WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Violence in Gaza continued for a fifth straight day, after talks broke down for a possible cease-fire.

* U.S. markets ended the year on an up note, after a disastrous year in which six years of gains were lost.

* Roland Burris and his staff are now referring to him as "Senator Burris." He says he plans to attend the chamber's swearing-in ceremony next week.

* Burris was, apparently, Blagojevich's second choice -- Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) turned the governor down last week.

* Speaking of Blagojevich, Patrick Fitzgerald wants an additional 90 days to bring an indictment against the governor.

* The Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging a new state law that bans unmarried couples that live together from becoming foster or adoptive parents.

* One of the main problems with the Republicans on the Federal Election Commission is that they don't seem interested in enforcing the law.

* Remember Vikki Iseman? She's suing the New York Times for $27 million.

* I'm sorry to see the Village Voice let go of Nat Hentoff.

* California's budget problems are pretty extraordinary -- and not in a good way.

* I enjoyed Andrew Golis' year-end piece: "The Ten Young Progressive Intellectuals Who Make Me Hopeful."

* Ed Kilgore has a good piece of his own, highlighting various political memes that became conventional wisdom, but which turned out to be completely wrong.

* Congratulations to James Joyner on the birth of his daughter.

* And finally, don't forget that tonight, we gain an extra second. Set your clocks accordingly.

Anything to add? Consider this the very last open thread of 2008.

—Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

GRIFFIN STILL HAS TO GO.... I've heard about plenty of behind-the-scenes lobbying for officials looking for top administration jobs, but this is just creepy.

Late on Christmas Eve, one last wish was sent, by e-mail: Please let NASA Administrator Michael Griffin keep his job. It was from his wife.

Rebecca Griffin, who works in marketing, sent her message with the subject line "Campaign for Mike" to friends and family. It asked them to sign an online petition to President-elect Barack Obama "to consider keeping Mike Griffin on as NASA Administrator."

She wrote, "Yes, once again I am embarrassing my husband by reaching out to our friends and 'imposing' on them.... And if this is inappropriate, I'm sorry."

The petition drive, which said the President George W. Bush appointee "has brought a sense of order and purpose to the U.S. space agency," was organized by Scott "Doc" Horowitz of Park City, Utah, an ex-astronaut and former NASA associate administrator.

A cash-strapped NASA last week also sent -- by priority mail costing $6.75 a package -- copies of a new NASA book called "Leadership in Space: Selected Speeches of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, May 2005-October 2008."

Seriously? "Selected speeches"?

Without any lobbying effort at all, Griffin's chances of keeping his job would be minimal, but this campaign on his behalf is a little unseemly.

The truth is, Griffin has no realistic shot. More than anyone else in the Bush administration, he's been surprisingly uncooperative with the Obama transition team, obstinacy that's unlikely to be rewarded. It also doesn't help that Griffin isn't sure if global warming is real, and believes we should ignore the crisis, even if the evidence is accurate.

But the lobbying campaign should seal the deal.

Former NASA Deputy Administrator Hans Mark, who recommended Griffin to the Bush administration, said Griffin and his friends are handling this wrong.

"Mike ought to play it the way (retained Defense Secretary) Bob Gates is playing it, which is to shut up," Mark said.

—Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

THE POINT OF PUNDITS.... Ezra Klein had an interesting item yesterday on the role political pundits play on television.

Political scientists have studied pundit predictions and found them to be, on the overall, inaccurate. Indeed, the effect gets stronger as the pundit becomes more popular: "the better known the pundit, the less accurate his or her forecasts."

But all this suggests that political punditry has something to do with accuracy. It doesn't. It's entertainment. Just like people who like sports want to be able to watch TV shows about sports and people who like women in bikinis want to be able to watch TV shows about women in bikinis, people who like politics want to be able to watch TV shows about politics. The pundits exist to fill that need. Their role is to make those shows entertaining, so the shows have good ratings, so they can sell time for advertisers, so they can make a profit for networks.

That sounds about right. On-air pundits who are always wrong, but also always entertaining, will have lengthy and lucrative careers. That's the reality of the business.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

The way I see it, in a perfect world, political pundits on television would be the on-air equivalents of newspaper columnists. Just as a newspaper has beat reporters to report on events or launch investigations, it also has columnists to help "make sense of it all," not only informing an audience, but giving readers a sense of context and perspective.

Pundits, at least in theory, serve a similar role. Networks have anchors, reporters, and correspondents to tell the viewing audience what happened, and then have pundits to offer insights. These are folks who've looked at the same story the audience has, but they've thought of angles the audience hasn't considered, adding depth to our understanding of the news.

When this dynamic works, pundits' expertise is worth seeking out. When I watch Rachel Maddow or Paul Krugman give their takes on politics, I feel like I'm actually learning something, which is rare when it comes to television news.

Which is why it bugs me that there are no consequences for pundits who are consistently misguided. Using Ezra's analogy, imagine a sports commentator whose predictions are always wrong, whose rumors never pan out, and whose observations aren't based on reality. After a while, one would hope, the audience would stop taking that commentator seriously, and he/she would go away.

But that rarely happens with political pundits. It's annoying.

—Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

THE YEAR'S WORST AMERICANS.... The Guardian's Michael Tomasky pulled together the Tomasky List of the 19 Worst Americans of 2008, and it's quite a collection.

John Edwards makes the list at #16, in recognition of his awful judgment; Geraldine Ferraro comes in at #14 for her frequently-obnoxious campaign surrogacy; and the EPA's Stephen Johnson finished at #13 for his shameless on-the-job performance.

In the top 10, Eliot Spitzer probably deserves his rank at #9; Dick Cheney came in at #8 ("just because," Tomasky explained); and Joe Lieberman is obviously a fine choice at #6. The top five is very hard to disagree with: Michelle Bachmann, with the "single most appalling political statement of the year," was #5, followed by Rod Blagojevich at #4 for fairly obvious reasons.

George W. Bush was third, followed by Sarah Palin for having "perfectly embodied everything that is malign about my country: the proto-fascist nativism, the know-nothingism, the utterly cavalier lack of knowledge about the actual principles on which the country was founded." Taking the top spot was Bernard Madoff, thanks to his $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

I love Tomasky's list, but I'd just add a few more names for consideration:

* Rudy Giuliani -- His campaign hackery, before and after his own candidacy, continues to offend. His convention speech, accusing Obama of being "cosmopolitan," was so painfully stupid, it's hard to forget.

* Bill Kristol -- Dollar for dollar, the worst newspaper columnist in America was a constant source of predictable drivel and misguided predictions.

* Phil Gramm -- Not only did Gramm's policies help create the financial nightmare, but he mocked Americans' pain, calling us a "nation of whiners." That he was a leading candidate to be the Treasury Secretary in McCain's administration continues to send shivers down my spine.

* Paul Broun -- The Republican congressman from Georgia argued, publicly and on the record, that Barack Obama reminded him of Adolf Hitler. Bachmann's McCarthyism was "single most appalling political statement of the year," but Broun's insanity was second.

* And I think Ashley Todd probably belongs in the mix of the year's worst Americans. Her self-mutilation/racist/sexual-assault story was the year's most offensive stunt.

Are we forgetting anyone?

—Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (82)

THERE IS NO BULL CONNOR IN THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.... One can make a reasonable case that Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate should go through, Rod Blagojevich's scandal notwithstanding. But this is the wrong way to make the argument.

In an interview this morning on the CBS "Early Show," Rep. Bobby Rush compared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's refusal to seat Roland Burris with the actions of leading segregationists from decades past, including George Wallace and Bull Connor.

Seriously, he did. Rush specifically said, "[T]he recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where school children -- where you have officials standing in the doorway of school children. You know, I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connors and I'm sure that the U.S. Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position."

Burris himself appeared on NBC's "Today" this morning, and raised the same point, though in a more passive way: "Is it racism that is taking place? That's a question that someone may raise."

This strategy is a mistake. Blagojevich almost certainly considered Burris' race before making his announcement, but there's no evidence at all that Senate Democrats or Barack Obama are basing their opposition on anything but the governor's corruption allegations. The comparison of modern-day Senate Democrats to George Wallace and Bull Connor is baseless and irresponsible. For Burris to even raise the possibility that racism is a factor here isn't much better.

Strategically, a race-based strategy isn't just offensive, it's likely to be counter-productive. I seriously doubt Harry Reid is going to respond well to these kinds of accusations, especially when Reid has Barack Obama taking the same position.

Burris and his supporters who want to see him fill the vacancy have a far better option: emphasize the rule of law. Remind the political world, Illinois voters, and reporters that, like him or not, Blagojevich is the duly-elected governor, he has the sole authority to fill this vacancy, and he enjoys the presumption of innocence. Burris is unrelated to the governor's scandal, and he's fully qualified and eligible to serve. The Supreme Court precedent in the Powell case seems to back them up.

What's that old law-school adage? "When you have the facts, argue the facts. When you have the law, argue the law." My advice to Burris and his surrogates: skip the Bull Connor nonsense and go with the more compelling argument.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (92)

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* The race for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee was crowded enough, but Florida GOP Chair Jim Greer is apparently prepared to throw his hat into the ring.

* Rep. Diana DeGette (D) was a leading contender to fill Colorado's vacancy in the U.S. Senate, but she withdrew from consideration yesterday.

* Kevin Sheekey, a top deputy to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has been an enthusiastic supporter of Caroline Kennedy filling the vacancy left by Hillary Clinton, but he's reportedly pulling back now.

* Al Franken believes he's "on track to win" in Minnesota.

* There's been some talk about seating Franken before Norm Coleman's lawsuits have been completed, but NRSC chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) denounced the idea yesterday and vowed to fight any such move.

* In the meantime, Coleman's efforts are becoming increasingly silly, while a growing number of conservatives are coming to terms with the fact that a Franken victory is very likely.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

INDISCRETIONS.... Mike Barnicle had an interesting comment this week on the modern media scrutiny that might discourage people from pursuing a career in politics.

Something has happened slowly of the course of 25-30 years to diminish the industry, if you will, of politics. It's no longer the profession that it used to be. You'd have to be out of your mind to run for public office today. Say you're 32, 35 years of age. Say you were fortunate, you lucked out, you made a little money, or maybe not, but you have this great interest in public service. You want to be able to get a fire hydrant or a crosswalk, or a little league field in your neighborhood. So you run for City Council or State Rep., you know, but then two or three months over the course of your campaign or maybe after you win, someone like me, or someone like you, is going to come knock at your door, and say "James, we heard you smoked a joint when you were 19 years of age down at Duke University. Can you explain that?" And instead of having the wherewithal to tell people like us, "Hey, go f**k yourself, it's none of your business," you know, these poor people stand there and get hounded by us.

So I've got to assume there are a lot of other people out there with reasonable IQs who say, "I don't want any part of that. I don't want my kids reading about me in the front page of the paper that I smoked a joint when I was at Duke University. What has that got to do with anything?"

Thinking back to the 1987 failure of Douglas Ginsburg's nomination to the Supreme Court, Barnicle's observation makes some sense, but I think the political world has matured considerably in the ensuing 20 years.

My impression is that voters simply no longer care, and as a result, there's little incentive for media outlets to pursue these "controversies." Indeed, if and when reporters pursue this, the public tends to collectively roll their eyes. As Jason Zengerle noted, Barack Obama admitted teenaged drug use and it "didn't bring him any grief from reporters," or voters, for that matter.

There's a line for personal indiscretions that's often hard to identify, but it doesn't seem to apply to decisions from one's youth. People out there with reasonable IQs with a great interest in public service should rest easy -- no one cares what they did in college.

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

GONZALES FEELS SORRY FOR HIMSELF.... Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left office in disgrace 16 months ago, and has kept a low profile since. His reputation has not improved in the interim -- Gonzales has struggled to find a law firm willing to hire him -- but at least he hasn't said or done anything ridiculous since his departure from public life.

Gonzales, however, is apparently interested in some kind of comeback. The former A.G. is writing a book about his tenure in the Bush administration and chatted with the Wall Street Journal about how mean everyone has been to him.

"What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?" he said during an interview Tuesday, offering his most extensive comments since leaving government.

During a lunch meeting two blocks from the White House, where he served under his longtime friend, President George W. Bush, Mr. Gonzales said that "for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."

Is Gonzales really that confused about what he did that was "so fundamentally wrong"? I suppose he proved during multiple congressional hearings that his memory is similar to that of someone who's suffered serious head trauma, but Gonzales' list of scandals is hard to forget.

Just off the top of my head, there was the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, Gonzales signing torture memos, his conduct in John Ashcroft's hospital room, his oversight of a Justice Department that was engaged in widespread employment discrimination, and his gutting of the DoJ's Civil Rights Division. Gonzales was even investigated by the department's Inspector General on allegations of perjury and obstruction.

On warrantless-searches, the Military Commissions Act, policy on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales was a disaster. On managing the Justice Department, he filled his staff with Pat Robertson acolytes, feigned ignorance while structural disasters unfolded, and showed shocking tolerance for corruption and politicization of a department that, for the benefit of the nation and the rule of law, needed to maintain independence.

Andrew Cohen, the editor and chief legal analyst for CBS News, wrote a primer last year that Gonzales may want to reference to help refresh his memory.

By any reasonable standard, the Gonzales Era at the Justice Department is void of almost all redemptive qualities. He brought shame and disgrace to the Department because of his lack of independent judgment on some of the most vital legal issues of our time. And he brought chaos and confusion to the department because of his lack of respectable leadership over a cabinet-level department among the most important in the nation.

He neither served the longstanding role as "the people's attorney" nor fully met and tamed his duties and responsibilities to the constitution. He was a man who got the job not because he was supremely qualified or notably well-respected among the leading legal lights of our time, but because he had faithfully and with blind obedience served President George W. Bush for years in Texas (where he botched clemency memos in death penalty cases) and then as White House counsel (where he botched the nation's legal policy on torture).

That Gonzales feels sorry for himself now seems somehow predictable, but that doesn't make it any less pathetic.

—Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (71)

SHOULD THE SENATE REJECT BURRIS?.... OK, so there's quite a bit of disagreement over whether the Senate has the authority to reject Roland Burris' Senate appointment based on concerns over Rod Blagojevich. But at least there's widespread agreement that Senate Democrats are doing the right thing by taking a stand and rejecting Blagojevich's efforts.

Or, on second thought, maybe there isn't.

At first blush, it seems like a no-brainer. Senate Dems have forcefully opposed Blagojevich, so it stands to reason they would stand up for an ethical process and reject Blagojevich's stunt, Burris' qualifications and record notwithstanding. It's about propriety.

