, 10 are facing reelection and three are leaving open seats. Here is the breakdown by party:

Republicans  - 4
MD: Ehrlich (48% approval rating)
TX: Perry (47%)
CA: Schwarzennegger (35%)
AK: Murkowski (26%)

Democrats - 6
PA: Rendell (46% approval rating)
WI: Doyle (45%)
OR: Kulongoski (44%)
MI: Granholm (40%)
ME: Baldacci (40%)
IL: Blagojevich (38%)

Open - 3
CO: Republican seat, Owens (48% approval rating)
NY: Republican seat, Pataki (45%)
OH: Republican seat, Taft (18%)

Overall, we're looking at 36 governors races next year with Republicans defending 22 seats and Democrats 14.  In addition to the three open seats mentioned above there are five others:  Arkansas (Huckabee-R), Florida (Bush-R), Iowa (Vilsack-D), Nebraska (Heineman-R), and Nevada (Guinn-R).

Posted by Tom Bevan at 04:07 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Posted by Tom Bevan at 11:26 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Taegan Goddard poses one question to Charlie Cook: "Are retirements a reliable leading indicator on forecasting a change in control of the House of Representatives?" Click here to read Cook's answer.

Also, if you missed Cook's recent column summarizing the data from his new Cook/RT Strategies poll, you can read it here: Fatal Flaws For 2008 Frontrunners?

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:43 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus on the effort in Iraq:

It's like trying to build the world's largest airplane, while in flight, and while it's being shot at. 

There's more interesting stuff in Petraeus' interview with The Tampa Tribune. By the way, The Trib is running a series of interviews with military personnel who've recently been on the front lines of Iraq. You can find the rest of the interviews here.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:02 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:56 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Every now and then Jesse Jackson has to try and convince people he's still needed. But since it's increasingly clear he's not, fearmongering is the only arrow left in the quiver:

Fifty years later [after Rosa Parks' bus trip], the forces of reaction are gathering strength, even as we see how far we have yet to go. It is time for this nation to move forward once more or face a reckoning that none of us wants.

For twenty-odd years Jackson has been criss-crossing the country exploiting every possible opportunity to mug for tv cameras with sinister warnings about the "forces of reaction."

Thankfully, Jackson's "It's Selma 1965 Again in America" act is so tired and out of touch today that he comes off like a star who once played to big crowds on Broadway but now does dinner theatre in Sarasota.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:35 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham on June 12, 2005:

"My whole life I've lived aboveboard. I've never even smoked a marijuana cigarette. I don't cheat. If a contractor buys me lunch and we meet a second time, I buy the lunch. My whole life has been aboveboard and so this doesn't worry me...The last thing I would do is get involved in something that, you know, is wrong. And I feel very confident that I haven't done anything wrong."

Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham's "personal statement" to the public on June 23, 2005:

"First and foremost, I want my constituents to know that I have acted honorably and honestly....I welcome any and all appropriate investigations. I have faith that any investigation of these allegations will confirm that I have acted honestly....Recent press reports have incorrectly suggested that I secured a government contract for Mr. Wade’s company or that I improperly influenced the awarding of contracts to MZM. These reports are simply false...In short, I categorically reject any suggestion that I secured a contract for Mr. Wade’s company or that I supported funding of this important human intelligence program because MZM purchased my home in Del Mar Heights. I am deeply saddened by this distraction from my regular duties....I ask only that my constituents reserve judgment until any investigation is concluded and I have had the opportunity to defend myself against these false allegations."

Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham in court today: 

A somber-looking Cunningham stood with his hands clasped in front of him, answering the judge's questions with a muted "Yes, your honor," or, at times, "Yes, sir."

"Between the year 2000 and June of 2005 in our district, you conspired to accept bribes in exchange for performance of official duties. Did you do that?" Judge Burns asked Cunningham.

"Yes, your honor," Cunningham replied.

"Did you take both cash payments and payments in kind?"

"Yes, your honor," the congressman said.

"Did you follow up by trying to influence the Defense Department?"

"Yes, your honor."

