Jeff Jones at Gallup takes a look at the kind of boost President Bush might expect to receive from the State of the Union tonight with the conclusion that typically Presidents receive little to no bump of consequence.

Historical Gallup findings dating back to President Jimmy Carter's administration indicate that presidents rarely are able to increase their popularity following a State of the Union address. George W. Bush may have done so temporarily with his speech last year, but his public standing was largely unchanged following his three prior State of the Union addresses....

In the 24 cases shown here, there are 10 instances in which a president's post-State of the Union approval rating was higher than his rating before the speech, 12 when it was lower, and 2 when there was no change.

Mark Blumenthal has a more thorough analysis on the Gallup track record and historical SOTU bounces over at Mystery Pollster.

Bottom line, I wouldn’t expect Bush’s address to have any meaningful change in the President’s approval three weeks from now. The latest RealClearPolitics Poll Average of 9 polls taken over the last 10 days has his job approval at 42.9%. If that number is materially higher or lower 3-4 weeks from now it will most likely be for reasons unrelated to tonight's State of the Union Address.

Posted by John McIntyre at 06:06 PM | Email Author | Permalink

One of the most frustrating things about Iraq is trying to sort out the seemingly contradictory reports of how things are going on the ground. Are we making progress? Is security improving? Is civil war breaking out? Oftentimes, the answers to these questions depends on who you ask.  With that in mind, here are three recent takes on the situation in Iraq from people who've seen it first hand - two journalists and one member of Congress. Read them all and then decide for yourself who you believe is giving a balanced, accurate account of what's happening in Iraq:

Christiane Amanpour, correspondent for CNN (via Malkin):  "The war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster... This is a big drama, because hope is the only thing they have in the middle of this spiraling security disaster. And by any indication, whether you take the number of journalists killed or wounded, whether you take the number of American soldiers killed or wounded, whether you take the number of Iraqi soldiers killed or wounded, uh, contractors, people working there, it just gets worse and worse."

Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-NH1):  "We should not underestimate the challenges facing Iraq. The formation of a post-election government that can reduce sectarian divisions and diminish sympathy for the terrorist insurgency is crucial. High unemployment and infrastructure problems still plague the country. But on each of my three trips, I have met Iraqis who are confident about their country's future, and that same sentiment is echoed by the troops I have spoken with who interact with Iraqis on a daily basis.

Americans have the right to question the faulty intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction, the military planning for post-war Iraq and the use of U.S. forces to overthrow a dictator. However, should questions about entering Iraq be the determining factor in the issue of leaving now? The variables today are completely different and the strategic landscape is permanently altered. The path that produces a preferred outcome — Iraqi stability — is a continued commitment to self-reliance and self-governance in Iraq. Withdrawal leaves Iraq with an embryonic government at the mercy of sectarian groups, criminal gangs and domestic and foreign fanaticism.

It is not possible to predict exactly when stability in Iraq will occur, but the progress is significant. After three elections, the Iraqi government is increasingly taking command of its troops. Saddam Hussein is on trial and Iraqis now can acknowledge what happened to their families under his brutal reign."

Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise Magazine: "Make no mistake: Iraq is broken. Most residents have never known proper sewage service, 24 hour electricity, or decent health care.

And improvement could be faster. Both terror attacks and the Arab tradition of endemic corruption are making today’s economic recovery less booming than it would otherwise be. Another damper has been the failure of our Western allies to make good on their promises of Iraq aid: Of the $13.6 billion European and other nations pledged to help rebuild Iraq, only a couple billion has so far been delivered.

All the same, progress is visible in Iraq, not just to observers like me but to Iraqis themselves. There is ample proof of this in the latest scientific poll of the Iraqi public, released December 12 by Oxford Research International. Asked how things are going for them personally, 71 percent of Iraqis now say life is “good,” compared to 29 percent who say “bad.” A majority insist that despite the war, life is already better for them than it was under Saddam Hussein. By 5:1 they expect their lives will be even better one year from now. Seven out of ten Iraqis think their country as a whole will be a better place in one year.

Iraqis are particularly pleased about trends in security. By 61 to 38 percent, they say security where they live is now “good” rather than “bad.” Back at the beginning of 2004 those numbers were reversed (49 percent good, 50 percent bad). On a vast range of specific subjects—from the availability of clean water and medical care to their ability to buy household basics—Iraqis say things are good and getting better. Fully 70 percent say “my family’s economic situation is good,” and 78 percent rate their new freedom of speech as “good.”

Posted by Tom Bevan at 02:06 PM | Email Author | Permalink

As usual Thomas Sowell has an excellent column on Ken Blackwell’s campaign for Governor in Ohio, the African-American vote and Republicans. While it is common knowledge that Democrats overwhelmingly win the black vote in the U.S., what is less commonly known is the fact that the Democrats haven’t won a majority of the white vote in a presidential election in over 40 years. In a country that is 2/3rds white (with a voting demographic that is over 70% white) that is what you would call a political handicap.