But there's also a flip side. Brian Beutler, who's slammed Blagojevich's corruption repeatedly, argued last night that Barack Obama and Senate Democrats are "doing the wrong thing" by refusing to accept Burris' appointment.

Politically, then, the question is: Would it really look SO bad for Dems to say something like "While we regret that Gov. Blagojevich flouted the will of Senate Democrats, we are chastened by the fact that he's selected a decorated public servant who has no ties to the scandal hanging over the Illinois statehouse. We assume Roland Burris will serve his constituents well, and, if he fails, voters will have the final say in two years."? I don't really think it would. [...]

It's worth pointing out though, that Blago's still an innocent man and as long as he's governor, filling that seat is his prerogative. It would be a much different story if he'd gone ahead and selected somebody widely believed to have entertained the notion of buying the seat. But that's not what happened.

Similarly, John Cole, said he "fundamentally disagrees" with the Democrats' position on this.

We are a nation of rules, after all. How about we follow them rather than creating all this damned drama? Blagojevich will have his day in court, but for now he is legally the governor, he is legally carrying out his duties, and unless and until the Democrats grab the stones to get rid of him, they should suck it up and deal with his pick.

John added, "If Burris is clean and a good pick otherwise, seat him."

I'm hesitant, but I'll concede there's a reasonable argument here. Blagojevich is the duly-elected governor, whether he should be or not. He has the legal authority and responsibility to fill the vacancy, whether he should exercise it or not. He enjoys the presumption of innocence, whether he looks guilty or not. Burris, meanwhile, is not only unrelated to the governor's scandal, but is also otherwise qualified. He would always be known as "Blagojevich's man in the Senate," and there may be a permanent cloud over his office, but that's Burris' problem. If he's willing to accept that burden, that's his decision to make.

Come January, not only will Illinois need both senators, but Democrats in the chamber will need a full caucus to deal with Republican obstructionism in a time of crisis.

It's probably too late for Democratic leaders to change their position, but the notion of accepting this appointment is arguably not as outrageous as it might seem at first glance.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

CAN THE SENATE REJECT BURRIS?.... We know that Rod Blagojevich, corruption allegations notwithstanding, has the legal authority to fill the state's vacant U.S. Senate seat. Whether the Senate has the legal authority to reject his choice is far less clear.

The fact that no one seems sure makes a court fight a virtual certainty, but it's a fascinating question to ponder -- can the Senate reject a fully qualified appointee based on concerns over the appointor? The Senate leadership clearly believes it can.

The senators pointed to a provision in the Constitution that states: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." [...]

The Supreme Court has said the Senate and House cannot refuse to seat new members who meet all qualifications for office. In 1969, it rebuked the House for refusing to seat Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., a Democrat from New York who was reelected despite being accused of ethical lapses.

The constitutional standard for House and Senate "is identical," the court said, but it did not consider whether an appointed senator has different standing than one who is elected.

Of course, in Powell's case, there were allegations against him personally, while Burris hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing. With Powell, the court ruled that if Congress didn't want him to serve, lawmakers had to accept his election and then hold an expulsion vote, which they did. But it would be far trickier to follow a similar course with Burris -- letting him take the oath of office and then expelling him on the basis of Blagojevich's conduct would be, for lack of a better word, problematic.

There's no shortage of opinions, but I've noticed more than a few credible experts who believe the Senate cannot legally reject Burris. Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional law expert at Yale Law School, said, "[T]he fact of the matter is the governor of Illinois is acting under his lawful authority as the governor of Illinois.... It's quite a different thing to say that the lawful governor of a state cannot make an appointment because they don't like what they've heard about him."

Sam Stein spoke to another legal scholar who concluded that the Senate doesn't have a choice here: "Burris has met all of those qualifications: he's over 30, been a US citizen for 9 years, he's an Illinois resident; he was appointed by the executive authority of the state to fill a vacancy, pursuant to Illinois law."

The AP did some research and came to the exact opposite conclusion, insisting that the Senate "has final say over whether a governor's pick should be allowed to serve in the Senate."

There is a possible way out that might sidestep a legal mess. The WaPo noted that the appointment could be referred to the Senate Rules Committee for an investigation. While that was ongoing, state lawmakers could impeach Blagojevich. Robert Walker, the former chief counsel of the Senate ethics committee, said, "The Senate, basically as a practical matter, is going to do what it wants to do."

We'll see.

—Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF A POLITICAL SOAP OPERA.... As absurd as the Rod Blagojevich scandal has been, there appeared to be a light at the end of the tunnel. The state legislature would impeach the governor, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) would assume the office, and a legitimate senator would fill the state's vacancy. Quinn noted that he believed the process would be complete by early-February.

But, no. As we saw yesterday, Roland Burris seems awfully pleased by the prospect of joining the U.S. Senate, and Blagojevich is just tickled by his ability to stick his thumb in the political world's eye.

Anxious to inject a racial element to the developments, Rep. Bobby Rush (D) of Chicago said yesterday that he does not believe any senator "wants to go on record to deny one African American from being seated in the U.S. Senate." But senators are going to get some cover from the African-American president -- Barack Obama issued a statement siding with his Senate Democrats in their decision to reject Blagojevich appointees:

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy."

Illinois' Dick Durbin, the #2 Democrat in the Senate, also didn't seem especially worried about appearances, saying Blagojevich's effort "will lead nowhere."

For his part, during an odd MSNBC interview, Burris believes we'll see "a major outcry from the people of Illinois" if the Senate rejects his appointment. I have no idea what leads Burris to believe this, but I suspect senators aren't going to care.

And what about Jesse White, the Illinois secretary of state, who said he would refuse to sign Blagojevich paperwork on the appointment? That's unlikely to matter -- the NYT noted, "[A]fter Mr. White's lawyers scanned the legal precedents on the question, there appeared to be no statutory requirement that Mr. White's signature be included, his spokesman said, so the move seemed likely to be mostly symbolic."

Moving forward, there are plenty of questions, but two of the key issues are a) whether the Senate can block Burris' appointment; and b) whether the Senate should block his appointment. I'll be tackling both shortly.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Israel is considering a temporary cease-fire in Gaza. Should Hamas rocket fire disrupt a cease-fire, Israel is threatening a ground offensive.

* Consumer confidence reached an all-time low this month, hitting depths unseen since the Conference Board began keeping track 41 years ago. Nevertheless, the major indexes rallied today, each closing up more than 2%.

* If you missed the wild Blagojevich press conference today, it's online.

* On a related note, the U.S. Senate isn't the embattled governor's only hurdle to filling the Senate vacancy -- Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White said today he won't certify Blagojevich's paperwork.

* Also on this story, Jeff Greenfield considers whether the Senate really does have the authority to refuse a legally-appointed U.S. senator.

* The Treasury Department is committing $6 billion to bolster GMAC.

* The International Monetary Fund's top economist believes Obama's approach to economic recovery is the right one.

* Muntazer al-Zaidi, the shoe thrower, is facing up to 15 years in prison. (Update: The trial has been delayed.)

* Naturally, John Bolton looks at the violence in Gaza and believes this is an ideal time for the U.S. to attack Iran.

* Kevin makes a good point about why Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina ruined his presidency.

* Kudos to John Judis for sticking up for Spencer Ackerman, after Martin Peretz described Ackerman's articles as "trash."

* Dennis Prager is back with more sexual advice for married women everywhere. I'm beginning to think there really may be something wrong with that guy.

* Are taxpayers on the hook for Bernard Madoff losses?

* Like Zbigniew Brzezinski, I've long believed that Joe Scarborough has "such a stunningly superficial knowledge" of current events that "it's almost embarrassing to listen" to him.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH.... I've long believed one of the central problems with Sarah Palin, as a candidate for national office, wasn't just her breathtaking disinterest in matters of public policy, but also her similarities to a certain someone who had a comparable distaste for substance, veracity, and details.

Larry Wilkerson, a top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld promoted the notion they were a national security "dream team" to guide the foreign-policy amateur Bush.

"It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin-like President -- because, let's face it, that's what he was -- was going to be protected by this national security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire," said Wilkerson.

Given Wilkerson description, Spencer Ackerman asks, "Is comparing Bush to Sarah Palin more insulting to Bush or to Palin?"

Yglesias seems to believe this isn't even a contest: "Palin's something of a laughingstock, but Bush is a villain. I mean, he wrecked the world economy, he led to millions of Iraqis being forced to flee their homes, he's a total disaster and a disgrace. Palin gave bad answers in TV interviews. There's no real comparison."

I suppose that's right. When it comes to consequences, Bush's presidency has been a nightmare, while Palin was merely a humiliating addition to the national Republican ticket.

But if we put aside the question of corollaries and consider Bush's and Palin's characteristics as politicians and would-be leaders, the comparison isn't too far-fetched. Both were out of their depth seeking national office, both are strikingly uninformed, both suffer from an eerie misguided confidence, and both seem to consider policy details as minor annoyances to be ignored.

Sure, Palin wasn't able to do serious national (and international) damage, but isn't it fair to say both she and Bush are cut from the same cloth?

—Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

CIRCUS.... I hope I wasn't the only one who watched the Blagojevich/Burris press conference rather gobsmacked. The controversy surrounding Blagojevich was surreal enough before today, but this afternoon's leak, followed by a bizarre press conference, has moved this story from bizarre to farcical.

Blagojevich introduced Burris, Burris offered some boilerplate rhetoric, and largely pretended that the man standing next to him is not scandal-plagued at all. Blagojevich emphasized a few times that the people of Illinois deserve two senators, so he had no choice but to make this decision.

The Q&A portion was a mess, and after several questions, Burris noticed that Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) was in the room. Burris, unexpectedly, invited Rush to say a few words, and the congressman ended up saying more than either Blagojevich or Burris.

It bordered on surreal. Rush said Blagojevich had answered his prayers, and insisted that voters make a distinction between the "designatee" and the "designator." Rush spoke at some length about the lack of African Americans in the Senate -- if seated, Burris would be the only one -- and effectively argued that Senate Democrats couldn't possibly reject Burris' appointment without snubbing African Americans in general. It wasn't just playing the race card, it was playing the race card old school.

Rush said he would personally urge the Senate to seat Burris, vowing to "persuade them, challenge them, beg them, whatever it takes."

The word "lynching" was thrown around a few too many times.

I have to admit, watching the bizarre event unfold, Blagojevich seemed to be having a great time. I got the sense that he thinks, for the first time in weeks, that he's finally on the offense, sticking it to, well, pretty much everyone. He even took a shot at the legislature, saying today's decision is their fault, because they didn't call for the special election he wanted.

It was quite the political circus.

Update: Looking over my notes, I had one other observation to pass along. Burris was asked if he'd seek re-election if he takes office. He said he'd "determine that when we get to that point."

—Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (65)

DEMS WILL NOT SEAT BURRIS.... Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich thought Senate Democrats wouldn't have the guts to reject Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate. He thought wrong.

The Senate Democratic Leadership issued this statement this afternoon, in advance of the Blagojevich press conference, which is set to begin in a half-hour:

"It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris's ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.

"Next week we will start one of the most important debates of the year -- outlining an economic recovery plan to create jobs and invest in America. And in the coming weeks, we will be working to protect homeowners and consumers, make America more energy independent, strengthen our national security, and improve health care and educational opportunities. There is much work to do and a lot at stake. It is thus critical that Illinois and every other state have two seated Senators without delay.

"We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat."

Good for them. It might have been tempting for them to seat Burris and end the questions about the vacancy, but Senate Dems did the right thing and followed through on their threat to Blagojevich.

We'll see if and how the governor responds to this in about 30 minutes.

—Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

DOES BURRIS HAVE A CHANCE?.... In the previous post, a reader in Illinois summarizes a point I've heard quite a bit this afternoon about former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, Rod Blagojevich's apparent choice to fill Barack Obama's seat in the Senate.

Taking the appointment at face value, Roland is well known and liked here in Illinois. He built a long career in politics without hint of scandal, which, as has been documented as nauseum, is not an easy thing to do here. He's a great choice.

A TPM reader in Illinois makes a similar point.

My home state's culture of political corruption is well documented. Roland Burris managed to build a career in politics in this state without falling into that muck. He is, to the best of everyone's knowledge, squeaky clean, and he's highly respected. He's 71 years old, so I wonder if he intends to serve as a caretaker. But he's an honorable guy, well liked by people across the state in both parties. It's a stroke of brilliance by Blagojevich in my opinion.

I've seen/heard similar sentiments elsewhere. Indeed, more than a few people have suggested that Blagojevich wanted to find the one person voters in Illinois would approve of, and the one person senators in D.C. would consider actually seating, and Burris was the only name that fit the bill.

It's certainly possible that Harry Reid and other Senate leaders may, in fact, pause before rejecting a respected figure like Burris, who would be the chamber's only African-American member.

But my hunch is that pause won't last long. Senators told Blagojevich, in writing and in no uncertain terms, that his choice wouldn't be seated. Reid & Co. may respect Burris, but this really isn't about him, it's about the governor. What are senators going to say, "We were going to reject Blagojevich's choice, but since he picked a respected black man, we've changed our minds"? I doubt it.

This is hardly a situation in which senators would worry about accusations of racism. It's pretty obvious lawmakers have a problem with Blagojevich's alleged corruption, nothing more.

For what it's worth, while Burris is going to have to explain why he'd even accept this appointment in the first place, Adam Serwer notes that Burris probably won't be labeled a close Blagojevich ally.

Burris announced his interest in the [vacant Senate] seat at a December 13 press conference. And he didn't pull any punches with regards to the governor. He described Blagojevich's alleged efforts to sell the Senate appointment as "pretty appalling" and "just reprehensible." He also endorsed Attorney Gen. Lisa Madigan's effort at the time to get the Illinois Supreme Court to remove the governor from office, describing Blagojevich as "incapacitated."

Stay tuned.

Update: A Democratic leadership aide told Ben Smith that Majority Leader Harry Reid views Burris as "unacceptable." Also, in case it matters, Josh Kalvin notes that Burris has said he would not seek another term.

—Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

BLAGOJEVICH TO APPOINT BURRIS.... Well, this is a bit of a surprise.

I've learned that Gov. Blagojevich is poised to name former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President elect Barack Obama in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon. The embattled Blagojevich, fighting impeachment charges in the Illinois House, just called a press conference for 2 p.m. Chicago time at the Thompson State of Illinois Center.

Burris was the first African American to win statewide office in Illinois when he was elected comptroller, serving from 1983 to 1991. He served as Illinois Attorney General from 1991 to 1995. Burris previously ran and lost bids for the U.S. senate and governor.

If tapped as planned, Burris would be the sole African American in the U.S. Senate.