I've always thought it's best not to judge a man by his worst moment, and this is certainly it for Randy Cunningham. At some point over his fifteen year career in the House, however, Cunningham lost his way badly and instead of being remembered as a war hero he'll join the pantheon of crooked Congressmen who violated the public trust. What a shame.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 02:23 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Ron Brownstein serves as a witting accomplice to Tom Daschle's underhanded attempt to rewrite the history of the Iraq war debate:

Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota, remembers the exchange vividly.

The time was September 2002. The place was the White House, at a meeting in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pressed congressional leaders for a quick vote on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

But Daschle, who as Senate majority leader controlled the chamber's schedule, recalled recently that he asked Bush to delay the vote until after the impending midterm election.

"I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: 'Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?' He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: 'We just have to do this now.' "

Daschle's account, which White House officials said they could not confirm or deny, highlights a crucial factor that has drawn little attention amid rising controversy over the congressional vote that authorized the war in Iraq. The recent partisan dispute has focused almost entirely on the intelligence information legislators had as they cast their votes. But the debate may have been shaped as much by when Congress voted as by what it knew.

Brownstein is smart enough to know that Daschle sold him a bill of goods with this story, but he couldn't resist: the anecdote was just too juicy, too suggestive, and too perfect to support Brownstein's predetermined angle that the Bush administration politicized the Iraq vote by ramming it through Congress before the election.

The record shows that by the time Daschle met with Bush and Cheney on September 18, 2002 he had already concluded - after a heated, public debate among members of his party  - that the best way to handle the Iraq vote was to move it through Congress quickly and get back to "kitchen table" election issues. In fact, a quick check of Google shows that the night before Daschle's September 18 meeting CNN ran the following story:

Congress will vote on a resolution about war with Iraq "well before the election, " despite the nation's last-minute pledge to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle predicted Tuesday.

"I think there will be a vote well before the election, and I think it's important that we work together to achieve it," said Daschle, who had been pressed by some Democrats to hold off action on the resolution until after November's mid-term election.

Daschle could have easily postponed a vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq until after the election if he had wanted to - though to do so would have been political suicide.  Remember, this was the week after the first anniversary of September 11 and just days after Bush laid out a powerful case against Saddam Hussein before the United Nations.  Daschle was under tremendous political pressure - not directly from Bush but from members of his own party - to deal with Iraq before the midterm and he made the right political decision by holding the vote in early October. Now that the political climate has changed, it's shameful that Daschle is trying to rehabilitate himself politically by peddling a revisionist story using Ron Brownstein as an uncritical media mouthpiece.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 01:31 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:17 PM | Email Author | Permalink

A Houston Chronicle investigative report lays out the case that Ruben Cantu was wrongly put to death in Texas on Aug. 24, 1993 (via Talkleft). Read the article and you'll see that Cantu was hardly a sympathetic figure; a gang-banging teenager who did drugs, stole cars and shot an off-duty police officer in an altercation in a bar in 1985. But the evidence compiled by the Chronicle strongly suggests Cantu was executed for a crime he did not commit.

Back in March at the height of the Terri Schiavo case I wrote a column for The Chicago Sun-Times arguing that those who believed we should always "err on the side of life" were morally obligated to reconsider support of the death penalty. For those who are interested, I've reprinted the full column below the jump:

Erring 'On Side Of Life' Opens Whole New Can Of Worms
By Tom Bevan
Chicago Sun-Times, April 1, 2005

Those who favored Congress' intervention in the Terri Schiavo case used a two-tiered argument to justify their support. The first tier was strictly legal: a variety of factors, including concerns over Michael Schiavo's fitness as a guardian as well as questions about whether Ms. Schiavo was properly diagnosed as being in a “persistent vegetative state,” gave Congress the right to mandate that all the evidence in the case be given a fresh look (known as de novo) at the federal level. The second tier of the argument - which represented the broader issue propelling the first - was strictly moral: our society should place an exceptionally high value on innocent human life and should take steps to prevent a severely handicapped woman from being starved to death, especially when questions lingered as to what her own wishes might have been.