Under Ken Mehlman’s leadership the GOP is making an aggressive effort to make a dent in the Democrats' huge margin with African-American voters. One of the key reasons Democrats are able to compete nationally (and in many states) is the 90% margins they roll up with black voters. Sowell is dead on when he writes:

If Republicans can get just a fourth or a fifth of the black vote nationwide, that can shift the balance of power decisively in their favor.

The Democrats’ fear of erosion in their rock solid African-American support is why they increasingly ratchet up racial rhetoric as election day approaches. Whether it is church burnings or the infamous NAACP ad accusing Bush of lynching James Byrd, Democrats increasingly have to push harder and harder to sustain that 90% result. There is no question the Katrina images and racial politics will be ruthlessly exploited this fall by Democrats looking to max out their African-American returns. 

The bigger problem for the Democrats is they are tapped out at 90%-93% of the black vote. They’re not going to get 98% of the vote not withstanding all of the media attention a post-Katrina NBC/WSJ poll received that suggested a 2% African-American approval rating for President Bush.

The troublesome reality for Democrats is in the coming elections that 90% is a lot more likely to move to 70%-85%, as opposed to moving up to 95%-98%. And that is a big problem for Democrats. Which is why candidates like Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swan and Michael Steele are enormous threats to Democratic election prospects in the next 10-20 years. Those three races in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland could have a major, far-reaching effect in American politics and are worth paying a close attention to as 2006 progresses.

Posted by John McIntyre at 11:29 AM | Email Author | Permalink

President Bush will give his State of the Union address tonight at 9 pm Eastern.  The New York Times tells us that the speech is on its 23rd draft and that Bush has been practicing since Friday.  There has been no shortage of predictions about the address, and the fact that it is already written has not stopped the pundits from giving their own own suggestions for the address.

For instance, Thomas Friedman says "the direction in which America needs to go is obvious: toward energy independence."  Among other things, his version of the speech would call for a "Bush Energy Freedom Act" and the resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney.  He would nominate Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, as Cheney's replacement.

Irwin Stelzer also looks over Bush's energy policy options but concludes:

"If history is any guide, little will come of any presidential initiative. Congress is more concerned with restoring its scandal-ridden reputation (Republicans), and attacking the president (Democrats), than with the nation's energy security."

According to Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, the president will propose an expansion of Health Savings Accounts, and the Democrats are looking back to 2005 in order to fight them:

"Democrats were able to derail the main domestic program Bush highlighted in his 2005 State of the Union address, a move to privatize a portion of Social Security...

Both sides may have a harder time with either selling or stalling the health accounts than Social Security. That's because Social Security is a known factor -- a government institution used by generations of seniors, an easily identified constituency to target and organize."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal,  Fred Barnes says the "ownership society" was a big theme throughout last year and during the 2004 campaign, but this year Bush "is expected to take a more conventional--and politically palatable--approach."  Barnes thinks "he's likely to keep talking about Social Security and private accounts and perhaps even an ownership society. But not tonight, when he addresses the nation."

According to USA Today, tonight's address to the nation will be Bush's "best chance to lay out his agenda and shape the political debate for the next 12 months."  Although his job approval numbers have suffered in the last year, the president could expect a bounce if his speech is a hit.  In 1998,

"Clinton's job approval shot up 10 percentage points in the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, from 59% to 69%. Although there were rough days ahead, the speech helped Clinton clear an obstacle that could have been fatal."

On the other hand, Francis Wilkinson is not so fond of the State of the Union.  She notes the "imperious" nature of the speech and then points out that "in 'Lend Me Your Ears,' William Safire's compilation of great speeches, not one State of the Union address makes the table of contents."

Finally, George Will--criticizing pretty much everyone--says "the nation needs an adult hour."

Posted by Nick Nordseth at 08:45 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The Democrats don’t have a lot of assets in their top congressional leadership, neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid inspire huge amounts of confidence. However, they do have a winner and savvy strategist heading the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who holds Dan Rostenkowski’s old seat, has risen quickly since coming to Congress in 2002. Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune had a story on a breakfast fundraiser Emanuel attended in Ohio for Mary Jo Kilroy who the Democrats hope will knock off #4 House Republican, Rep. Deborah Pryce. (Pryce won with 67% in ’02 and 60% in ’04, so she isn’t likely to lose.)

Jeff Zeleny reports Emanuel doggedly tried to keep the focus on domestic issues while the audience repeatedly kept coming back to national security.

When the Illinois congressman didn't include national security in his top five talking points, a man raised his hand and his voice.

"Can I give you a piece of advice?" said Ford Huffman, a Columbus attorney. "They obviously believe it's their winning issue. Why can't we get out in front with it and say there's not an issue about security? Every American believes in securing America."