Burris, who is 71, has sought higher office before, but lost in Democratic primaries in races for Chicago mayor, governor, and U.S. senator. It's unclear whether he would be considered a "place-holder" senator, or whether Burris would plan to seek a full term of his own.

For that matter, there's the not inconsequential issue of whether a Burris announcement will have any practical value at all. Three weeks ago, every member of the Senate Democratic caucus wrote Blagojevich a letter, urging him not to fill the Senate vacancy, and explaining that the chamber would exercise its constitutional authority and refuse to seat any official the governor appointed. (Indeed, two weeks ago, Blagojevich's lawyer said the governor would not even try to fill the vacancy for this reason.)

Does that still stand? Is Burris a respected enough figure that senators may reconsider?

If these reports are accurate, and the governor does make a selection today, does Burris show up to stand with Blagojevich? How does he separate himself from the scandal, and make clear he's not "Blagojevich's man"? What does this do to the drive for a special election? Questions, questions.

What happens now is open to debate, but one thing's for certain: Blagojevich is apparently throwing the chess board in the air. It was obvious from the criminal complaint that the governor has plenty of chutzpah, but I suspect few saw this one coming.

Update: The WSJ has a good piece with more on Burris' background.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Rahm Emanuel will formally give up his House seat on Friday. It falls to Rod Blagojevich, of all people, to set a date for a special election. There are as many as 11 Democrats eyeing the race.

* As of right now, Al Franken leads Norm Coleman by 50 votes.

* The Coleman campaign yesterday offered a list of rejected absentee ballots that they say should be counted, but they're all from Republican strongholds. Coleman's team is also gearing up to go after state election officials.

* CNN did a national poll on whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified to serve as a U.S. senator. A 52% majority said she is, while 42% said she isn't. There was a sizable gender gap.

* Candidates vying to be the chairman of the Republican National Committee may engage in a "special forum," in which each contender would outline their visions for the party's future.

* Hopes that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius might run for the Senate in 2010 would be dashed if she becomes the chancellor of the University of Kansas, as is now rumored.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

JUST GIVE US THE BIKE.... Earlier this month, Jon Stewart had a great bit on why we should let Barack Obama be president now, instead of making us wait until Jan. 20: "It's like when you were a kid and your parents bought you a bike. You knew it was a bike. It's shaped like a bike; what else could it be? But they wouldn't let you open it until Christmas. I guess what I'm saying is, just give us the bike."

There are plenty of major democracies -- England comes to mind -- that forgo lengthy transition processes. A head of state wins, and almost immediately, takes office. Forget that lame-duck phase -- voters pick a candidate and then get a leader.

How'd we end up with an 11-week transition? Christopher Smith has a piece in The New Republic today, arguing that we shouldn't have to wait so long for the inauguration, and explains a bit about the history.

Thank the 20th Amendment, ratified in 1933 -- which actually shortened the transition period from a glacial four months. Beginning in 1793, at the start of George Washington's second term, Inauguration Day was March 4. This made some sense back when the Electoral College had meaning, and when it took weeks for the electors and the new administration to travel by horse and wagon across muddy paths from around the country to Washington.

But a couple of scary transition periods made plain the need to shorten the handover of power. The first was in 1861, when the country was on the verge of civil war; Abraham Lincoln was forced to watch Jefferson Davis inaugurated as president of the Confederacy while he was stuck on the sidelines. The second, eerily familiar, transition of our discontent came in 1933. Herbert Hoover had bungled the country into the beginning of the Great Depression, stoking the election of Franklin Roosevelt. Though FDR was in some ways happy for the lengthy pause, using it to distance himself as far as possible from Hoover's suggestions about how to save the banking industry, he knew that the country's stability was endangered by the delay -- a period historians have labeled, in a deliciously gloomy turn of phrase, "the interregnum of despair." There had been attempts since 1922 to eliminate a four-month lame duck Congressional session. Agreement was finally reached to swear in the new Congress on January 3, just after New Year's parties had ended. The president's arrival also shifted, but the choice of date appears to have been something of an afterthought. "January 20 seemed to be a simple decision based on a rounding notion that the president should follow the new Congress into office within a reasonable amount of time," says NYU professor Paul C. Light. "That's an interesting twist. [Moving the presidential inauguration] had less to do originally with urgency than with the prerogatives of Congress."

75 years ago, we recognized that life had sped up, and that our power structure should adapt accordingly. Why not do it again?

Realistically, the date isn't going to change. It would take a constitutional amendment, and that's highly unlikely. For that matter, the executive branch is awfully big, and transition teams tend to use every last day of the interregnum making staffing decisions. Shortening the period would be, for incoming officials, pretty inconvenient.

But for the rest of us, it's tempting, isn't it?

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

'NOT A BIG READER'.... As part of its end-of-presidency wrap-up, Vanity Fair notes this interesting tidbit from Richard Clarke, the former chief White House counterterrorism adviser.

"We had a couple of meetings with the president, and there were detailed discussions and briefings on cyber-security and often terrorism, and on a classified program. With the cyber-security meeting, he seemed -- I was disturbed because he seemed to be trying to impress us, the people who were briefing him. It was as though he wanted these experts, these White House staff guys who had been around for a long time before he got there -- didn't want them buying the rumor that he wasn't too bright. He was trying -- sort of overly trying -- to show that he could ask good questions, and kind of yukking it up with Cheney.

"The contrast with having briefed his father and Clinton and Gore was so marked. And to be told, frankly, early in the administration, by Condi Rice and [her deputy] Steve Hadley, you know, Don't give the president a lot of long memos, he's not a big reader -- well, shit. I mean, the president of the United States is not a big reader?"

Funny, just last week Karl Rove told us the president is a voracious reader, who reads dense texts "to relax and because he's curious," and for 35 years, George W. Bush has "always had a book nearby."

Given Rove's description, I wonder why top administration officials would tell the chief White House counterterrorism adviser that Bush is "not a big reader." It's almost as if Rove's description is some kind of wild exaggeration. That couldn't be, could it?

—Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

THE WELL WAS FINE.... I find this very annoying.

Former Bush media adviser Mark McKinnon said the administration was in trouble even before taking office in the aftermath of the 2000 recount in which the Supreme Court effectively ruled that Bush had won Florida.

"The recount poisoned the well from the beginning," McKinnon said.

"A good number of people in this country didn't believe Bush was a legitimate President. And you can't change the tone under those circumstances."

Nonsense. After the recount debacle, Bush, as president-elect, had ample public support, with a 65% approval rating before he took office. His numbers faltered in the spring and summer of 2001, not because of questions about the legitimacy of his presidency, but because of the way Bush governed, which included driving Jim Jeffords from the Republican Party altogether.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Bush's approval ratings soared to unseen heights, with most of the country not only rallying around their national leader, but hoping, desperately, that the president was a competent, capable man in a time of crisis. When Bush proved otherwise, Americans gave up on him.

The notion of blaming the recount is a cop-out. Bush was given a chance -- to "change the tone," to govern, to lead -- and he blew it. This had nothing to do with the ridiculous circumstances that led Bush into office.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

SALTSMAN GETS A BOOST.... Josh Marshall noted last night, "I think I have this right. The Republican party has decided on the racial joke issue as the vehicle to reintroduce themselves to the American people after the 2008 blowout."

It may sound odd, but that's the situation we're dealing with, after Chip Saltsman, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, decided to distribute a CD containing "Barack the Magic Negro" as a Christmas greeting to members of the RNC. After Saltsman drew criticism from Mike Duncan and Saul Anuzis, both rivals for the chairmanship, I predicted that Saltsman would likely see conservatives "rally around him, protecting him from those who 'can't take a joke.'"

And with that in mind, the Politico's Andy Barr reports today that the "Magic Negro" flap may have "inadvertently helped" Saltsman's RNC candidacy, with some RNC officials "rallying around" around him.

Alabama Republican committeeman Paul Reynolds said the fact the Saltsman sent him a CD with the song on it "didn't bother me one bit."

"Chip probably could have thought it through a bit more, but he was doing everyone a favor by giving us a gift," he said. "This is just people looking for something to make an issue of."

"I don't think he intended it as any kind of racial slur. I think he intended it as a humor gift," Oklahoma GOP committeewoman Carolyn McClarty added. "I think it was innocently done by Chip."

Indeed, taking this to the next logical step, some RNC members are saying that Duncan and Anuzis may have hurt themselves by criticizing Saltsman's judgment. One RNC member told the Politico, "Those are two guys who just eliminated themselves from this race for jumping all over Chip on this. Mike Duncan is a nice guy, but he screwed up big time by pandering to the national press on this." Several more have "expressed anger toward Duncan and Anuzis 'for throwing a good Republican under the bus.'"

So, to summarize, a leading candidate to lead the Republican National Committee promoted a song calling the next president a "magic negro." This has improved his chances of getting the job.

Got it.

—Steve Benen 8:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

MCCONNELL, BOEHNER LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN A CRACK.... That congressional Republicans would resist an economic rescue package from Barack Obama was a foregone conclusion. The uncertainty surrounded the intensity of the opposition, whether it would be effective, and what, exactly, the GOP would say.

For Democrats in Congress and the transition team, speed is critical. As they see it, the seriousness of the crisis demands immediate action, and it would be ideal for all of us if a stimulus package is on the Oval Office desk after Obama's inauguration. Yesterday, the Republicans offered an interesting response.

Congressional Republicans objected yesterday to hurried consideration of President-elect Barack Obama's emerging stimulus proposal, questioning the economic value of many of the projects being floated for inclusion and voicing support for a more methodical process that might delay the legislation's passage well into February.

Concerned by Democrats' push to enact the massive bill into law within days of Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R.-Ohio) issued calls for a lengthy vetting of the stimulus proposal, whose price tag could top $850 billion when it is completed next month.

Specifically, GOP leaders would like to see a "week-long cooling-off period" after the legislation is written, so that Republicans can identify spending proposals they deem "irresponsible."

Now, the obvious response here is to note the irony of McConnell and Boehner complaining about bloated spending bills, government waste, and bills that are rammed through Congress, given their own leadership in recent years. But let's put that aside for a moment.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but looking over the coordinated responses from McConnell and Boehner, I couldn't help but notice that neither of them criticized the idea of massive government spending as a way to stimulate the economy. In other words, neither struck a neo-Hooverite position, which seemed to be the GOP message a couple of weeks ago.

I'm inclined to think this is an encouraging sign. Republican leaders on the Hill -- who've no doubt talked to economists, counted just how small their minorities are, and noticed Obama's 82% approval rating -- implicitly agreed yesterday that a massive rescue package is, in fact, necessary. They want "tough scrutiny and oversight" of the spending, and expect hearings and safeguards, but at no point yesterday did GOP leaders criticize the notion of spending lots of money to help get the economy moving again.

With that in mind, the debate will be over the size and scope of a stimulus package, not whether to have a stimulus package. Given those circumstances, Democrats have reason for at least some optimism.

—Steve Benen 8:01 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The major indexes on Wall Street dropped a little lower today, and the Dow is now prepared to have its single biggest annual drop since 1931.

* The initial estimate on coal waste in central Tennessee was more than 360 million gallons of sludge. Now, it appears the total will be more than 1 billion gallons. The CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority today pledged to clean up the massive spill.

* The Obama transition office has re-opened its "Open for Questions" feature, and it seems more user-friendly now.

* The war in Iraq may not be over, but the major U.S. television networks have stopped sending full-time correspondents to cover the conflict.

* An upside to the economic crisis that only Tom Tancredo could love: fewer immigrants are trying to sneak into the country now than at any point in 30 years.

* Is the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy staking its claim as a legitimate progressive rival to the Federalist Society? It certainly looks like it.

* It's not at all cool for Anderson Cooper to take not-so-subtle shots at Rachel Maddow.

* What did happen to Bernard Madoff's money?

* Bernie Kerik just can't stay out of trouble. Remember when Bush believed he was the best person in America to lead the Department of Homeland Security? Good times, good times.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

SHAKING UP OBAMA'S TO-DO LIST.... Israeli airstrikes on Hamas institutions continued for a third consecutive day, and the death toll in Gaza is well over 300. There hasn't been this much bloodshed among Israelis and Palestinians, in such a short period of time, in more than 40 years.

As the conflict relates to U.S. politics, the Politico's Ben Smith and Harry Siegel report that Barack Obama probably wasn't planning on dealing with an Israeli crisis immediately upon taking office in three weeks, but the crisis will nevertheless be waiting for him when he gets to the Oval Office.

The incoming administration had planned to focus on the economic crisis and recalibrating U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan in its early months -- but the Israeli assault on Hamas may have instantly changed that calculus.

"For all the talk of putting the [Middle East] conflict on the back burner, it's going force itself onto the front burner," said Daniel Levy, a fellow at the New America Institute. Levy said that if the conflict in Gaza is still ongoing when Obama takes office, he will face regional and international pressure to broker a settlement.

"It could involve the administration very early," Levy said.

I'm not sure just how much "talk" there's been about downplaying U.S. policy in the Middle East, but the point is nevertheless fair -- the violence is likely to be ongoing in mid-January and Obama's administration will likely have to engage quickly. No one's sure, however, what that engagement might look like.

The "only one president at a time" line may seem tired at this point, but Obama's reticence on the crisis is hardly unreasonable. After all, he's not the president, the existing administration is presumably working on addressing the conflict, and the last thing the government needs is two presidents sending different messages to the Middle East right now. The Politico piece noted, "When Obama does speak, his words will be carefully parsed -- particularly by decision makers in Jerusalem weighing how long to continue the offensive in the face of worldwide calls for a ceasefire." Given those circumstances, Obama can and should prepare for a constructive diplomatic role in the new year, while saying very little now.

And what's wrong with that? At face value, nothing, but there are two complicating factors. One, Obama has been critical of Hamas before the election, and Israeli officials are using his previous remarks to justify the aerial assaults now.

And two, Obama expects Bush to take the lead, and Bush is reluctant to interrupt his vacation.

In the meantime, Israeli defense minister has promised Hamas a "war to the bitter end." What the "end" looks like is far from clear.

—Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

CHENEY PONDERS HIS UNPOPULARITY.... Dick Cheney chatted with the Casper Star-Tribune last week, and covered a fair amount of ground. Faiz Shakir highlights the key exchange, which came after the paper asked the vice president, "How do you explain your low approval rating?"

"I don't have any idea. I don't follow the polls.

"My experience has been over the years that if you govern based upon poll numbers, upon trying to improve your overall poll ratings, people I've encountered who do that are people who won't make tough decisions. And the job the president has and those who advise him is to make those basic fundamental decisions for the nation that nobody else is authorized or able to make.

"First and foremost among those is to defend the nation. If you're going to follow the polls, you are going to change your policy every week when the poll comes out. Secondly, I think you're adversely affected by the fact that you can get just about any result you want out of a poll."