If one is convinced of the moral strength of the argument for saving Terri Schiavo (which millions upon millions of Americans are), and if one further adheres to the proposition every innocent life is worth protecting and that we as a society must not countenance a system that results in the death of a single innocent soul, are we not then obligated to reconsider support of the death penalty under all circumstances except those in which confessions have been given voluntarily?

The fact is, while it cannot be said for certain that we have yet executed an innocent person in the United States, it also cannot be said with certainty that we have not. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1973 one hundred and nineteen people sentenced to death row have been exonerated prior to execution.  That statistic should force any rational person to consider the very real possibility that out of the 956 persons executed in the since 1976 we have taken the life of at least one innocent person.

Whether one supports the death penalty under the moral justification that it deters crime or that our society must exact retribution against those who commit truly heinous acts, after the outcry over Terri Schiavo it seems extremely difficult to reconcile that support with the new standard established by Congress and the President to intervene in cases where any doubt exists to ensure that we always "err on the side of life.”

Questions about the death penalty, however, merely segue to an even larger issue. During the last two weeks many have argued that the moral questions raised by the Schiavo case outweigh the legal considerations and that any means of preventing her death (including sending in the National Guard) would be morally justifiable.

If this is true, then aren't we obligated to ask the following: if one believes abortion is the taking of innocent life and that we have a moral duty to prevent infanticide, shouldn't Congress immediately pass a law outlawing abortion at the federal level regardless of its Constitutionality? Wouldn't the saving of even a single life (or preventing a single death by abortion, if you prefer) justify such an action?

And if we accept the idea that deeply held moral beliefs can compel extralegal or even unconstitutional action, doesn't that argue in favor of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision last year to begin issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in violation of California law? After all, Newsom acted on the belief, deeply held by many on the left, that denying gays the right to marry is morally indefensible and akin to the legal racial discrimination of blacks in the 1950's.

At its core, the dilemma is this: at what point are we forced to live within the law even if we disagree morally with some of the outcomes resulting from its application?

The questions raised by the tragic case of Terri Schiavo are not easy ones at all. But they are important, and the country would benefit from an effort to consider them as honestly and thoughtfully as possible.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 03:55 PM | Email Author | Permalink

On Monday Tom Friedman took home the £30,000 first prize in the inaugural Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year for The World Is Flat. Lucky for him the judges voted before they got a chance to read his NY Times column today (Times Select) which attempts to set a new standard for liberal pablum:

Truly, I hope Mr. Bush rises to the challenge. We do not have three years to waste. To do that, though, Mr. Bush would need to become a very different third-term president, with a much more centrist agenda and style. If he does, he still has time to be a bridge to the future. If he doesn't, the resources he will have squandered and the size of the problems he will have ignored will put him in the running for one of our worst presidents ever.

Generally I'm a fan of Friedman's work but this reads like a bad parody of Ty Webb talking to Danny Noonan in Caddyshack. "Just be the bridge to the future, Danny. Be the bridge...."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 03:33 PM | Email Author | Permalink

It's interesting how the D.C. parlor game works. Two weeks ago Tom DeFrank wrote a column in The NY Daily News under the headline "Dubya-Cheney Ties Frayed By Scandal" wherein DeFrank quoted an unnamed White House source saying "there has been some distance for some time" between Cheney and President Bush. The column set off a spasm of hyperventilation inside the beltway - led by the excitable, Cheney-obsessed Chris Matthews - asserting various reasons for the Vice-President's demise and writing his political obituary.

Since then, Cheney has come out swinging against charges the administration manipulated pre-war intelligence, first on November 16 and again on November 21. Yesterday Michael A. Fletcher and Jim VandeHei reported White House aides view Cheney as a "major asset in the war debate." Though fallout from the Libby indictment has saddled Cheney with low approval numbers, the Daily Telegraph carrries another sign that contrary to the description provided by Tom DeFrank's anonymous source, Cheney's stature within the administration remains undiminished:

Juleanna Glover Weiss, an influential Republican lobbyist and a former senior Cheney aide, said: "I have a lot of friends in the White House and no one has hinted at or winked at the idea that the vice-president has been reduced in power or status."