Emanuel tried to answer the question, asserting his eagerness to challenge the White House, but said he does not believe national security should be a political issue. As Emanuel spoke, Huffman turned his head and told those sitting around him: "It sounds like we are trying to dodge the issue. People are going to say the Democrats are being wussies.” [snip]

How do we get our message out?" asked Ann Hughes, a Columbus resident who said she is frustrated by the Iraq war and infuriated that the Bush administration is so skilled at guiding the country's political debate. "It so easily gets portrayed that the Democratic Party is negative, and the issue agenda gets controlled by the Republicans."

After Emanuel answered her question, he ticked through a list of five key themes he said the party should push this year: health care, education, energy independence, technology and fiscal discipline.

It was national security, though, that his audience returned to again and again.

This is informative on two levels. First, it shows that Emanuel gets the politics and understands the dilemma the Democrats are in politically in regard to national security. Second, it points to the difficulty Democrats are going to have in moving the debate to non-national security issues.

Zeleny continues:

As others echoed similar concerns, Emanuel buttoned and unbuttoned his dark suit. He shifted the weight on his feet and shook the ice in his water glass. He gently disagreed that he had avoided discussing national security, pointing out that he wanted to avoid the trap of being forced into a defensive posture over it by Republicans.

Emanuel is in a box. He’s aware the Pelosi-Dean rhetoric put the party in a defensive posture on national security but he knows he can’t confront the Deaniac/Kos/MoveOn wing because they represent so much of the Democratic base and energy. Given the problems Bush and the GOP are dealing with and the opportunity for Democrats to finally pick up some seats in 2006, a civil war within the party is the last thing Emanuel wants. So he does the politically smart move, really the only move given the situation, and glosses over national security and pushes: “health care, education, energy independence, technology and fiscal discipline”

The problem here is it is going to be pretty hard for Emanuel to keep the focus on domestic issues when both Rove and his own base want to talk about national security. At some point, the Democrats are going to need to have it out on the war, terrorism and national security. Republican difficulties may kick the can down the road in 2006, but this is an internal Democratic problem that is not going to just go away with a few more House and Senate seats.

Posted by John McIntyre at 07:38 AM | Email Author | Permalink

It's a good news, bad news thing for Hillary in the new Marist poll out tonight.

The good news: " 54% of New York State’s registered voters say they would definitely vote to re-elect Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate in 2006 including most Democrats and a majority of independent voters." Additional (though not surprising) good news for Mrs. Clinton: she's running 30-points ahead of her nearest GOP challenger for the Senate.

The bad news: "Should Hillary Clinton decide to run for president in 2008, 62% of New York State’s registered voters do not think it is likely that she will be elected." BTW, that includes 54% of registered Democrats. 

Also in the bad news category:  "Clinton’s controversial comment about the Republicans running the House of Representatives like a plantation was not well received by New York State’s registered voters."

Given that Hillary wants to be president more than she wants to be a Senator from New York for life, I'd think the bad news in this poll outweighs the good. It's more evidence her White House bid might be much more difficult than many had assumed.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:19 PM | Email Author | Permalink

"Politicians need to end love affair with tax breaks." That's the title of Richard Doak's column in the Des Moines Register this week.  Doak writes:

Politicians must have a low opinion of people.

They seem to think there is but one force that motivates all of human behavior — the desire to avoid taxes.

Actually, the desire isn't to avoid taxes, but to pay as little as possible - within reason. Most people are willing to pay a certain amount of taxes so that roads get paved, schools stay open, and the country is adequately defended. But we're far beyond that today. The problem is that we live in a culture of taxation  - and we hardly even notice it. Sit down and start adding up all the taxes you pay - like I did five years ago - and you'll see what I mean:

The current debate on Capitol Hill over whether or not we can "afford" a federal income tax cut obscures a much greater truth: we live in a tax culture. Americans are under assault every single day by an army of tiny, unseen taxes - and they hardly even know it. Don't take my word for it, do the math yourself.

Take a look at your phone bill. Mine has nine different taxes attached, everything from 63 cents per month for "state and municipal infrastructure maintenance fees" to 28 cents for a "number portability fee." I'm not sure what any of these taxes are for, who voted for them or when they started showing up on my bill, but I do know they accounted for seven percent of my total phone bill this month.

Next try your gas bill. Mine, which thanks to Mr. Clinton's brilliant energy policy over the last 8 years was $326 dollars this month, has a $9.45 assessment under the heading of "customer charge" and a whopping $24.33 for a "municipal utility tax." More than 12 percent of the total bill was in taxes and fees.

You get the point. The average American is swimming in government taxes. Property taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, state income taxes. There is precious little we can do in America today without incurring some sort of taxation.

This isn't some high-brow debate over multimillionaires and the estate tax, the taxes I'm talking about are regressive. Everyone who has a phone, heats their apartment or drives a car gets charged the same amount whether they make five dollars a year or five million.