There are a few ways to look at this, but two angles jump out at me. First, for someone one who claims to be completely unconcerned about public support, Cheney gives the impression of having given this quite a bit of thought. If I didn't know better, I might think Cheney has spent some time rationalizing his unpopularity, finding a way to wear it as a badge of honor. Of course he has low approval ratings; he makes tough decisions.

Second, my favorite part of the response was that last comment: "[Y]ou can get just about any result you want out of a poll." I think I know what Cheney means -- data can be twisted and manipulated -- but I'm not altogether sure where he's going with this. Is it possible Cheney thinks the polls have been fiddled with and the public isn't disgusted by his conduct?

One can get a variety of results out of a poll, but when it comes to Americans' support for Dick Cheney, the numbers are an accurate reflection of the national sentiment.

—Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

HOW VULNERABLE IS HARRY REID?.... The Wall Street Journal has been pushing a story about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's precarious political future. It is, as Eve Fairbanks noted, the "most read [article] on the WSJ's website right now."

Sen. Harry Reid will command the biggest party majority of any Senate leader in a quarter century when the new Congress convenes in January. But the Nevada Democrat is already worried about his own re-election fight in 2010.

Sen. Reid, perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once again, began interviewing campaign managers last week. The Senate majority leader also recently stepped up fund-raising.

The Journal paints quite an unpleasant picture regarding Reid's upcoming race, calling it, among other things, an "uphill" challenge for the Senate leader. The piece also notes a Research 2000 poll in Nevada showing Reid's approval rating down to just 38%.

But I remain skeptical about Reid's vulnerability.

First, the state seems to be getting "bluer," with Obama having won in Nevada by 12 points. Indeed, while that R2K poll showed Reid with weak support, it also showed him leading his likely Republican challengers.

Second, speaking of challengers, Reid's most likely opponent is Nevada's Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki, who announced his campaign plans a month ago. Unfortunately for Krolicki, he was indicted soon after, a development that would likely give Reid an edge.

And third, there's the matter of the Nevada Republican Party, which is something of a mess. Nevada's Republican governor, Jim Gibbons, has seen his administration rocked by scandal -- both professional and personal -- and will be of little value in rallying opposition to Reid's campaign. Complicating matters, Fairbanks reminds us that the state GOP just closed its headquarters in Las Vegas -- Nevada's largest city -- and its executive director is moving back into his parents' house.

Time will tell, of course, but at this point, I like Reid's chances.

—Steve Benen 1:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

SYNCHRONICITY.... The Politico's Andie Collier had an interesting item about MoveOn.org over the weekend, noting that the group asked its membership to identity its top four priorities for the organization. The priorities were member-generated, and would help dictate MoveOn's future.

What they chose: universal health care; economic recovery and job creation; building a green economy/stopping climate change; and end the war in Iraq.

What they didn't: holding the Bush administration accountable; fighting for gay rights and LGBT equality; and reforming campaigns and elections.

MoveOn Executive Director Eli Pariser says that this happy alignment with Barack Obama's agenda -- and fortuitous absence of conflict with same -- comes in part because "the people he's listening to and the people we're listening to are the same people."

But it also may be a sign that MoveOn's members want to move ahead -- and that they're willing to make some ideological sacrifices in exchange for real progress.

Pariser's right that this is all very beneficial for the left -- that the agenda embraced by progressive activists and a progressive president is practically identical will likely benefit both.

But it's more than just a "fortuitous" accident, and it goes beyond Obama and activists listening to the same people. My hunch is that MoveOn members picked those four priorities precisely because Obama has convinced them that this is what the country needs most.

I was thinking along the same lines as Yglesias: "He's the most admired man in America and particularly among the MoveOn [members] who supported him back in the primaries he's very very admired. There are probably things Obama could do to alienate his base, but there's also a great deal he can do to induce that base to align their ideas with him. Especially about something gentle like the question of priorities, he has an enormous ability to get people to see things his way."

—Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

EMBRACE THE NOTORIETY.... I'm not a Lions fan, and I have no emotional investment in this whatsoever, but I think Detroit can find a silver lining in all of this.

The final two minutes of the Detroit Lions' history-making season had a soundtrack that in no way resembled the stentorian baritone of John Facenda. The voices belonged to the 70,141 fans at Lambeau Field, many of whom serenaded the Lions with the chant "0 and 16."

With a 31-21 loss to the Green Bay Packers on Sunday, the Lions became the first N.F.L. team to lose 16 regular-season games. Battling back to tie the Packers, 14-14, late in the third quarter, the Lions were outscored by 17-7 in the final 15 minutes.

The Lions' emotions swung from hopefulness to helplessness to humiliation as the fact sank in that they had replaced the 1976 expansion Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who finished 0-14, as the benchmark for badness. Never mind the N.F.L., the Lions are now in the league of Zippy Chippy, a New York-bred gelding who lost all 100 of his races.

Now, if I had a choice, I'd actually prefer that my team go 0-16, as compared to 1-15. I realize this is counterintuitive -- if winning games is the goal, one is better than none.

But here's the thing -- plenty of teams have finished their seasons with just one victory. Sure, it's humiliating, but it's also fairly routine.

If you're going to have a bad year, why not have the worst year? If the Lions had gone 1-15, folks would say, "Wow, Detroit was really awful." But by going without any wins at all, people get to say, "Wow, no one has ever been this awful."

Isn't it better to be memorable? No one cares about those who are merely awful, but everyone cares about those who uniquely dreadful.

I say, embrace the historic nature of unrivaled failure. Take pride in being a part of something truly "special."

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* In the wake of last week's Minnesota Supreme Court ruling, lawyers for Sen. Norm Coleman's (R-Minn.) campaign are threatening a new lawsuit to prevent the state from certifying election results that would make Al Franken the winner.

* Could Franken be seated before his victory is certified? The state's other senator, Democrat Amy Klobuchar, is working on it.

* While the race for the RNC chairmanship heats up, committee members have called for an unprecedented special meeting, working outside the dictates of the national party's leadership.

* It looks like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) is moving closer to launching a Senate campaign.

* In what I believe is a reversal, Caroline Kennedy said over the weekend that she will not run for the Senate in 2010 if she's not chosen to fill New York's current vacancy.

* Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) said yesterday that he believes Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) can be removed from office in time for Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday on February 12.

* Terry McAuliffe is moving ahead with his gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, and is planning to raise record amounts of money -- Virginia has "no limits on how much an individual, corporation or union can donate to a candidate running for state office."

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

WHEN OSHA GOT BUSH-IFIED.... The Bush gang? Ignoring the public's interests, politicizing a key federal agency, and advancing corporate interests above all else? You don't say.

In early 2001, an epidemiologist at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration sought to publish a special bulletin warning dental technicians that they could be exposed to dangerous beryllium alloys while grinding fillings. Health studies showed that even a single day's exposure at the agency's permitted level could lead to incurable lung disease.

After the bulletin was drafted, political appointees at the agency gave a copy to a lobbying firm hired by the country's principal beryllium manufacturer, according to internal OSHA documents. The epidemiologist, Peter Infante, incorporated what he considered reasonable changes requested by the company and won approval from key directorates, but he bristled when the private firm complained again.

"In my 24 years at the Agency, I have never experienced such indecision and delay," Infante wrote in an e-mail to the agency's director of standards in March 2002. Eventually, top OSHA officials decided, over what Infante described in an e-mail to his boss as opposition from "the entire OSHA staff working on beryllium issues," to publish the bulletin with a footnote challenging a key recommendation the firm opposed.

Current and former career officials at OSHA say that such sagas were a recurrent feature during the Bush administration, as political appointees ordered the withdrawal of dozens of workplace health regulations, slow-rolled others, and altered the reach of its warnings and rules in response to industry pressure.

In all, under Bush, 86% fewer rules were found economically significant as compared to a similar period during the Clinton years.

By all appearances, this administration barely wants OSHA to even exist, so I suppose it stands to reason that Bush political appointees would gut the agency and turn to lobbyists to help guide OSHA's decision making. Indeed, it's hard to count just how many regulatory agencies have, under this president, effectively been run by the business interests it was supposed to be regulating.

Just another addition to the long list of government departments that Obama is going to have to fix.

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

WEBB EYES PRISON REFORM.... It's a crowded policy landscape, and it's daunting to consider which challenges to address first, but kudos to Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) for raising the importance of an issue that too often goes overlooked.

This spring, Webb (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation on a long-standing passion of his: reforming the U.S. prison system. Jails teem with young black men who later struggle to rejoin society, he says. Drug addicts and the mentally ill take up cells that would be better used for violent criminals. And politicians have failed to address this costly problem for fear of being labeled "soft on crime."

"I enjoy grabbing hold of really complex issues and boiling them down in a way that they can be understood by everyone," Webb told the Washington Post. "I think you can be a law-and-order leader and still understand that the criminal justice system as we understand it today is broken, unfair, locking up the wrong people in many cases and not locking up the right person in many cases."

Maybe it takes a decorated Marine veteran who served as Navy secretary under Reagan to avoid the "soft" label.

In speeches and in a book that devotes a chapter to prison issues, Webb describes a U.S. prison system that is deeply flawed in how it targets, punishes and releases those identified as criminals.

With 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States has imprisoned a higher percentage of its population than any other nation, according to the Pew Center on the States and other groups. Although the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population, it has 25 percent of its prison population, Webb says. [...]

Webb aims much of his criticism at enforcement efforts that he says too often target low-level drug offenders and parole violators, rather than those who perpetrate violence, such as gang members. He also blames policies that strip felons of citizenship rights and can hinder their chances of finding a job after release. He says he believes society can be made safer while making the system more humane and cost-effective.

It may be a little while until we see progress on this front. This spring, Webb will introduce legislation to create a national panel on criminal justice reform. If a panel is created, it'll take a while for the members to conduct its research, and will take even more time before members of Congress are prepared to write and pass legislation.

But the process notwithstanding, Webb is not only right to tackle the issue, he's showing political courage in addressing a problem most would prefer to ignore. Good for him.

—Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

THE REPORTS OF OUR 'DISINTEGRATION' HAVE BEEN GREATLY EXAGGERATED.... The Wall Street Journal has an interesting front-page item this morning, on the popularity in Russia of a scholar predicting the collapse of the United States.

For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.

In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s.

Panarin believes there's "a 55-45% chance" that the United States will experience "disintegration" in the coming years. He's been making the same predictions since 1998, but given anti-American sentiment in Russia, Panarin's ideas have apparently made him something of a cause celebre.

Here's the thing to keep in mind, though: Igor Panarin's understanding of the modern United States appears to be rather limited.

Slate's Ryan Grim noted a recent report outlining Panarin's vision for the future of the U.S.: "He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts -- the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong."

If this reflects Panarin's knowledge of the country, I have a hunch we'll be fine.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS STILL DON'T WORK.... I don't want to alarm anyone, but it appears that teenagers sometimes have sex, even if they "pledge" not to.

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."

Got that? The difference between teens who make abstinence "pledges" and teens who don't isn't sexual conduct, it's that those who make the "pledges" engage in more dangerous sexual conduct.

After a while, this just gets repetitious -- the right insists that abstinence programs work, objective research shows they don't. Conservatives, not satisfied, demand more objective research, which further proves abstinence programs don't work. No evidence, no matter how overwhelming, seems to be enough.

But reality just won't budge. The nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that abstinence programs do not affect teenager sexual behavior. A congressionally-mandated study, which was not only comprehensive but also included long-term follow-up, found the exact same thing. Researchers keep conducting studies, and the results are always the same.

This isn't complicated. Simply telling teenagers not to have sex doesn't affect behavior, doesn't prevent unwanted pregnancies, and doesn't stop the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. Teens who receive comprehensive lessons of sexual health, with reliable, accurate information, are more likely to engage in safer, more responsible behavior.

And yet, GOP policy makers in Washington have invested billions over the last eight years in this failed social experiment, and conservatives want taxpayers to throw even more money at programs that don't work.

The Washington Post noted that Congress and the new Obama administration "are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs." It should be a no-brainer.

—Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

LETTING HISTORY BE THE JUDGE.... For quite some time, the president, his aides, and his few remaining political allies have expressed confidence about how Bush's presidency will be perceived -- eventually. To hear them tell it, we Americans, with our petty short-term concerns and what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitudes, lack the perspective needed to appreciate Bush's greatness. Historians will understand in the future what voters fail to appreciate in the present. The difference between failure and success, when it comes to George W. Bush, is hindsight.

We've heard it enough times for it be quite tiresome, but we nevertheless saw two of the president's biggest supporters pushing this line rather aggressively yesterday.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that despite President Bush's low approval ratings, people will soon "start to thank this president for what he's done."

"So we can sit here and talk about the long record, but what I would say to you is that this president has faced tougher circumstances than perhaps at any time since the end of World War II, and he has delivered policies that are going to stand the test of time," Rice said in an interview that aired on CBS' "Sunday Morning."

Rice added that this administration has been concentrating solely on "lay[ing] a foundation for history's judgment," and that if she were giving the administration's foreign policy a letter grade, she'd give "some" of the policy "an A-plus."

First Lady Laura Bush, appearing on Fox News, struck a similar note. She was asked about those who believe her husband's administration is one of the worst in American history. "I know it's not, and so I don't really feel like I need to respond to people that view it that way," she said. "I think history will judge and we'll see later."

The entire defense seems to boil down to two words: "You'll see." We may be inclined to believe our lying eyes, but, the loyal Bushies tell us, "You'll see." Indeed, Rice went so far as to suggest we'll all be "thanking" Bush for all the great things he's done for us.

It must be comforting for Bush, Rice, and other top officials in the administration to think this way. It's no doubt frustrating to wake up every morning, and go to work knowing that you're reviled by most of the public, here and around the world. If you can convince yourself that you'll be appreciated years from now, it probably takes the edge off.

But that doesn't make it true. Indeed, wishful thinking about history's judgment, in the midst of widespread failures in every aspect of government -- foreign policy, economic policy, constitutional policy, domestic policy, environmental policy -- borders on delusional.

As Digby concluded, Bush and his team "need accept that the best they can hope for is to end up among history's inept clowns instead of history's villains. It's not much, but it's all they've got."

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

FDR VS. REAGAN?.... What an odd poll from Rasmussen.

It's a showdown between the two most influential presidents of the 20th Century. Franklin D. Roosevelt versus Ronald W. Reagan.

Forty-five percent (45%) of U.S. voters say FDR, the Democratic father of the big government New Deal who led the country to victory in World War II, was the better president of the two.