I guess this means we're back to the pre-Tom DeFrank-Hardball hysteria status quo. Until we get a juicy quote from another unnamed source to start the process all over again, that is.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:08 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Guess who won this battle of wits? Scalia spoke at a recent event hosted by Time's Norman Pearlstine. Page Six has the goods:

When Pearlstine opened the floor for Q&A, Franken stood up in the back row and started talking about "judicial demeanor" and asking "hypothetically" about whether a judge should recuse himself if he had gone duck-hunting or flown in a private jet with a party in a case before his court.

Franken was clumsily referring to the fact that Scalia had gone hunting and flying with Dick Cheney before the 2000 election.

First, Scalia lectured Franken, "Demeanor is the wrong word. You mean ethics." Then he explained, "Ethics is governed by tradition. It has never been the case where you recuse because of friendship."

Time Warner chairman Dick Parsons later told PAGE SIX: "Al was not quite ready for prime time."

 Lloyd Grove has another report on Scalia's appearance in The NY Daily News.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 06:46 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Newly-updated RCP Bush job approval index shows the President edging back toward 40%. 

By the way, we've added the new Cook Political/RT Strategies poll to the mix. It's a collaborative effort by Charlie Cook of National Journal and two veteran pollsters who've opened their own shop: Thomas Riehle, formerly of AP-Ipsos and Lance Tarrance, formerly of Gallup and founder of The Tarrance Group. View the full questionnaire (in pdf format) here. Read Charlie Cook's write up of the results here.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 06:27 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Earlier today I left you with a two-part question: Is the U.S.-Mexico border a threat to national security and is al-Qaeda exploiting it to gain entry to America?

Let's take the last part first. One of the myths debunked in Richard Miniter's new book Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine The War on Terror is "the U.S. border with Mexico is the most likely place for al-Qaeda terrorists to sneak into the homeland." After thoroughly researching the issue Miniter concluded, "At this time, the balance of evidence shows that no known al-Qaeda terrorist has entered the United States from Mexico."

As Miniter points out, this doesn't mean that al-Qaeda can't or won't try to exploit vulnerabilities on our southern border at some point in the future, only that as things currently stand "the threat from Mexico is purely speculation."

Miniter then goes on to explain in great detail why the evidence proves the Canadian border is a much more real and significant threat for al-Qaeda to penetrate the United States. "If history is any guide," Miniter writes, "al-Qaeda will come from the north."

So, yes, the U.S.-Mexico border is a potential threat to national security and needs to be taken seriously, but we need to separate speculation from fact in assessing just how much of a threat the southern border is relative to other threats we face.

Which leads me back to the claims of al-Qaeda related activity on the border that have popped up recently. One claim was retracted and two others are based on speculative information that either hasn't been or can't be confirmed by official sources.  Coincidentally, all three claims have been made by Republicans pushing tougher immigration measures in Congress.

Miniter demonstrated how these types of claims, once made, have a way of becoming part of a myth.  Until we get more solid evidence , I suggest viewing reports of al-Qaeda activity on the U.S.-Mexico border with a good dose of caution and skepticism.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:36 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Not to beat a dead horse, but Franklin & Marshall College (the folks who do the Keystone poll) has released some more internals on the PA Senate race and, well, things look bleak for Santorum. In addition to losing most demographic and geographic groupings, Santorum is getting only 62% support from Republicans (compared to 74% Dems for Casey) and he's losing Independents to Casey by 31 points (52-21).

Bret Lieberman of the Patriot News writes that despite the power of incumbency, the brutal numbers have Santorum and his team running like a frustrated challenger:

Advisers to Santorum concede they are growing increasingly frustrated by his weak support and the tactics of state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., his likely Democratic opponent.

Some analysts and party officials say Santorum's campaign tactics, such as calling for 10 debates a year before the election, are bordering on desperate, particularly for a two-term incumbent.

"I think there is a certain frustration on my level," said John Brabender, Santorum's longtime adviser and media consultant.

"Every day I have to hear Bobby Casey's criticizing without saying what alternative he would offer," he said. "At least be man enough to offer solutions as well or stand on the same stages."