Taxes have become burdensome and frustrating, especially so for average Americans trying to make ends meet.  We'd be much better off with more politicians focused on finding ways to ease the tax burden on the public, rather than advising them to "end the love affair" with the idea of cutting people's taxes.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 02:41 PM | Email Author | Permalink

"We call on you to continue moral and financial support, and to direct all aid to the Palestinian treasury so it can be used in keeping with the priorities of the Palestinian people." That's Ismail Haniyah, senior member of the newly elected Hamas, making a plea to the EU, the Russians, the U.S. and the UN to keep the aid spigot turned on.

In an article last night for the Washington Post, Scott Wilson broke down the PA's troubling financial situation: $1 billion revenue per year generated locally, $1 billion in foreign aid per year - $403 million of that from the United States and $300 million from European governments.  And the PA still runs a $50 million defecit every month.

Hamas leaders are suggesting they will allow the UN and/or Western governments to supervise the spending of funds. Fine and dandy. But until the "priorities of the Palestinian people" - as expressed through their vote to elect Hamas - cease to include the destruction of Israel, having a few green-eyeshade types looking over the books isn't anywhere near good enough.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:15 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Here's a roundup of links in advance of the Bush's State of the Union Address tomorrow night:

Linda Feldman takes a broad look at Bush's first 5 years in the Christian Science Monitor.
Dan Balz of the Washington Post sums up Bush's "midterm challenge" tomorrow night.
The AP's Nedra Pickler: Bush to Outline Energy Alternatives
Doyle McManus in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush Sets Sights Lower This Time."
Ron Brownstein also in the LA Times:  "Bush on Collision Course With Himself."
It's All About Bush, says Richard Benedetto.
David Jackson in USA Today: SOTU A Meshing of Many Ideas
The NYT's Elisabeth Bumiller reports on the speechwriter's perspective.
Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco says Bush is facing the big fiscal squeeze.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:34 AM | Email Author | Permalink

On the Meet the Press roundtable today, it is surprising how well David Broder captures the Washington beltway conventional wisdom on the NSA wiretapping “scandal.”

Roger Simon makes the obvious point that seems to have escaped many on the left when they rushed to immediately turn the NSA program into some kind of Nixonian illegality.

MR. SIMON:  Unlike past administrations, notably the Nixon administration, there’s no evidence that the Bush administration has used this warrantless surveillance for political purposes. When the president says, ‘I’m doing this to protect the United States of America, there’s no evidence that he is in any way prevaricating. And that is why, I think, so many people are saying, as Kelly pointed out, ‘Well, I don’t talk to al-Qaeda every night, so let them tap my phones all they want to.’ And as long as this remains a genuine attempt to prevent another terrorist attack on the United States, I think the president is going to skate on this.

This is so obviously the common-sense political analysis you wonder why so many get it wrong. But Broder appears stuck in the 70’s:

MR. BRODER: But I want to go back for just one second to this issue that Kelly raised about the support for the president on the wire-tapping. I think that’s true up until the time that you get one court decision that says he’s broken the law. Because what we have seen in the past is that the American people will support a president as long as they think he is operating lawfully. If they can make this one claim stand up, that this is a lawful use of their authority as pr—his authority as president, I will be very surprised.

So Broder thinks as soon as a court rules it illegal, which he seems to indicate is only a matter of time, then he “will be very surprised” if the American people don’t turn on the President.

Well, David Broder should prepare himself for a surprise. For, as Senator Frist pointed out earlier in the program, and Byron York succinctly spelled out right front of him on the roundtable, there are multiple legal arguments for the President's actions.

MR. RUSSERT: What statute authorizes the president to do this?

SEN. FRIST:  The answer is the Constitution of the United States of America in a time of a war our commander in chief, he is given through resolution, through statute passed by the United States Congress to use force, to use force that he, in the same way he can use force to kill, to wipe out terrorists, he can listen in on al-Qaeda conversations, wherever they are, anywhere in the world. Under the Constitution as commander in chief, at a time of war, and the statute is the Resolution of Force that we passed in the bipartisan way on the floor of the United States Senate.

And from Byron York:

MR. YORK:  There was a case in 2002 by the FISA court of review, and rates the old case. It referred to an earlier case called Trong, and it said, “That court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. We take for granted that the president does have that authority.” So they have a legal basis for what they’re doing.

And if it is determined to be illegal, Roger Simon is exactly right on the politics, for as long as this program is being carefully scrutinized and is surveilling al-Qaeda suspects, the President has minimal political vulnerability. That doesn't mean the American people are "condoning breaking the law," because if the program is determined to be illegal the public will understand that this was not a clear violation of law, but rather a gray/disputed area and when it comes to gray/disputed areas and al-Qaeda -- the public's position is clear.

Broder’s analysis today was typical, widespread and wrong a month ago when this story first broke, but now many of his colleagues are grudgingly starting to realize this issue is not going to hurt the President politically.

It looks like David Broder still needs a little more time.

Posted by John McIntyre at 05:47 PM | Email Author | Permalink

There were some excellent pieces this week on the demise of Old Media and its implication on political discourse in this new media world. Hugh Hewitt has an insightful piece on Nicholas Lemann’s attempt to save the Columbia Journalism School (CSJ).