But 40% say Reagan, the Republican champion of small-government conservatism and the winner of the Cold War, was a better president. Fifteen percent (15%) aren't sure which of the two they like better in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

As befits the times, there's a gender gap -- men narrowly preferred Reagan, while women overwhelmingly preferred FDR. Whites were split, while African-American voters backed FDR by more than a two-to-one margin. Dems, liberals, the unmarried, and those who attend worship services less often went with Roosevelt, while Republicans, conservatives, married voters, and evangelicals supported Reagan.

I can appreciate the fact that fawning, sycophantic, and generally embarrassing conservative cheerleading has helped bolster Reagan's image in the wake of his presidency. I also realize that Reagan, more than any modern leader, is the only GOP figure who's claimed by every wing of the Republican Party as their own -- from New England moderates to Deep South far-right conservatives.

But up against FDR, how is this even a contest? Reagan's economic policies were largely unsuccessful; propaganda notwithstanding, he was not responsible for winning the Cold War; his White House traded weapons for hostages in Iran-Contra; and no president before or since oversaw a White House filled with so many officials convicted of felonies (32, not including 30 who resigned in disgrace or were fired following charges of legal or ethical misconduct).

I'm not even sure what the Rasmussen poll means by "influential." JFK inspired millions, Wilson and Truman were extremely consequential, and Nixon and Johnson dominated their political eras.

The poll seems to want to pit Reagan and Roosevelt as some kind of equally-consequential political titans, but I don't see it. FDR vs. Reagan? This one isn't even close.

—Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (68)

A 'WAVE OF RETAILER BANKRUPTCIES'.... We talked the other day about the striking drop in consumer spending over the holidays, with revenue that was "much worse than the already-dire picture painted by industry forecasts." The Wall Street Journal reported this weekend that the commercial landscape is likely to deteriorate further in the new year, with a "wave of retailer bankruptcies."

"We will have a lot fewer stores by the middle of 2009," says Nancy Koehn, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. "It's happening very, very quickly because of the financial crisis and the recession." [...]

Corporate-turnaround experts and bankruptcy lawyers are predicting a wave of retailer bankruptcies early next year, after being contacted by big and small retailers either preparing to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection or scrambling to avoid that fate.

Analysts estimate that from about 10% to 26% of all retailers are in financial distress and in danger of filing for Chapter 11. AlixPartners LLP, a Michigan-based turnaround consulting firm, estimates that 25.8% of 182 large retailers it tracks are at significant risk of filing for bankruptcy or facing financial distress in 2009 or 2010. In the previous two years, the firm had estimated 4% to 7% of retailers then tracked were at a high risk for filing.

One-fourth of all retailers is a lot of stores. Think about your local mall, and then think about a quarter of the stores disappearing, as compared to a year prior.

The ripple effect will be fairly broad, affecting suppliers and manufacturers, and limiting retail selections for those shoppers who have disposable income, but won't find as much of what they're looking for on store shelves.

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

REPUBLICANS WEIGHING IN ON 'MAGIC NEGRO' CD.... After some initial hesitation, Republicans have begun to take sides of Chip Saltsman's decision to distribute a CD containing "Barack the Magic Negro" as a Christmas greeting to members of the RNC

RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, 22 hours after the story caused a stir, weighed in with a public statement, noting that he us "shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate." Duncan, of course, wants to keep his job, and has an incentive to go after Saltsman, a rival for the chairmanship. Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party and also a candidate for RNC chair, soon joined Duncan, saying Saltsman's attempt at humor was in "bad taste."

Interestingly enough, Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state and candidate for RNC chair, publicly defended Saltsman. Blackwell, who is African American, dismissed media "hypersensitivity" on race.

"Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-Elect Obama being the first African-American elected president," said Blackwell, who would be the first black RNC chairman, in a statement forwarded to Politico by an aide. "I don't think any of the concerns that have been expressed in the media about any of the other candidates for RNC chairman should disqualify them. When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal. All of my competitors for this leadership post are fine people."

There are competing angles to the responses, and it's certainly possible that Blackwell expects Saltsman's candidacy to falter, and he'd like to pick up Saltsman's supporters.

But it wouldn't surprise me if Blackwell's comments were the beginning of a conservative pushback to these questions even being asked, and possible criticism of Duncan and Anuzis for showing weakness by paying attention to the media and "pc culture."

Jonathan Stein noted yesterday, "[C]onservatives by and large hate political correctness and hate being told by liberals that they stepped over the lines of polite discourse. I've frequently objected to an insensitive joke, only to be admonished, 'Lighten up, it's supposed to be funny.' Because, obviously, the fact that there is humorous intent makes the racism/sexism/homophobia okay."

Exactly. In this case, Saltsman promoted, as a Christmas gift, a song calling Obama a "magic negro," with lyrics from a right-wing activist pretending to be Al Sharpton complaining about "da hood." For many on the right, this is comedy gold. Indeed, Saltsman obviously thought RNC members would find this entertaining, or he wouldn't have sent it out as a gift in the first place.

Blackwell's tack, I suspect, will be the more common response among conservatives. The more Saltsman is criticized, the more many on the right will rally around him, protecting him from those who "can't take a joke." Whether the "joke" relies on ugly racist stereotypes is of no consequence.

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

A NATIONAL PARTY NO MORE.... David Broder highlights an increasingly obvious political reality about the regional power of the Republican Party.

Led by Republican senators from Southern states where there are many foreign-owned auto plants, the Senate refused to cut off a filibuster against the bill to provide bridge loans to General Motors and Chrysler. This time, the opposition was led by Bob Corker of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama. When the Senate failed by eight votes to cut off debate, Southern and border-state Republicans voted 16 to 2 against the measure. On a similar vote on the 2007 immigration bill, the Southerners split 17 to 3 against.

Even though Bush later used his authority to provide the loan, the defeat of this legislation at Republican hands will not be forgotten when GOP senators run for reelection in 2010 in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. It will also echo in industrial states such as Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, California, New York and New Jersey, when Republicans try to challenge for Senate and House seats.

The Southern domination of the congressional Republican Party has become more complete with each and every election. This year, Republicans suffered a net loss of two Senate and three House seats in the South, but they lost five Senate seats and 18 House seats in other sections. No Republican House members are left in New England, and they have become ever scarcer in New York and Pennsylvania and across the Midwest.

Five years ago, Zell Miller wrote a book called, "National Party No More." If only he'd gotten the party right, he would have been a visionary.

—Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

THE 'IDEA' OF A CANDIDATE.... I'm still trying to keep an open mind about Caroline Kennedy possibly filling New York's Senate vacancy, left by Hillary Clinton, but she's not giving me a lot to work with. Kennedy sat down for her first interview with the New York Times as a potential Senate appointee, and it didn't go especially well.

Caroline Kennedy, the woman who would be New York's next senator, is sure of one thing. Among all the hopefuls seeking to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, she said on Saturday, there is no better choice.

"I wouldn't be here if I didn't think I would be the best," Ms. Kennedy said, sitting in the back room of an Upper East Side diner around the corner from her home.

After weeks of criticism that she had not opened up to the public or the press, Ms. Kennedy has embarked on a series of interviews. But in an extensive sit-down discussion Saturday morning with The New York Times, she still seemed less like a candidate than an idea of one: forceful but vague, largely undefined and seemingly determined to remain that way.

Asked how she might improve on Clinton's tenure in the Senate, Kennedy demurred. Asked about how the recession has affected her personally, Kennedy didn't want to talk about her finances. She was similarly vague in response to questions about education policy, healthcare policy, and Democratic Party orthodoxy.

If the tone of the article is accurate, Kennedy didn't even seem particularly interested in the interview itself. She "seemed irritated" when asked to talk about the moment she decided to seek the Senate seat. "Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman's magazine or something?" Kennedy asked the reporters. "I thought you were the crack political team."

As the interview was wrapping up, one NYT reporter tried to pose one last question, but Kennedy interrupted him. "I think we're done," she said.

I know Kennedy has begun hiring some consultants for this process. They may need to redouble their efforts on media prep.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

RNC CHAIRMAN 'APPALLED' BY 'MAGIC NEGRO' CD.... Yesterday afternoon, The Hill was the first to report that Chip Saltsman distributed a CD containing "Barack the Magic Negro" as a Christmas greeting to members of the Republican National Committee. Saltsman, Mike Huckabee's former campaign manager and former chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party, used the music as part of his campaign to lead the RNC.

Despite the controversy that ensued in response to Saltsman's offensive choice in music, Republican officials were noticeably silent about the issue. That changed this afternoon, nearly 24 hours after the news broke.

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan issued a statement Saturday distancing the party's leadership from one of the GOP's best-known operatives, Chip Saltsman, who distributed a CD containing "Barack the Magic Negro" as part of his campaign to be elected chairman of the Republican National Committee next month.

Duncan, who has served the campaigns of five presidents dating back to Richard Nixon, is seeking reelection as the party's 60th chairman in a hotly contested race that includes Saltsman and several other viable candidates.

Duncan's statement, in its entirety, read: "The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party. I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction."

It's hard to pick the most obvious embarrassment for Republicans here. That the party's favorite right-wing blowhard (Rush Limbaugh) would promote such a song on his radio show? That a candidate for RNC chair would use the song as a Christmas gift? That the candidate for RNC chair would assume that Republican Party leaders would enjoy it?

That Mike Duncan would wait 22 hours before saying anything about this, only denouncing Saltsman -- a rival for his job -- after the Politico noted that party leaders had only offered "odd silence" in response to the story?

Or that Limbaugh began promoting the song in March, the party said nothing, and Republicans continued to appear on his show as if he were a respected conservative leader?

—Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

GAZA.... On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned Hamas that its recent attacks in the Gaza Strip hand to end. "I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I'm telling them stop it," Olmert said. "We are stronger." Though no Israelis were killed, on Wednesday alone, Hamas fired more than 60 rockets and mortars, hitting houses and factories.

Olmert followed through on his warnings this morning.

The Israeli Air Force on Saturday launched a massive attack on Hamas targets throughout Gaza in retaliation for the recent heavy rocket fire from the area, hitting mostly security headquarters, training compounds and weapons storage facilities, the Israeli military and witnesses said.

Dr. Muawiya Hassanein, the head of emergency services at the Gaza Ministry of Health, said at least 140 Palestinians were killed in the raid.

Most were members of the security forces of Hamas, the Islamic group that controls Gaza, but a few civilians were also among the dead, including children. Scores more Palestinians were wounded.

There had been a six-month truce between Israel and Hamas, which expired on Dec. 19. Hamas renewed its rocket fire, and Israel retaliated today.

This may continue for a while -- the Israeli military warned this morning that this operation "will be continued, expanded and intensified as much as will be required."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak added at a press conference, "There is a time for calm and there is a time for fighting, and now is the time for fighting."

This morning's military response came by way of the air, and whether a ground offensive is next remains unclear.

—Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is the question of whether more Americans are attending worship services in light of the economic crisis.

The New York Times recently ran a front-page piece, and concluded that there's a definite trend -- as the recession has worsened, attendance at houses of worship has increased. The Times based this conclusion on a "spot check of large Roman Catholic parishes and mainline Protestant churches around the nation," and reported that since September, "[P]astors nationwide say they have seen such a burst of new interest that they find themselves contending with powerful conflicting emotions -- deep empathy and quiet excitement -- as they re-encounter an old piece of religious lore: Bad times are good for evangelical churches."

Is this true? Slate's Jack Shafer dug a little deeper and has his doubts.

Has today's freshly cratered economy already given bloom to increased church attendance? No, Gallup's editor-in-chief, Frank Newport, writes in a Dec. 17 Web posting in reaction to the Times story. He asserts that "a review of almost 300,000 interviews conducted by Gallup so far in 2008 shows no evidence that church attendance in America has been increasing late this year as a result of bad economic times."

About 42 percent of Americans polled by Gallup in September, October, November, and into December said that they had attended church weekly or almost every week, a number unchanged from earlier in the year. Newport also stated these findings in a letter to the Times that the paper published on Dec. 20. Newport allows in his Times letter that attendance may have increased at selected evangelical churches but that such an increase would be too limited to register nationally.

Ordinarily when the Times traffics in a trend story, it indemnifies itself by quoting a skeptic on the other side of the issue or it tosses off a "to be sure" paragraph noting the weakness of its anecdotal evidence. Not here. Given this leap of faith, let's hope the Times isn't looking into the existence of Santa Claus. Imagine the headline: "Despite Naysayers, Hundreds of Millions Believe in St. Nick."

Also from the God Machine this week:

* TV preacher Pat Robertson is "remarkably pleased" with President-elect Barack Obama, but seems to be suffering from some Bush Fatigue. Despite Robertson's role in helping promote and carry water for the president, the televangelist told CNN this week that Bush has not dealt with the nation's economic crisis in a "professional manner," and he feels compelled to acknowledge the "serious goofs" Bush has made in office: "The Katrina matter was terrible. The rebuilding of Iraq has been terrible. The [handling] of the economy right now has been terrible.... I believe I would look at about a C-minus right now if I were grading him." No word on what grade Robertson would give himself for having defended Bush for the last eight years.

* And radical Southern Baptist Pastor Wiley Drake lashed out at Pastor Rick Warren this week, insisting that "God will punish" Warren for appearing at the Obama inauguration. Drake called Obama an "evil illegal alien," and warned Warren, "God will not wink at this.... It's an abomination before God and God's going to deal with that."

—Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

PRESIDENTS, PARDONS, AND POWER.... Like it or not, presidents have broad authority when it comes to granting pardons. They also, however, have no authority to when it comes to taking pardons back.

Bush's clemency, announced this week, for Isaac Toussie is rather scandalous in its own right, given Toussie's background as a scam artist who got off easy running an illegal mortgage scheme and his father's contributions to Republicans earlier this year. But it's the president's decision to try and change his mind that's especially interesting.

Now, as a legal matter, it appears Bush can't grant a pardon and then rescind it. The process just doesn't work that way. The White House would have us believe, however, that his publicly announced, unconditional pardon for Isaac Toussie didn't really count. Bush was going to grant him clemency, but it hadn't actually happened yet, so the president interrupted the process before it could become official.

There are two arguments at play here. The first is that the Pardon Attorney at the Justice Department had yet to "execute and deliver grants of clemency to the named individuals" announced on Tuesday. The White House claims got in touch with the Pardon Attorney before the official action could be taken. Josh Marshall looked into this and found that the Pardon Attorney doesn't actually "execute" anything.

The current system of having the Pardon Attorney create certificates of pardon only goes back to the Eisenhower administration, and was then apparently only done to relieve the president of the chore of signing so many pardons and commutations. I spoke to former Pardon Attorney Margaret Colgate Love (1990-1997) who told me that "receiving the president's warrant and sending notifications to the petitioners is purely 'a ministerial act of notification.'" In layman's terms, at this end of the transaction, the Pardon Attorney's role is really just a matter of paperwork. "When we received the Master Warrant from the president," said Love, "what our job was was to notify them, by telephone, and eventually by written notification. The document evidenced the president's action. We never assumed that that document had any necessary legal significance."