At some point well down the road Casey will have to engage, but until that time comes he's going to keep his distance and let Santorum stew.  It's going to take a perfectly executed plan, a bit of luck, and perhaps some help from his opponent for Santorum to have a chance to pull this one out.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 02:19 PM | Email Author | Permalink

On November 16 I wrote about Rep. Sue Myrick's explosive claim - now retracted - that it was "a fact" that we were holding three al-Qaida members who came across from Mexico into the United States.

That same day a reader sent through this article from WorldNetDaily reporting that Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) said it had been confirmed to him we did in fact have a suspected al-Qaeda member in custody who was captured by Mexican authorites living just across the border and handed over to U.S. authorities. The following Monday, Culberson repeated the claim to the nation on Hannity and Colmes:

CULBERSON: The Hudspeth County sheriff, Arvin West, and the Brewster County, Ronnie Dodson, confirmed for me that they had an Al Qaeda terrorist, an Iraqi national who was on the FBI's terrorist list as an Al Qaeda member in the Brewster County jail...

HANNITY: Congressman, are you going just based on what he's telling you or are you going based on the evidence that you've seen? And do you have any other evidence to corroborate this?

CULBERSON: Both Sheriff West and Sheriff Dodson, the two sheriffs from Hudspeth and Brewster County, had this information confirmed for them by the FBI and the Department of Justice, who came down, and this guy was on the FBI's Al Qaeda list of terrorists. He was picked up and questioned. First, questioned carefully by the FBI and then picked up and taken out of the Brewster County jail.

And I just discovered tonight, Sean, the border patrol confirmed that this is not the first time that an Arab from a special interest country, a country with known Al Qaeda connections, has been handed over by the Mexicans to a local sheriff and then picked up by the FBI.

The reason you can't confirm it is the FBI won't talk about it.

Today Human Events is touting an exclusive interview with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) under the title, "Senator Says There's No Stopping Al Qaeda From Crossing Mexico Border." In the in interview Cornyn says he's been shown anecdotal evidence of Muslim activity on the border including pictures of discarded juice boxes with Arabic writing on them. Senator Cornyn continued:

To some extent, people are in denial. Every time I talk about the vulnerability of our Southern border, people say the 9/11 people came her legally and that’s a problem, and then they overstayed. Or they say, our Northern border is longer and easier to penetrate. But it just seems so obvious to me that a coyote, a human smuggler, who charges $1,500 to bring in a bartender or construction worker, would also, for the appropriate price, bring in somebody from a country of special interest. And, in fact, that is well known to the federal government.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 11:31 AM | Email Author | Permalink

John McCain and Lindsey Graham made a joint appearance at a South Carolina fundraiser last night where they talked about the troubles currently facing the GOP.  McCain laid out three basic priorities the party should focus on to regain its footing: make progress in Iraq, enact comprehensive energy reform and "stop this profligate spending." McCain also teased the crowd about 2008 by turning to Graham and saying, "some people have said this might be a very attractive vice presidential candidate."

Pulling a related thread, Ross Douthat spanks David Broder for the rather dull suggestion that McCain's support for the war puts him at risk politically:

McCain's combination of unwavering support for the war and fierce criticism of its prosecution and excesses has placed him in a perfect position politically - he has credibility as a hawk and as a war critic, and if the war succeeds he can claim to have supported it all along (which he has), whereas if it fails he can say I told you so, and with some reason. And when Americans sour on a military conflict, they don't usually elect outspoken doves - they elect politicians with hawkish credentials who insist that they'll bring the war to a successful conclusion (see Eisenhower, Dwight; or Nixon, Richard). So if McCain runs in on 2008 promising to "win the war," or "win the peace," or something like that, it won't be a gamble at all, but sound political common sense.

Wouldn't you know that's exactly the theme the probable 2008 ticket-mates sounded last night. Graham told the crowd:

"Democrats who have this cut-and-run strategy -- the public doesn't want to follow that. They want to follow Republicans who understand the war is not going as well as it should but who understand that our security is better off with a successful outcome in Iraq."