The story of what is going on at CSJ cannot be separated from the collapse of credibility of the mainstream media, also known as "elite media" and "old media" among its detractors. The fortunes of the big five papers--the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as the old TV networks and big weekly newsmagazines--are visibly in decline……

This story in its small way partakes of the seismic shift underway. Its origin is an email request from Lemann last spring: Would I be willing to be the subject of a New Yorker profile? I agreed, on the condition that I could have reciprocal access to Lemann and the Columbia Journalism School for this piece. Hedged with some qualifiers--he could not commit any of his faculty to talk to me or guarantee access to classrooms, though everyone proved to be very welcoming--Lemann agreed. Reactions to his profile of me varied among family and friends, but I thought it complete and fair. Before I sat down with Lemann I had read everything he'd written for the New Yorker and was impressed with his profiles of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. (The Cheney profile earned Lemann some animosity among colleagues, who thought him too gentle with the only man the left fears as much as Rove.) The scorn on the center-right for the "objectivity" and "professionalism" of the mainstream media is deep and sincere. I went to Columbia to see if Lemann was the exception that proves the rule, and to test the rule itself.

What's the rule? That the elite media are hopelessly biased to the left and so blind to their own deficiencies, or so in denial, that they cannot save themselves from irrelevance. They're like the cheater in the clubhouse, whose every mention of a great round of golf is met with rolling eyes and knowing nods……

Hewitt goes on at length detailing his two-day visit to the distinguished journalism school and closes with a not so optimistic assessment:

Every conversation with one of the old guard citing the old proof texts comes down to this point: There is too much expertise, all of it almost instantly available now, for the traditional idea of journalism to last much longer. In the past, almost every bit of information was difficult and expensive to acquire and was therefore mediated by journalists whom readers and viewers were usually in no position to second-guess. Authority has drained from journalism for a reason. Too many of its practitioners have been easily exposed as poseurs.

Lemann understands completely what has happened. I think he regrets it. He is certainly trying to salvage the situation. And there is simply no way he can succeed.

Thomas Lifson further examines the transformation in American media in his The Antique Media. Lifson explains how television and the evening news broadcast sealed the fate of the evening newspaper industry and details how the “The emergence of talk radio, cable television and especially the Internet “is having a similar effect on today’s Mainstream Media.

When Rush Limbaugh created modern talk radio, most cities of any size had at least two or three dozen radio stations. In search of a niche audience, radio stations were happy to latch on to the under-served market of conservative listeners. Rush demonstrated the concept when the FCC “fairness doctrine” was repealed, and stations could air a political view without having to offer free time to alternative views.

As television viewing options proliferated with the arrival of numerous cable networks, while the American electorate polarized further into liberal and conservative spheres, a huge market niche emerged, and was spotted by Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, undoubtedly cognizant of Rush Limbaugh’s enormous following....

The term for what Ailes and Murdoch accomplished is “market segmentation.” It is a phenomenon that regularly occurs in markets as they grow and mature. But so far, the other television news competitors are stuck in the old mode of thinking. It is a loser’s game, though they haven’t figured out that point quite yet…..The once dominant broadcast network news divisions are no longer mainstream, they are antique. Their assumptions and instincts are based on technologies and resulting market structures that no longer define the state of the art. But their antique character is far surpassed by that of the daily newspaper industry.

Newspapers, of course, are in a death spiral, a case I made almost two years ago. The expense, time, and resources consumed in leveling forests to put ink on paper and transport heavy newspapers to readers’ hands are simply not sustainable when news consumers can look at their computer screens and find far more printed information, far more usefully displayed, at much lower cost....

Internet websites like blogs are an even deeper challenge to the antique media than Fox News Channel was to the antique networks. There are no serious barriers to entry for bloggers. The capital requirements are low to non-existent, and global distribution takes place with no pesky distributors, longshoremen, retailers, or other encumbering interests in the way.

Some day a new industrial structure will emerge for the Internet-based media, but the shape and characteristics of that structure will remain unknowable for some time to come....

America’s media will never be the same. It will take a long time for antique practices to die out, but die out they will. The antique media are on their way out.

And then finally today Tom Bevan takes a look at the Los Angeles Times’ Joel Stein and the increasing impotence of the New York Times editorial page.

In what is becoming a fairly regular occurrence, this week turned out to be another bad week for big media.

On one coast, Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times wrote the sort of career-crippling column most writers dread – setting off a firestorm by saying he does not support U.S. troops – and managed to compound the offense by making his point with bad humor...

On the other coast, the New York Times spent its rapidly dwindling editorial capital trying to browbeat Senate Democrats into blocking a Supreme Court nominee who is unquestionably qualified for the job. No matter that this would entail the first filibuster of a majority supported nominee in the history of the country, or that according to the most recent Gallup poll Americans believe Alito should be confirmed by close to a 2-1 margin…

The veil of “objectivity” in the press has been pulled back over the last few years, and the result has been a massive shift in the media landscape. Audiences are more polarized, markets are more segmented, and news consumption is no longer a strictly passive enterprise. These trends are almost certain to continue, what is uncertain is how big media will deal with them.