So just as a factual matter, the idea that the Pardon Attorney needs to 'execute' the pardons seems to be bogus.

The second argument is that a pardon is a legitimate, genuine pardon only when the petitioner has been notified, stemming from the 1869 Du Puy case. In this matter, it's very likely that Toussie had been notified -- formally (through his attorney) and informally (through the media). Indeed, other petitioners on the same list found out about their clemency through their attorneys, who had been notified about the pardons in advance of the White House announcement. It's likely, though unconfirmed, that Toussie's lawyer received one of these calls, too.

Josh noted that this is bound to end up in court. The Wall Street Journal's Dan Slater spoke to an expert who added that Bush's attempted take-back "could be challenged," and Toussie's lawyers would have a good case: "It should be possible for Toussie's attorneys to go to court for a declaration that the pardon became effective when the warrant was signed and, depending on the facts, when it became communicated to him or when he read it."

Stay tuned.

—Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

OBAMA'S CHURCH ATTENDANCE REPORTS.... The Politico was on this beat for a while, and now the Chicago Tribune is picking up on the story.

Barack Obama has long stressed the importance of religion in his life.

But as his fellow Christians around the world attended Christmas services on Wednesday and Thursday, the president-elect and his family remained sequestered at their vacation compound on the windward coast of Oahu.

His lack of attendance at formal religious services showcased a dilemma faced by Obama, who is between churches and often expresses concern about bringing the disruption of his security detail into the lives of others.

Still, he has not attended a public church service since before being elected, a departure from the actions of his two immediate predecessors.

This scrutiny of Obama's church attendance strikes me as wildly misplaced. If he'd pledged to attend weekly services during the transition, I could see his Sunday/holiday schedules being of some interest. But since that's clearly not the case, what's with all the reporting? The media's concern for Obama's worship practices reminds me of a nervous grandmother, demanding to know whether the young'uns fulfilled their spiritual obligations on Sunday morning.

On the one hand, there's a reasonable case to be made that reporting like this is an invasion of Obama's privacy. How and where one chooses to worship is a private matter, even for a national leader.

On the other, let's also not overlook the practical hurdle here. The Obama family is between congregations -- they have not yet moved to D.C., where they'll reportedly pick a new spiritual home -- and while they relax in Hawaii, their attendance at a local church would likely cause quite a disruption. Indeed, asked about this issue, an Obama spokesperson told the Trib, "The president-elect didn't want to disrupt a church community on Christmas with the burdens that come with a presidential visit."

Is that not a reasonable explanation? The Obamas can't even stop by a mall without generating a major stir, and they didn't want to subject a church to that on Christmas.

Maybe the media can give this a rest?

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* A pretty quiet day on Wall Street, with the major indexes each closing up a little.

* Speaking of Wall Street, the Bush administration hasn't been especially interested in prosecuting fraudulent stock schemes.

* Serious stuff: "Prisoners in a western Iraqi prison staged an armed revolt Friday morning that lasted for at least two hours and left 10 policemen and six prisoners dead. Three al Qaida in Iraq prisoners escaped and are on the loose, Iraqi police said."

* Oh my: "An Iditarod without snow, Florida's coastal towns lost forever to the Gulf of Mexico, wheat farmers in Kansas without crops. What sounds like the climatic end of days could be coming a lot sooner than previously anticipated. A recent report released by the U.S. Geological Survey paints abrupt climactic shifts, including a more rapid climate change with global sea level increases of up to four feet by the year 2100 and arid climatic shifts in the North American Southwest by mid-century."

* Cash-strapped states are making painful cuts to Medicaid.

* What a disaster: "What may be the nation's largest spill of coal ash lay thick and largely untouched over hundreds of acres of land and waterways Wednesday after a dam broke this week, as officials and environmentalists argued over its potential toxicity." (The disaster is even worse than originally feared.)

* Let's add "food safety reform" to Obama very lengthy to-do list.

* Fox News would have us believe that "historians pretty much agree" that FDR prolonged the Great Depression. David Sirota sets the record straight.

* I've had unimpressed over the years with the way the Senate Press Gallery operates, so I'm not especially surprised to learn that it's not at all friendly towards bloggers.

* Democrats in Congress intend to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," they just don't plan to work on it anytime soon.

* R.I.P, Eartha Kitt and Harold Pinter.

* I support people doing pretty much whatever they want with their own bodies, but I think taking prescription medicine to "enhance" one's eyelashes is crazy.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

A PARTING GIFT, A PARTING SHOT.... Hilzoy had a terrific item last week on this last week, and I'm glad to see the NYT editorializing on the subject.

A parting gift to the far right, the [Bush administration] new regulation aims to hinder women's access to abortion, contraceptives and the information necessary to make decisions about their own health. What makes it worse is that the policy is wrapped up in a phony claim to safeguard religious freedom.

The law has long allowed doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in an abortion. Mr. Leavitt's changes elevate the so-called right to refuse beyond reason to an increased number of medical institutions and a broad range of health care workers and services -- including abortion referrals, unbiased counseling and provision of emergency contraception, even to rape victims.

The impact will be hardest on poor women who rely on public programs for their health care.

In July, Barack Obama, still a senator at the time, signed a letter to Mr. Leavitt, along with some of his colleagues, urging Mr. Leavitt to scrap an earlier draft of the regulation. It cited a number of problems that were perpetuated in the final version.

The Health and Human Services regulation is due to become effective on Jan. 20, Inauguration Day. By acting right away to suspend its implementation, President-elect Barack Obama and his choice to succeed Mr. Leavitt, Tom Daschle, can block irresponsible changes that threaten people's rights and defy the federal government's duty on public health.

Fortunately, Obama plans to do just that. No one seriously believes it'll still be on the books this time next month, which is probably the only reason this new regulation hasn't drawn more outrage.

Regardless, this doesn't change the odious nature of Bush's effort.

—Steve Benen 4:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

BUSH LEGACY PROJECT FACES RESISTANCE.... A few years ago, Chris Matthews said, on the air, that "everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left." Three years later, it appears that liberal whack-jobs have somehow brainwashed the vast majority of the electorate.

A new national poll suggests that three out of four Americans feel President Bush's departure from office is coming not a moment too soon.

Seventy-five percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday said they're glad Bush is going; 23 percent indicated they'll miss him. [...]

CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider added, "As President Bush prepares to leave office, the American public has a parting thought: Good riddance. At least that's the way three-quarters feel."

That "Bush Legacy Project," which has been working lately on improving the president's public standing, doesn't seem to be connecting.

Now, everyone obviously knows that Bush is extremely unpopular, and has been for quite some time, but it's helpful to pause once in a while to appreciate just how despised this president is. We're witnessing something truly historical here.

Consider, for example, the question of post-presidential contributions. Eight years ago, 55% of Americans wanted to see Bill Clinton remain active in public life. For Bush, the number is 33%. The country, in other words, not only wants Bush to go away, but we don't want to see him popping up from time to time, either.

Eric Kleefeld went through some of the internals and found widespread distaste for Bush on every level. Americans don't like him, don't trust him, don't think he cares about them, and don't admire him. The public doesn't think Bush united the country, doesn't think he brought about the change we needed, and believes he failed to manage the government effectively.

The scope of the public's disdain for Bush is almost impressive.

—Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

ANOTHER SETBACK FOR GOP MINORITY OUTREACH.... About a month ago, Sophia Nelson, a former congressional staffer and a black Republican, had an op-ed piece lamenting the fact that her party seems wholly disinterested in minority outreach.

Since then, two of leading candidates to lead the Republican National Committee have helped prove Nelson's point.

Last month, we learned that Katon Dawson, a leading candidate for the chairmanship of the RNC, has been a longtime member of a whites-only country club in South Carolina. This month, Chip Saltsman, the former campaign manager for Mike Huckabee, embarrassed himself in a far more obvious way.

RNC candidate Chip Saltsman's Christmas greeting to committee members includes a music CD with lyrics from a song called "Barack the Magic Negro," first played on Rush Limbaugh's popular radio show. [...]

The CD, called "We Hate the USA," lampoons liberals with such songs as "John Edwards' Poverty Tour," "Wright place, wrong pastor," "Love Client #9," "Ivory and Ebony" and "The Star Spanglish banner." Several of the track titles, including "Barack the Magic Negro," are written in bold font.

Apparently, in April, conservative satirist Paul Shanklin introduced the song on Limbaugh's far-right show, featuring Shanklin's impression of Al Sharpton, and singing to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon."

"See, real black men, like Snoop Dog, or me, or Farrakhan, have talked the talk, and walked the walk, not come in late and won," one verse in the song says.

Saltsman defended his gift to RNC members, noting that he's a longtime friend of Shanklin and his songs for Limbaugh's program are meant to be "light-hearted political parodies."

Ta-Nehisi Coates added, "There's also a tune called 'The Star Spanglish Banner.' Get it? Negroes!! Spanglish!! No?? Clearly your too PC. Seriously, where do people get this idea that the GOP is racist? It really is one of the great mysteries of our time. Oh well. Saltsman's got my vote. Even if he believes I shouldn't have one. He's still got it."

—Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

THE BOOKWORM IN THE WHITE HOUSE.... Last week, the president addressed the American Enterprise Institute, with some fairly boilerplate rhetoric. During his discussion, Christopher DeMuth, the group's president, mentioned, "Another book that you famously read was Eliot Cohen's 'Supreme Command,' and he later went to work for you." Bush responded, "Yes, he did." DeMuth added, "Do you think he got it right in that book?" The president replied, "I can't even remember the book," before asking DeMuth to hum a few bars.

I mention this because Karl Rove devoted his latest Wall Street Journal column to bragging about George W. Bush's impressive ability to read an enormous number of books very quickly. Rove explained that he and the president have engaged in an annual contest since 2005, in which they see how many books they can finish in a given year.

As Rove tells it, he's defeated the president in each of the years in which they've competed. Nevertheless, Rove paints a picture of the president as a voracious reader, tearing through dense texts at an impressive clip. Bush, Rove says, not only reads the Bible cover to cover every single year, but takes in lengthy books about history, and shorter books about philosophy, including Albert Camus's "The Stranger."

The reading competition reveals Mr. Bush's focus on goals. It's not about winning. A good-natured competition helps keep him centered and makes possible a clear mind and a high level of energy. He reads instead of watching TV. He reads on Air Force One and to relax and because he's curious. He reads about the tasks at hand, often picking volumes because of the relevance to his challenges. [...]

In the 35 years I've known George W. Bush, he's always had a book nearby. He plays up being a good ol' boy from Midland, Texas, but he was a history major at Yale and graduated from Harvard Business School. You don't make it through either unless you are a reader.

Now, I've never met Bush, and can't speak to his personal habits. But I'm pretty confident that either a) Rove is spinning an absurd tale; or b) Bush has wildly exaggerated his reading prowess and Rove has bought the nonsense.

I wrote a piece about the president's alleged reading habits a few years ago, and have been keeping an eye on these reports ever since. I think it's fair to say this notion that Bush is a curious thinker with his nose constantly buried in complex texts is, by all appearances, kind of silly.

Indeed, Bush appeared on C-SPAN a few years ago and chatted with Brian Lamb, the longtime host of Booknotes. When Lamb asked the president how much reading he does on a given day, Bush replied, "I read, oh, gosh, I'd say, 10, maybe, different memoranda prepared by staff." When Lamb clarified that he was asking specifically about books -- the point of Lamb's show -- the president explained, "I'm reading, I think on a good night, maybe 20 to 30 pages," before segueing into an explanation about his rigorous exercise schedule.

Bush also bragged to Fox News' Brit Hume that he doesn't read newspapers, either, explaining, "I glance at the headlines just to kind of [get] a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are [sic] probably read the news themselves."

And we're to believe the president takes in absurdist philosophical parables from Camus in his spare time? Tears through 800-page historical treatises instead of turning on the TV? Seriously? We're talking about a man who, by his own admission, likes to get to bed early and maintains a challenging exercise schedule. He also ostensibly oversees the executive branch of government during two wars and an economic meltdown.

If we expand the definition of "read" to include Cliff's Notes, abridged books on tape, and skimming over a book's jacket, then maybe the claims are plausible. Otherwise, they're demonstrably ridiculous.

—Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

TRYING TO GENERATE GOP OPTIMISM.... The last time Democrats won the White House, Senate, and House, it was 1992, and their majority status was short-lived -- 1994 didn't go well for the party. The National Review's Peter Kirsanow believes there's a similar opportunity awaiting the Republican Party in two years from now.

Rod Blagojevich, $1 trillion "fiscal stimulus", Harry Reid, expiring tax cuts, Nancy Pelosi, socialized health care, Charlie Rangel, reinstitution of the oil drilling ban, Joe Biden, liberal judicial nominees, Al Franken (maybe), nuclear Iran, John Murtha, car czars, Dennis Kucinich, PC culture, Chris Dodd, entitlement explosion, Barney Frank, entitlement implosion, Barbara Boxer, card check, the Clintons, Russian adventurism.

If Republicans can't come back in 2010 they should be sued for political malpractice.

Anything's possible, I suppose, but this doesn't strike me as much of a gameplan. Indeed, if these are the variables that are supposed to lead to a GOP "comeback," it's no wonder Republicans are depressed.

Putting aside the sloppiness (Kirsanow mentions "entitlement explosion" twice*) and factual errors (no one is proposing "socialized health care"), one of the problems that jumps out at me from this list is how backwards-looking it is. Kirsanow's list includes people and policies that have already been around for a while -- Harry Reid has been Senate Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi has been Speaker, and Murtha, Kucinich, Frank, and Boxer are not exactly new to the scene. "PC culture" is not exactly a new sociological phenomenon. "The Clintons" have been political powerhouses for quite a while.

If all of these factors were going to help Republicans thrive, wouldn't the GOP have scored major victories the last two cycles, instead of getting trounced?

What's more, some of these issues actually help Democrats -- polls, for example, show Americans supporting a massive rescue package and the expiration of Bush's tax policies.

It's hard to argue that Kirsanow, whose work I'm not especially familiar with, has his pulse on what drives the strategic thinking of the Republican Party, but his list suggests at least some on the right are still thinking small. As Markos noted:

You'd think they would have learned their lesson after their single-minded obsessions with Wright, Ayers, and "socialism" didn't lead to a historic John McCain victory.