Kaus notes that Chris Matthews and David Brooks both said they hear that conservatives are "warming to McCain."  As I mentioned last week, McCain's stock is definitely on the rise but he's still got a ways to go to repair his standing among the type of Republican primary voter he'll need in 2008.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 04:35 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Michael Eric Dyson is currently the Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of "Is Bill Cosby Right (Or Has The Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind)?"

Princeton Alumni Weekly recently ran a rather flattering feature on Dyson and his crusade against Cosby titled "The Street Smart Professor." Much more interesting, however, is the letter in this week's issue from Princeton University lecturer in politics Russ Nieli responding to the article on Dyson:

Critics of Bill Cosby like Michael Eric Dyson see in Cosby’s self-help and “get-your-act-together” message little more than the smugness and self-congratulatory arrogance of the successful black middle class. The Coz and his well-heeled supporters, they say, fail to recognize the enormous obstacles faced by today’s black poor, who continue to suffer because of institutional racism, structural changes in the economy, heartless Republican presidents, and the like.

While there may be a grain of truth in what Dyson and others like him have to say in this matter, their own message, which downplays personal responsibility and tends to blame the plight of poor people on forces entirely outside their control, is surely more destructive to the aspirations of the poor than the facile “pull-yourself-up-by-your bootstraps” message of their opponents. The reason for this was well stated by economic theorist Friedrich Hayek almost 50 years ago. “It is often contended,” Hayek wrote, “that the belief that a person is solely responsible for his own fate is held only by the successful. Its underlying suggestion ... is that people hold this belief [only] because they have been successful. I, for one, am inclined to think that the connection is the other way around and that people often are successful because they hold this belief. ... And if the smug pride of the successful is often intolerable and offensive, the belief that success depends wholly on [individual effort] is probably the pragmatically most effective incentive to successful action, whereas the more a man indulges in the propensity to blame others or circumstances for his failures, the more disgruntled and ineffective he tends to become” (The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press, 1960).

What Hayek says here has been confirmed by more than 25 years of social psychology research into what is sometimes called “self-efficacy” or “internal locus of control.” People who have a strong belief that their success in life (however defined) is determined largely by forces internal to themselves — forces such as determination, perseverance, hard work, etc. — are much better at seizing the opportunities that life accords them than people who believe that outside forces over which they have little control — such as luck, circumstances, “the economy,” or the malevolent powers that be — are the ultimate determiners of what they will become in life. The implication of this research is quite clear: Cosby’s message for the poor is ultimately more liberating than Michael Dyson’s.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 11:24 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Rasmussen:

Steele (R) 41
Cardin (D) 49

and

Steele (R) 45
Mfume (D) 44

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:21 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Drop out of high school. Join the Marines. Go to the Naval Academy. Become a Rhodes scholar:

"I wouldn't recommend the route I took to anyone," said Schmitz, a fourth-year student at the academy who is majoring in political science and economics. "But if you show enough initiative, eventually people will notice it."

Indeed.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:16 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Simple question: why'd he do it? Why did John Murtha, who went sour on Iraq back in September 2003 and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Nancy Pelosi back in May of last year and called the war "unwinnable," choose to come out last week and call to bring the troops home immediately? The short answer is probably that Murtha wanted to capitalize on the dazzling display of weakness and timidity by Senate Republicans last week.

The bigger question is why we are having the discussion about pullouts and timelines for troop withdrawals now, only two weeks before Iraqis go to the polls to freely elect a representative government. The timing borders on the insane, and is at least as counterproductive as it is dangerous.  As Ralph Peters points out in a particularly hard-hitting column today, we look an awful lot like a winning team who can't wait to find a way to lose.

For those who have been paying attention (and you would hope to count our folks in Congress among this group) the White House and the Pentagon have been signaling for months that the plan is to begin pulling out troops as soon as humanly possible after the completion of the elections in December.

General Casey floated the idea back in late July.  The Washington Post also reported that Lt. Gen. Vines mentioned something similar in June:

A top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, told reporters last month that four or five of 17 battalions, roughly one-quarter of U.S. forces in Iraq, could be pulled out if security conditions improved and if Iraqi national elections scheduled for December went smoothly.