Politically this trend is bad news for Democrats, as they continue to see their boost from media bias get reduced every year. George W. Bush would have almost certainly lost both the 2000 and 2004 elections had we been living in a 1980’s media world, as opposed to the 2000’s. So on one hand Dems are losing an asset they had come to rely on, and on the other, the explosion of the Internet has empowered the far left in the Democratic Party which in turn pushes the party to left and reinforces its minority status.

Posted by John McIntyre at 03:36 PM | Email Author | Permalink

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said on Friday he and fellow Democrats lack the votes to block President George W. Bush's nomination of conservative appeals judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Everyone knows there is not enough votes to support a filibuster," Reid said, referring to the procedural roadblock that some Democrats said should be used to put off a vote on Alito.....

Democratic Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, publicly pushed for a filibuster on Thursday, drawing scorn and ridicule from Republicans and opposition from some of their own colleagues.

Kerry, who unsuccessfully challenged Bush for the White House in 2004, made his pitch for a filibuster while overseas for a world economic forum.

"I think it was a historic day yesterday," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "It was the first ever call for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland....

Posted by John McIntyre at 12:10 PM | Email Author | Permalink

The Los Angeles Times does not have a reputation for producing poll results that tend to favor President Bush. And indeed, their new poll does have plenty of bad news for the president, especially when you look at how self-described independents respond to various questions about his handling of a whole host of issues. Bush has clearly lost a decent amount of support from this group over time, and I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone.

However, the most interesting results are found when you look at how these same self-described independents respond to questions about national security and about Congress. Here are a few examples:

> When asked who they "trust to do a better job of protecting the nation against terrorism"  Independents favored Bush over Democrats in Congress by 19 points.

> When asked whether they agree with those seeking to reauthorize the Patriot Act, 55% of Independents said they agree with reauthorization, 42% said they disagree.

> When asked whether people "should be willing to give up some of their civil liberties so the government can keep the country safe from terrorism", 50% of Independents responded "yes" while 43% said "no."

> 54% of Independents think hearings should be held to investigate the NSA program, but only 41% think impeachment would be warranted if those investigations concluded the President broke the law (that number is 39% overall).

> Independents give Congress nearly as low of a job approval ratings as self-described Democrats do, 32% vs 30% respectively, but when asked about favorable and unfavorable ratings for the two parties, Independents give Congressional Democrats a only a 31% favorable rating (41% unfavorable) while they give Congressional Republicans a 38% favorable rating (34% unfavorable).

> When asked which party in Congress had "higher ethical standards," Independents gave both parties low marks (Republicans 8%, Democrats 5%) with 79% concluding there is "no difference" between the two. That was 11 points higher than overall.

To summarize, based on the results of this poll (and keep in mind it is only a single poll, though it does comport with other data we've seen recently) Independents aren't thrilled with President Bush and they don't have particularly warm feelings toward Republicans in Congress. However, they seem to have an even lower regard for Congressional Democrats and, even worse, they seem to continue to lack confidence in the Democratic party on matters of national security.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:51 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Duane at RadioBlogger has the transcript of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Karl Rove.

On NSA surveillance:

Hewitt: I'm great. Now Karl, we don't have a lot of time, so I want to focus immediately on the NSA program, which was a part of a speech you gave last Friday, and which was the focus of a lot of the questions of the president's press conference this morning. And the white paper from the Department of Justice is out there, and Democrats are not buying it, or at least they're pretending not to buy it. Why so much resistance to surveilling al Qaeda operatives contacting their agents in the United States from the Democratic Party?

Rove: Well, you'll have to ask them. I don't understand it, frankly. I think that any American, if they take their partisan hat off, would say that in a time of war, after we've been struck on our homeland, that the President of the United States, if he has the ability to have the appropriate agencies, with Constitutional restraints, and respect for personal liberties of Americans who might unintentionally get sort of swept up in it, if a phone call comes from a bad guy in some bad part of the world to somebody here in the United States, we want to know who they're contacting and what they're saying. And I frankly don't understand what the objection is. Look, under far less terrible circumstances in the 90's, the previous administration used warrantless surveillance in the United States. And this president, particularly after it was struck on 9/11, had a responsibility to do everything possible as commander-in-chief, and after the declaration by Congress to protect the country. And that's exactly what he's doing.

On the Patriot Act:

Hewitt: Karl Rove, will the president accept another short-term extension of the Patriot Act?