Republicans have broken our country, both militarily and economically. If Democrats deliver on their promises and start repairing the damage, the talk of "San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi" will be as effective as it has been the last two election cycles. [...]

If conservatives want to sue anyone for political malpractice, how about the gang that got us into this mess? Not only have they f'd up the world and the country, but they also destroyed their own party.

A laundry list of conservative boogeymen is not a plan.

* Ah, I see that Kirsanow makes a distinction between "entitlement explosion" and "entitlement implosion." Duly noted.

—Steve Benen 12:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

ADMIRATION.... I'm starting to think Americans actually like Barack Obama.

A month before his inauguration, Americans choose Barack Obama as the man they admire most in the world, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. It's the first time a president-elect has topped the annual survey in more than a half-century.

President Bush falls to a distant second after seven years as the most-admired man. [...]

The findings, a snapshot of public opinion at the end of a tumultuous year, reflect soaring expectations for an incoming president who will take over daunting economic challenges on Jan. 20.

"Things are down so much at the end of 2008 and the end of Bush's administration ... and Obama represents a new beginning and some hope and anticipation that things can get better," says James McPherson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and editor of 'To the Best of My Ability:' The American Presidents.

All told, one-third of Americans listed Obama as their first or second choice for most-admired man. In the history of the survey, which dates back to 1948, the only man to do better was Bush's 39% rating in 2001, just three months after the attacks of Sept. 11.

The last president-elect to top the survey was Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.

Obama's strong showing also comes the same week as a CNN poll showing his pre-inaugural approval rating at a whopping 82%.

As I said the other day, all of this can change after Obama actually takes office and starts governing. But as Republicans plot strategy on how to oppose and obstruct the next president's policy agenda, they may want to remember that Obama will enter the White House with a very deep well of public support.

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

FROM 'HO-HO' TO 'UH-OH' TO 'OH-NO'.... I remember about a year ago, during one of the debates for the Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee was defending the notion of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. Asked whether that might discourage consumption, Huckabee told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "Chris, you know Americans better than that. Nothing's going to discourage them from spending money." At the time, the audience found that hilarious.

We now know, of course, that something can discourage Americans from spending money: an economic crisis and deep recession.

A decrease in holiday shopping was widely expected this year, and retailers knew the season was going to be rough. But the Wall Street Journal reports that sales were "much worse than the already-dire picture painted by industry forecasts."

[C]onsidering individual sectors, "This will go down as the one of the worst holiday sales seasons on record," said Mary Delk, a director in the retail practice at consulting firm Deloitte LLP. "Retailers went from 'Ho-ho' to 'Uh-oh' to 'Oh-no.'"

The holiday retail-sales decline was much worse than the already-dire picture painted by industry forecasts, which had predicted sales ranging from a 1% drop to a more optimistic increase of 2.2%.

The prediction of a 1% drop wasn't close. Excluding car sales and gasoline, which would otherwise make the numbers look even worse, retail sales dropped 2.5% in November, and 4% through Christmas Eve in December. Widespread bankruptcies among retailers in the new year are likely.

Even the rich aren't spending: "Luxury goods, once considered immune from economic turmoil, were hardest hit, with sales falling 21.2%, compared with a jump of 7.5% a year ago, when the economy had just begun to sputter. Including jewelry sales, the luxury sector plunged by a whopping 34.5%."

Online shopping did better than every other sector of the retail landscape, but it still slipped 2%. Last year, online sales posted a 22.4% gain in the period.

In other words, there was no good news.

—Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

MICHAEL CONNELL'S DEATH DRAWS SCRUTINY.... Just a week ago, Michael Connell, a top Internet consultant for the RNC and both the Bush and McCain presidential campaigns, died in a plane crash. He was alone, flying a small, single-engine plane, and the details of what caused the crash have not yet been determined. The FAA is investigating -- as it does whenever any plane crashes -- and has not yet filed a report.

The Huffington Post's Tom Edsall, who notes that there was "no immediate evidence of wrong-doing or sabotage," goes on to call the incident "intriguing," and highlights the fact that Connell's death has "provoked a groundswell of commentary among conspiracy theorists on the web."

The most common unsubstantiated allegation on these sites is that Connell was about to provide crucial information in the case of alleged vote fraud in the 2004 Ohio presidential contest, and that that information would implicate Karl Rove and others in the Bush administration. Just last month, Connell was deposed in the ongoing case, King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association v. Blackwell. According to accounts of the November 3rd deposition, Connell denied any knowledge of attempts to fraudulently manipulate 2004 Ohio vote counts.

There is, however, a more immediate and relevant question: How much will Connell's death, even if the accident was entirely without malfeasance, impede congressional committee investigations into the more controversial activities of the Bush administration over the past eight years -- including the ongoing investigation into thousands of missing White House-RNC emails sent and received by some 22 White House political aides, including Rove. These emails are believed likely to shed light on the political firings of U.S. Attorneys, and to show if the White House had any role in controversial decisions to prosecute former Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.

Edsall, who has a reputation for credible, quality journalism, spoke to a "close friend" of Connell, who worked "extensively" with the consultant before his death, and who believes Connell "was more involved in that than a lot of people were let to believe." The friend added that Connell "may have been 'developing second thoughts' after years of being convinced that 'working for the Republican cause was doing God's work.'" Edsall added, "As it stands now, whatever Connell knew about the activities of Karl Rove and other Republican operatives will go with him to his grave."

The implication, I suppose, is that Connell had damaging information, may have been prepared to share it, and his plane crash was the possible result of foul play.

Without tangible evidence, I remain extremely skeptical about all of this. Indeed, it seems to me the political world has already learned volumes of scandalous information about the activities of the Bush White House, and if these guys were in the habit of killing people to cover up wrongdoing, they probably wouldn't have started a month before Bush leaves office for good.

I recall all kinds of truly insane ideas from far-right activists surrounding the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster in the 1990s, so I'm especially reluctant to see a repeat now. That said, Edsall's piece raises the visibility of the story, so expect to hear more about it in the coming weeks.

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS.... Conditions in Afghanistan have been deteriorating, and the pressure on U.S. troops and officials is increasing. Apparently, in some cases, there's been a diplomatic breakthrough thanks to a little blue pill.

The Afghan chieftain looked older than his 60-odd years, and his bearded face bore the creases of a man burdened with duties as tribal patriarch and husband to four younger women. His visitor, a CIA officer, saw an opportunity, and reached into his bag for a small gift.

Four blue pills. Viagra.

"Take one of these. You'll love it," the officer said. Compliments of Uncle Sam.

The enticement worked. The officer, who described the encounter, returned four days later to an enthusiastic reception. The grinning chief offered up a bonanza of information about Taliban movements and supply routes -- followed by a request for more pills.

U.S intelligence officials use "novel incentives," but this is not limited to Viagra. Sometimes, "notoriously fickle warlords and chieftains" can be won over with tools, school equipment, and surgical assistance. But it appears the "pharmaceutical enhancements for aging patriarchs with slumping libidos" can be effective with older tribal officials.

Why not just hand out cash? It doesn't work as well -- Afghan leaders with U.S. dollars are recognized for having cooperated with the unpopular Americans. And with Taliban commanders, drug dealers, and even Iranian agents offering enticements, too, U.S. officials have had to get creative.

The key, one American said, is to "find a way to meet the informant's personal needs in a way that keeps him firmly on your side but leaves little or no visible trace." Viagra obviously fits the bill.

After a long conversation through an interpreter, the retired operator began to probe for ways to win the man's loyalty. A discussion of the man's family and many wives provided inspiration. Once it was established that the man was in good health, the pills were offered and accepted.

Four days later, when the Americans returned, the gift had worked its magic, the operative recalled.

"He came up to us beaming," the official said. "He said, 'You are a great man.' "

"And after that we could do whatever we wanted in his area."

Gotta love outside-the-box thinking.

—Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

NICE CHRISTMAS GIFTS FOR LOYAL BUSHIES.... One might think the Bush gang will finally be gone on or around Jan. 20. Alas, a whole lot of these characters will be hanging around Washington quite a while longer, thanks to rewards from their boss.

As President Bush settles in for his last Christmas in office, he has been busy handing out presents to some of his top aides. And they are not the kind that require wrapping paper or a bow.

The White House announced on Wednesday the appointments of key members of the president's inner circle, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, to high-profile boards and commissions. The Christmas Eve appointments will allow them to serve far beyond Jan. 20, the end of Mr. Bush's term in office.

The White House said that the positions are unpaid, but appointees receive reimbursement for expenses and per diem compensation. They do not require Senate confirmation.

Ms. Rice got a spot on the John F. Kennedy Center's board of trustees until September 2014. The position should guarantee her good seats at the performing arts venue for the next six years; she is currently an ex-officio member of the board.

Mr. Bush's gift to Mr. Gutierrez: membership on the board of trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a research institute in Washington. Joining Mr. Gutierrez as a trustee is Barry Jackson, a former deputy to Karl Rove, who serves as assistant to the president for strategic initiatives and external affairs.

In all, two dozen White House officials were appointed to positions on government committees and councils, with terms lasting up to six years.

They're bound to leave us alone eventually, right?

—Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

ABOUT THAT TOUSSIE PARDON.... A lot of us expected Bush to sign a controversial pardon on Christmas Eve. We didn't expect Bush to undo a controversial pardon on Christmas Eve, and yet, here we are.

President Bush turned Brooklyn's Isaac Toussie into a poster boy for outrageous presidential pardons, granting, then rescinding, the order in 24 hours.

The mystery is how the administration ignored Toussie and his father's background -- a tale of payoff and corruption allegations spanning more than 45 years -- in pardoning the son for a massive housing scam.

Even by the standards of the Bush White House, this entire mess is bizarre. On Tuesday, Bush pardoned Isaac Toussie, who falsified the finances of prospective homebuyers seeking HUD mortgages, and pleaded guilty in 2003 to mail fraud and lying to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The pardon itself was inexplicable -- Toussie scammed hundreds of families, selling overpriced, poorly built homes to minority first-time buyers who couldn't afford them, and was only sentenced to five months in prison. He's been out of jail for several years, working as a real estate and marketing consultant.

Complicating matters, Toussie's father, Robert, who had never made political contributions before, suddenly decided to donate more than $40,000 to Republicans earlier this year. A few months later, Toussie's pardon petition was filed, and five months after that, Toussie's record was made clean by presidential fiat.

That is, until Wednesday night, when the president changed his mind and decided to take back Toussie's pardon.

There are all kinds of questions about what, exactly, transpired here. For example, the president and his spokesperson had pledged publicly, before this week, that all pardons would go through the pardon attorney at the Justice Department. Toussie's application bypassed the DoJ and was taken directly to the White House counsel's office.

Also, Toussie's attorney is none other than Bradford Berenson, who was a top attorney in ... wait for it ... Bush's White House counsel's office from 2001 to 2003. Might he have used his connections to pull a few strings?

Dana Perino told reporters on Wednesday that the president now believes the pardon attorney "should have an opportunity to review this case before a decision on clemency is made." That's fine, but why didn't the president believe that before he agreed to issue the pardon?

Moreover, it's not altogether clear whether the president has the authority to issue a pardon and then take it back before it's literally in the hands of the recipient.

And while we're at it, just how much of this controversy has to do with the Republican drive to scuttle Eric Holder's A.G. nomination?

The NYT noted yesterday, "It was clear from the timing and wording of the announcement that there had been major confusion or miscommunication, or both, within the White House bureaucracy over the Toussie case."

For a White House known for extraordinary incompetence and the politicization of every aspect of government, the Toussie controversy helps put an exclamation point on the Bush presidency.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

OPEN THREAD.... So, what'd you find around the Festivus Pole this year?

And if you could, what gifts would you like to give George W. Bush? Barack Obama?

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

HOUSEKEEPING NOTE.... It looks like it's a fairly slow news day, and I don't imagine too many readers will be stopping by, so expect a very light posting schedule today. I'll be around in case something dramatic and/or unexpected happens, but if the political world is quiet today, "Political Animal" will be, too.

Whether you're celebrating a holiday or just a day off of work, have a great one.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Unemployment continues to look brutal.

* New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) believes a stimulus package totaling $1 trillion over two years would be about right.

* Is it too late to send more troops to Afghanistan?

* The Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun are going to start sharing some of their local articles and pictures. Expect more deals like these as the strain on newspapers continues to worsen.

* Dennis Prager's piece on marital sex is so offensive, I'm a little surprised Prager published it with his name on it. This is the kind of piece that looks like a career-killer.

* Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox really doesn't want to be blamed for the economic crisis.

* Now I remember why I stopped reading "The Note."

* Where did some of the modern Christian traditions come from? Here's a good piece on holiday history.

* Obama delivered his weekly radio address early, making a worthwhile holiday message: "This season of giving should also be a time to renew a sense of common purpose and shared citizenship. Now more than ever, we must rededicate ourselves to the notion that we share a common destiny as Americans – that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. Now, we must all do our part to serve one another; to seek new ideas and new innovation; and to start a new chapter for our great country."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

SENATOR FRANKEN?.... The Minnesota Supreme Court may have sealed Norm Coleman's fate today.

In a unanimous decision handed down just now, the state Supremes denied Coleman any relief in a lawsuit he was waging to deal with allegations of double-counted absentee ballots, which his campaign says have given an illegitimate edge to Al Franken. The Coleman campaign was seeking to switch 25 selected precincts back to their Election Night totals, which would undo all of Franken's recount gains in those areas and put Coleman back in the lead.

The court, however, sided with the Franken camp's lawyers in saying that a question like this should be reserved for a post-recount election contest proceeding, as the proper forum to discover evidence -- and which also has a burden of proof that heavily favors the certified winner.

Simply put, Coleman is in very big trouble right now. With Al Franken leading by 47 votes, this lawsuit was Coleman's best shot at coming from behind. And it just failed, making a Franken win nearly a foregone conclusion when this recount finishes up in early January.

The Star Tribune has more, but Josh Marshall seems to summarize the result: "Looks like it's gonna be Sen. Franken (D-MN). Not a 100% yet. But the state Supreme Court just put the kibosh on Coleman's last credible legal angle. Bye, Norm."

—Steve Benen 4:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

GETTING STEM-CELL RESEARCH BACK ON TRACK.... Scientists who were optimistic about the potential breakthroughs from stem-cell research have been stymied for nearly eight years by Bush administration restrictions. With Obama poised to take office, the scientific community is fired up and ready to go.

Once [Obama] has acted to ease the restriction on federal funding, researchers across the United States will be free to request funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and to collaborate with colleagues conducting experiments with private or state-government money and those working abroad.

"Just with the stroke of a pen, the new president could open up new avenues of research," said Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.), the lead Democratic sponsor of legislation that would broaden funding for embryonic stem cell research.... "He would really be signaling that we really are moving in a new direction," DeGette said.