At the time, Bush publicly downplayed the idea of setting a "firm" timeline for troop withdrawals from Iraq as "speculation" (which was the right thing to do given the precarious state of affairs negotiating the Iraqi constitution) but it's clear both the administration and DoD were already thinking about various scenarios for drawing down U.S. forces:

Their "best scenario" target is to reduce numbers to 60,000-70,000 by next autumn if Iraqi forces start to make progress against the insurgents. The fall-back option would be Gen Casey's minimum 30,000 reduction by the summer.

The Pentagon signaled its plans again on September 29:

While the Bush administration has refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, Casey has repeatedly said a "fairly substantial" pullout could begin next spring and summer as long as the political process stayed on track, the insurgency did not expand and the training of Iraqi security forces continued as planned.

But when reporters asked Casey on Wednesday whether he still believed that to be the case, he said, "I think right now we're in a period of a little greater uncertainty than when I was asked that question back in July and March."

"Until we're done with this political process here with the referendum and the elections in December, I think it's too soon to tell," Casey said.

We now learn that Casey submitted a plan for troop withdrawal to Rumsfeld last week, probably right around the time Bill Frist was orchestrating the Republican debacle in the Senate.  CNN reports what should be obvious to anyone with a clue: "implementation of the plan, if approved, would start after the December 15 Iraqi elections so as not to discourage voters from going to the polls." Unfortunately, thanks to the actions of leaders in Congress last week, we've probably done just the opposite.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:35 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Let's recap what happened last night. After months of publicly berating President Bush as a liar over pre-war intel and after invoking a rarely used rule to shut down the Senate two weeks ago, Democrats are crying foul because....? Because Republicans challenged them to stop trying to have it both ways on Iraq after a leading, well-respected member of the Democratic party came out and called for the immediate withdrawal of troops.

Did the resolution contain the language the most Democrats would have liked? No. But politics ain't beanbag (which the Dems have shown by the examples listed above) and the bottom line is that you have to win elections if you want to control the process.

That being said, you'd have to be a fool to believe there are only three Democrats in the House who support the language of the resolution offered last night to bring the troops home immediately. At the top of the list is Nancy Pelosi who, instead of voting her conscience and representing her constituents, decided to play victim and accuse Republicans of "politicizing the war" - something she's been doing non-stop for more than two years now. 

Wanting to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq doesn't make you a coward. What does make you a coward is when you truly believe we should get our troops out of Iraq immediately, you have a chance to vote for doing exactly that, and you choose not to because you fear the political consequences of being on record revealing your position to the public. This was not a vote on some obscure provision of the budget, it was the most supremely important subject on which members of Congress have the privilege and duty to vote.

So hats off to Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York for having the courage to vote what they really believe. And shame on those who didn't.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:26 AM | Email Author | Permalink

I've been watching the Woodward/Plamegate saga from afar over the last two days. But this new piece by Viveca Novak just posted on Time.com contains an interesting passage:

According to Woodward, that triggered a call to his source. "I said it was clear to me that the source had told me [about Wilson's wife] in mid-June," says Woodward, "and this person could check his or her records and see that it was mid-June. My source said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor. I said, 'If you do, am I released?'", referring to the confidentiality agreement between the two. The source said yes, but only for purposes of discussing it with Fitzgerald, not for publication.

So according to Woodward the source didn't go to Fitzgerald on his/or her own with the intent of trying to help Libby and/or discredit Fitzgerald. Chris Matthews is going to be devastated.

In fact, a straight reading of Woodward's account shows this source to be very much by the book, claiming "no alternative" but to contact Fitzgerald once Woodward jogged his or her memory. It certainly doesn't seem like Woodward was threatening the source with "either you contact Fitzgerald or I will" and the source looks to have granted Woodward the waiver to speak to Fitzgerald without any fuss. Of course, if we learn that the source had already been interviewed by Fitzgerald the odds of it being an innocent oversight on his or her part decrease significantly (but don't disappear altogether). 

One final related oddity: why is Woodward giving this "web exclusive" account to Time?

Posted by Tom Bevan at 04:02 PM | Email Author | Permalink