Rove: Well, we will do whatever is necessary to keep this on the books. It may be necessary for us to have another short-term extension, in order to sort of work out any last-minute kinks in order to get it reauthorized on a permanent basis. But our goal is...I mean, look. Law enforcement uses the tools of the Patriot Act routinely in the pursuit of other criminal enterprises. Roving wiretaps, for example, are used to get drug dealers. We use search of business records in order to get at Medicaid fraud. We use other tools in the Act in order to get at organized crime. You know, the view of this administration is if these tools are good enough to crack down on drug dealers, you know, white collar crime, and organized crime like The Sopranos, it's good enough to be used against terrorists who are striking at the heart of our country, and killed 3,000 people on 9/11. We cannot let our memories fade of that terrible moment, that terrible morning, bright September morning, when aircraft struck our country, and when al Qaeda declared its intention to drive America back in on itself. And we will only leave a world that is less peaceful and less hopeful for our kids if we falter in this fight.

On illegal immigration:

Hewitt: Last question, a political one, a time bomb, really, for the Republican Party concerns the border. The House of Representatives passed an act at the end of last year. It hasn't yet come up in the Senate. What is your advice to the Senate about the House's decision to crack down on the border and build the fence?

Rove: Well, we support the border security initiative. We are a little bit concerned about the fence. I mean, look. There are now parts of the border, particularly in urban areas, where a fence is necessary and helpful. Frankly, building a fence along a 400 mile part of the Texas border that is high cliffs along the Rio Grande River is probably not the best expenditure of our money. We like to think of the concept of a virtual fence, where we use a combination of fences, barriers at critical points, sensors and technology to in essence strengthen the border. And I'm confident that the Senate is going to take this up. I know this is a strong concern to Senator Frist, the Senate Republican leader. I think the Senate is likely to tackle the issue in a more comprehensive fashion, and not only look at border security, but also look at the issue of a guest worker program as a way to relieve the pressure on our border, so that whatever technology and manpower and resources we've got on the border are concentrated on the border, with fewer people trying to come across because we have got a program to match willing worker with willing employer for jobs that Americans won't do. But we'll see. They're going to try and take this up, I think, in March. We're doing a lot more on the border.

Hewitt: When people say guest worker means amnesty, what's your response.

Rove: That it doesn't, because what we do is require people to come here to the United States, if they want to come here to the United States, they've got to apply. They've got to be matched up with a job. They can stay here for a certain number of years to work, three years or four years. They might be able to renew that for one time. Look, most people who come here, every bit of evidence that we've got, is that most people who come here don't come here with the expectation that they're going to spend the rest of their life in the United States. They come here in order to get together a grub steak, and go home and support their family. For example, the average capitalization of a business in Mexico is $5,000. Most, particularly younger workers who come here, they're hope and expectation is I'm going to be able to put together a couple of thousand dollars, and maybe go back and buy some land, or buy a tractor that we can use on the land my family owns, or I'll buy the little gas station at the corner, or I'll open up a shop, or I'll gain a skill to make it in life. But we are so good at once they get here, making it difficult for them to go home, that they lose all connections with their home community or home nation. And after ten years of being here in the underground economy, they wake up and way you know what? It doesn't matter to me anymore. I have no connection. What we need to do is have a program where we have rigorous defense of the borders, but workers who come here are allowed to travel back and forth across the border freely, so they can keep those connections, build that little nest egg, and go home. And you know, our economy depends upon immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants. We're an economy that benefits when smart people and bright people and energetic people come here. And we've got to find the right mix in order to keep that balance.

Read the entire transcript here. (Audio)

Posted by John McIntyre at 08:32 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Since last November, conventional wisdom has favored Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race.  While some rushed to call her presidency inevitable, most assumed that she would at least have a lock on the Democratic nomination.

One common theme has been to compare Senator Clinton with President Clinton. Trying to explain the "schizophrenia" in some of Hillary's rhetoric, Andrew Sullivan writes:

"She's following her husband's old gamble: triangulate, triangulate. But Bill triangulated once he'd become president. Hillary is triangulating while trying to win over her party's left-wing base and more moderate voters. That is proving the tough part."

Arguing that Clinton's careful triangulation took a bad turn on MLK Day, John McIntyre says the speech "showed the nasty, very partisan side of Senator Clinton, and it raises the question of whether Hillary will ever be able to outrun the first impression she formed with the American public in the early ’90’s."

On the other hand, Dafydd ab Hugh thinks that the challenge to Hillary will come from the left:

"I strongly believe that the least likely result will be to nominate the queen to the king of "triangulation," which most Democrats now see as "Billery Clinton gets the White House, and we get the shaft."

John Avlon says Bill vs. Hillary is like "The Natural vs. The Professional" and says Hillary's problem is "not political, it is personal."

Arianna Huffington adds her voice in taking on the "Hillary CW" and concludes, "Democrats looking to win back the White House had better start offering their 'Reasons Why Not.'"

Still others believe that the Democrats need a fresh face for 2008.  Jim Geraghty wonders whether "Americans will simply be tired of" the Clintons, and Josh Marshall explains that he thinks the idea of "political dynasticism" is going overlooked by those who think Clinton can win:

"George H. W. Bush left office to be followed by two terms of Bill Clinton. He in turn was followed by two terms of Bush's son. If those two terms of the son are followed by the election of Clinton's wife, I don't see where that's a good thing for this country. It ceases to be a fluke and grows into a pattern. It's dynasticism."

As if adding a final piece to the puzzle, a new Gallup poll confirms much of the newfound skepticism of Clinton's 2008 bid.  In the poll a full 51% say they will "definitely not vote for" Clinton, while only 16% say they will "definitely vote for" her.  "According to many Democratic Party insiders, such numbers are adding to skittishness about Mrs. Clinton's potential candidacy," reports Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun.

Posted by Nick Nordseth at 05:10 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Kerry’s push for a filibuster is all about internal Democratic politics and the ’08 election. And it is smart politics for Kerry.

Sen. Kerry in all likelihood is finished at the national level in terms of another presidential run. But Kerry certainly doesn’t believe that, and this is all about trying to put his name out there as the leader who represents the nominating base of the party.

While Kerry has zero chances of beating Hillary in a fight for the nomination, say the unlikely happens and Sen. Clinton doesn’t run, then suddenly Kerry is back in the game and he has probably made a lot of hard core Democrats happy this afternoon.

Posted by John McIntyre at 04:00 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Senator Tim Johnson came out earlier today saying he will vote to confirm Alito, making him the second Democrat to publicly support confirmation.

The NY Times' opinion page knows Alito's confirmation is a done deal as well, but that doesn't stop them from taking one final pathetic swing:

Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

On a related note, John Nichols writes in The Capital Times that Russ Feingold's vote against Alito is of special significance:

Simply put, if Alito is unacceptable to Feingold, then he should be unacceptable to a good many other senators including moderate Republicans with whom Feingold has worked closely on campaign finance reform and a host of other issues over the years, such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

Why give this special status to Feingold? Because, since his arrival in the Senate in 1993, he has distinguished himself by his consistent if often controversial approach to presidential nominations. [snip]

The fact that Alito is the first high court nominee to fail to meet the Feingold standard is significant. And, as the senator explained to the committee Tuesday, it was not a close call.

I think Nichols has a point: Feingold's vote does deserve a bit of extra consideration precisely because he has demonstrated independence in the past voting for people like John Ashcroft and John Roberts.

But Nichols' column really helps illuminate what a strategic blunder it was for 22 Democrats to vote against John Roberts.  There was simply no legitimate or tactical reason to vote against such a reasonable, well-qualified nominee other than to appease the left-wing interest groups. 

I'm not saying that if all 44 Democrats had voted for Roberts it would have necessarily changed the outcome with the Alito, but Democrats would have a more credible case to make to the public against Alito if they hadn't reacted to Roberts with such knee-jerk partisanship.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 12:55 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Not in Congress, but at the U.S.-Mexico border:

Six additional current and former U.S. soldiers and law enforcement officials and two civilians have agreed to plead guilty to participating in a widespread bribery and extortion conspiracy which operated from January 2002 through March 2004, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.

The charges arise from Operation Lively Green, an undercover investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that began in December 2001. Forty defendants have already pleaded guilty in this ongoing prosecution and will be sentenced on Feb. 22, March 24, April 24, and June 12.

There's also this story about a Border Patrol agent indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury after being caught on video tape taking a 23-pound bale of marijuana out of a smuggler's truck while another agent chased the perps through the desert.

We have thousands and thousands of agents who perform the important and dangerous job of manning our southern border every day with honor and integrity. It's too bad there are a number of agents who don't take that obligation seriously.

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

I will be on the Mike Rosen Show in Denver 10:00, 12:00 est.

Listen here live.

Posted by John McIntyre at 10:33 AM | Email Author | Permalink

An email from a reader in Israel:

There may actually be much to be gained by Hamas' victory in yesterday's elections in the Palestine Authority (PA).  The Palestinian people participated in democracy; exercised their right to vote; voiced an opinion; and opted for a political party, Hamas.  And they will get what they voted for.
 
On a positive note, there probably will be less corruption.  (Fatah, the party of Arafat and hitherto the dominant party within the PA was corrupt to its core).  And for those who favor confrontation with Israel and the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians (i.e. "terror"), if Hamas is consistent to its history and its platform, they will get this confrontation.
 
On the negative side of the ledger, Hamas will enact new limits on liberty, as it moves, however slowly, to its goal of a theocratic society.  Moreover, assuming the US and the EU are true to their word, then much less funding will be available (unless Hamas should change its charter, and its character).  Foreign investment will disappear.  The Palestinian economy will suffer accordingly.
 
Internationally, support for the Palestinian cause will suffer.  We see that even today, in the annoucements (nothing less than remarkable) of European leaders, including French Prime Minister de Villepin, who conditioned France's support on a change in Hamas' charter.  And Hamas' announcements shows no indication of being remotely interested in such a change.
 
Furthermore, the "confrontation" with Israel may be an unproductive one, to put it mildly.  Israel's defensive barrier is largely built, and is effective.  Israel's intelligence with