"The research facilities in America ... are by and large prepared to move forward with the research. I don't think there'd be much delay," said Rep. Mike Castle (Del.), the lead Republican sponsor of the bill.

Congress twice passed measures to undo Bush's restrictions, but despite bipartisan support, the president vetoed both. Come 2009, lawmakers probably won't have to bother with legislation -- Obama can correct Bush's mistake through executive order.

"It could change things pretty much right away," said Terry Devitt, the director of research communications for the University of Wisconsin, which runs the U.W. Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Center.

Devitt added, though, that the progress won't be immediate. "There's still a lot of basic science to be done.... The [Bush] policy has set research back five to six to seven years in this country."

It's painful to think about what kind of advancements could have been made if Bush had embraced a coherent policy.

—Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)

A VERY GOOD START.... I guess the media drive to connect the president-elect to the Blagojevich controversy isn't swaying public opinion -- support for Obama continues to soar.

Eighty-two percent of those questioned in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday morning approve of the way the Obama is handling his presidential transition. That's up 3 points from when we asked this question at the beginning of December. Fifteen percent of those surveyed disapprove of the way Obama's handling his transition, down 3 points from our last poll.

The 82 percent approval is higher than then President-elect George W. Bush 8 years ago, who had a 65 percent transition approval rating, and Bill Clinton, at 67 percent in 1992. [...]

"Obama walks in with nearly twice the support on the economy that President-elect Clinton had in January, 1993, and he beats Ronald Reagan as well," adds Holland.

What's more, a third of those polled said their opinion of Obama has improved since the election.

As I've noted before, I don't take these pre-inauguration polls too seriously. The transition period offers potential pitfalls, and by large, Obama has avoided them, which contributes to poll results like this one.

But I still didn't think 82% was a realistic number. Frankly, 82% of Americans don't agree on much. A couple of weeks ago, Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst, said, "An Obama job approval rating of 79 percent! That's the sort of rating you see when the public rallies around a leader after a national disaster." Of course, the rating has gone up even further since.

All of this is likely to change once Obama starts, you know, governing. But as Republicans plot strategy on how to oppose and obstruct the next president's policy agenda, they may want to remember that Obama will enter the White House with a very deep well of public support.

—Steve Benen 1:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Norm Coleman and Al Franken have reached a deal on disputed absentee ballots -- the votes will only be counted if both sides agree they were wrongly cast aside.

* The Minnesota canvassing board will meet on January 5, possibly to certify a winner in the lingering Senate race, but the board's process may go beyond January 6, the day the 111th Congress convenes.

* For the first time since the election, Coleman spoke publicly yesterday about the possibility of losing: "Life goes on, regardless of what your job is. I certainly love what I do. If I can keep doing it, I'll be thrilled, and if not, I'm sure we'll do something else."

* A growing number of New York Democrats are raising concerns about Caroline Kennedy replacing Hillary Clinton in the Senate.

* We don't yet know who Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) is likely to appoint to fill Ken Salazar's Senate seat, but there's some buzz about Democratic state Senate President Peter Groff, the highest-ranking African-American elected official in Colorado history.

* Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, meanwhile, doesn't mind admitting that he'd like to be appointed to the vacant seat.

* And speaking of interest in vacancies, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) admitted yesterday that he wouldn't mind being considered for Clinton's seat, either. Nadler, who represents most of Manhattan, is not considered a leading candidate.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

OBAMA'S PENTAGON.... When word first leaked that Robert Gates was likely to stay on as Barack Obama's Defense Secretary, one of the principal concerns on the left was over Gates' deputies -- Gates may be sensible, but deputies will have considerable influence on Pentagon decision-making, and they're not as inclined towards pragmatism as their boss.

It was a relief to many, then, that the Pentagon's deputy secretaries would be replaced by Obama's team. This week, however, this story took a turn when Bill Gertz at the Washington Times, an unabashed far-right newspaper, reported that Obama wants the "Bush war team" to stay in place after the inauguration.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is asking many of the Bush administration's 250 Pentagon political appointees to remain on the job until the incoming Obama administration finds replacements -- a move designed to prevent a leadership vacuum with U.S. troops engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unusual request by Mr. Gates, whom President-elect Barack Obama has asked to continue in his Cabinet post, ensures that key policy positions will not be left to "acting" subordinates as typically occurs when political appointees are directed to resign during a presidential transition.

The Washington Times treated this as some kind of major news story, and I saw some on the left expressing real concerns about this, but I think there's less here than meets the eye.

As John Cole put it, "Unless someone can explain to me how it is responsible for us to run two wars while hundreds of key personnel positions remain vacant, I am going to say this is a responsible thing to do, and will not partake in this round of the vapors."

Indeed, the vapors are unnecessary. While the Washington Times emphasized how "unusual" the move is, it's really actually fairly routine. Spencer Ackerman noted, for example, that Clinton's assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, Ned Walker, was a very forceful critic of neoconservatism, but nevertheless stayed at his post for eight months into Bush's presidency -- not because of some bipartisan outreach, but because it took some time for the new administration to find a suitable replacement. No big deal.

The key to remember here is timing. If we'd learned that Obama and Gates expected to keep Bush's Pentagon political appointees on the job indefinitely, that would be cause for concern. But while the Washington Times glosses over the timeline, we're talking about a short-term process -- Obama and his team will replace these appointees gradually over the course of the year.

I know it's easy to look for evidence that somehow Obama is betraying the Democratic Party and failing to deliver "change," and I don't doubt the Washington Times wants to exacerbate these feelings as much as possible. But this "revelation" isn't evidence of much.

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

THE RIGHT'S PROBLEM IN A NUTSHELL.... The other day, my friend Ron Chusid had an item arguing that Ann Coulter's piece on Sarah Palin was clear evidence of "the wrong direction the conservative movement is moving in" and the dominance of "anti-intellectualism" on the right.

I finally read Coulter's piece, and I have to admit, it's even more inane than I expected. Coulter, heralded Palin's selection as "Conservative of the Year" and applauded the Alaska governor's role in politics. To hear Coulter tell it, Palin is a hero because she sent "the left into a tailspin of wanton despair."

Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can't think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain.

Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode.

Got that? Palin is necessarily wonderful because liberals didn't like her. (That plenty of independents and Republicans found the thought of her vice presidency horrifying is irrelevant.)

Now, I realize that Coulter is a circus clown, and quite possibly a liberal plant meant to make conservatives look ridiculous as part of some kind of satirical performance art, but over the course of nearly 2,000 words, Coulter couldn't actually point to any of Palin's genuine strengths. Coulter blasted the media, Democrats, women she finds insufficiently attractive, and John McCain, but in applauding the greatness of Sarah Palin, she neglected to mention anything that makes Sarah Palin great, outside of Coulter's disdain for Palin's detractors.

Ezra noted that Coulter's bizarre missive will one day offer historians evidence of "the death of America's conservative majority."

Palin is the year's most important conservative not because she won, or because she came close, but because she provoked the most outrage among liberals. And Coulter's column presents all of this as triumph. There's no sorrow over Palin's loss. Rather, the column is suffused with glee for the lark of it all. Remember that time Palin made that joke about lipstick?

This is not the metric of anything so fearsome as a bully. It's the measure of a mere pest. And the hard question for conservatives is, what if Coulter is right? What if Palin really is the leader of modern conservatism, the best representative of its modern mission? "Palin was a kick in the pants," Coulter says. And right now, that's enough.

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)

A BRIEF HONEYMOON.... The NYT's Adam Nagourney reported today that the Republican Party, about a month shy of Barack Obama's inauguration, haven't quite figured out how best to play the role of the loyal opposition.

The president-elect is proving to be an elusive and frustrating target. He has defied attempts to be framed ideologically. His cabinet picks have won wide praise. An effort by the Republican National Committee to link Mr. Obama to the unfolding scandal involving Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois and the accusations that he tried to sell Mr. Obama's Senate seat was dismissed by no less a figure than Senator John McCain, the Republican whom Mr. Obama beat for the presidency. [...]

[T]his image of Republican uncertainty is a testimony to the political skills of the incoming president, and a reminder of just how difficult a situation the Republican Party is in. More than that, though, Republicans and Democrats say, it is evidence of the unusual place the country is in now: buoyed by prospect of an inauguration while at the same time deeply worried about the country's future. It is going to be complicated making a case against Mr. Obama, many Republicans said, in an environment where people simply want him to succeed and may not have much of an appetite for partisan politics.

Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis, a leading candidate to lead the RNC, told the Times, "What you don't want to be is the party that's always attacking or being negative with no alternatives." On his blog, Anuzis added, "Where necessary, we should stand for what is right and forcefully be the loyal opposition. But partisan politics in times like these for the sake of politics is not healthy."

I have a strong hunch that Republicans will get over this feeling very quickly, sometime around mid-January.

Look, it's exceedingly easy for Republican officials to say, the week of Christmas and a month before Obama takes the oath of office, they're committed to playing a productive role in the future. But to think general comity will last is to ignore the warning signs that are already on the horizon, including petty wrangling over Eric Holder's nomination and John Boehner's online search for economists who might help provide a justification for opposition to Obama's economic rescue plan.

Just as importantly, it also ignores everything we've seen from the party for about a generation. The modern Republican Party, shaped by Rove, Gingrich, Atwater, and DeLay, relies on a playbook with one page: attack. Even when it doesn't serve the nation well, even when it doesn't serve Republicans well, today's GOP can't seem to help itself.

"It is going to be complicated making a case against Mr. Obama"? Perhaps, but I'm sure they'll think of something.

—Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

MEET ISAAC TOUSSIE.... Yesterday, the Bush White House released a list of 19 presidential pardons and one commuted prison sentence. The new batch didn't include any of the "famous" people seeking clemency, but there was one name that warrants a closer look.

President Bush pardoned a Brooklyn real estate developer accused of scamming hundreds of poor, minority homebuyers -- and whose father donated $28,500 to the Republican Party this year.

Bush pardoned Isaac Toussie, 36, two days before Christmas in a gesture of mercy that outraged ex-customers who said they were duped into buying overpriced, defective homes.

"We're in the middle of a mortgage crisis [and] this is somebody who was alleged to have participated in predatory lending practices," said Peter Seidman, a lawyer who represents 460 people who say they were fleeced.

"To pardon Isaac Toussie is a kick in the teeth to homeowners struggling with mortgages they can't afford."

Toussie, who falsified the finances of prospective homebuyers seeking HUD mortgages, pleaded guilty in 2003 to mail fraud and lying to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Despite having scammed hundreds of families -- selling overpriced, poorly built homes to minority first-time buyers who couldn't afford them -- Toussie was sentenced to only five months in prison and five months house arrest, and has been out of jail for several years now, working as a real estate and marketing consultant.

So why on earth give this guy a pardon now? Given the economic circumstances of the day, is now really a good time for the president to pardon a scam artist who got off easy running an illegal mortgage scheme?

Making matters worse, Toussie's father, Robert, made his first political donation in April, giving the Republican National Committee $28,500. Four months later, the U.S. Pardon Attorney received Toussie's pardon petition, and five months after that, Toussie's record is suddenly clean by presidential fiat.

Toussie's victims, as one might imagine, are not at all happy about Bush's decision.

Without additional information, it's hard to know whether Toussie's father effectively bought a presidential pardon for $28,500. But given the Republicans' new-found interest in revisiting the Marc Rich controversy, this is a pardon that seems to deserve a lot more scrutiny.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Another bad day on Wall Street, with the three biggest indexes falling about 1% each.

* The housing market continues to look bleak, and may not have reached the bottom yet.

* The Bernard Madoff fiasco gets even more tragic: Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet, who founded an investment fund that lost millions with Madooff, apparently committed suicide overnight.

* Obama/Biden doesn't want to see Congress load up a stimulus package with a lot of earmarks. Good luck with that.

* The LA Times forgets the importance of disclosure.

* More members of Obama's national security team were announced today.

* Howard Wolfson isn't headed to the State Department, but he is going to Michael Bloomberg's re-election campaign.

* Some of Obama's detractors need geography lessons.

* Federal prosecutors seem to have seriously mishandled the Ted Stevens prosecution.

* I had no idea so many presidents had been photographed without their shirts on.

* I guess Rick Warren is embarrassed about some of his church's anti-gay messages?

* Even now, Fox News personalities are still repeating nonsense about the Community Reinvestment Act.

* Congrats to Dan Drezner on his new blogging gig.

* There's been some good discussion around the 'sphere today about the structural problems facing the newspaper industry. I found Kevin's thinking very much in line with my own.

* Bret Baier will replace Brit Hume as Fox News' "Special Report" anchor.

* The "War on Christmas" nonsense is definitely muted this year, but some conservatives just can't help themselves.

* I really do think Festivus is a great holiday.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

TRANSITION OFFICE RELEASES BLAGOJEVICH REPORT.... There's a very good reason the president-elect and the Obama team seemed completely unconcerned about any connection to the Blagojevich controversy -- they weren't connected to the Blagojevich controversy.

An internal review prepared for President-elect Barack Obama says his incoming chief of staff had multiple conversations with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's office, but no one close to Obama suspected that the governor might be trying to sell Obama's Senate seat as prosecutors allege.

The report was released Tuesday as an Obama transition official confirmed that Obama and two of his top aides, Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett, have been interviewed in connection with the federal investigation into Blagojevich.

Incoming White House attorney Greg Craig, who conducted the internal review at Obama's request, found that the president-elect had no contact with Blagojevich or any of his staff about the Senate seat he vacated to take over the presidency.

One imagines that Obama detractors might not believe these conclusions -- "the transition team can't clear itself of wrongdoing!" -- but the review was done with the knowledge that Blagojevich and his office was the subject of FBI wiretaps. The transition team, in other words, knew in advance that any false claims would be easily exposed, so they had a very strong incentive to be completely honest.

And as expected, there was nothing to hide. The entire Craig memo is online (.pdf), and after reading it, everything we'd heard from Obama and his team was completely true. Obama never spoke to Blagojevich or his office about the Senate vacancy; no one on Obama's staff ever had any inappropriate discussions with the governor or his office; and no one Obama's staff ever had any indication that Blagojevich was engaged in alleged corruption.

A Democratic official told CNN this morning, "You're going to see this is a lot about nothing." That turned out to be completely right.

I hesitate to use the word "exonerate," since it implies that one is accused of wrongdoing, but the evidence didn't support the accusation. This is far less than that -- no one on the transition team was ever even accused of misconduct, and a review helps prove that the baseless speculation was without foundation.

The phrase "nothing to see here" keeps coming to mind.

—Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

'DARK DAYS AHEAD' FOR GOP.... By now, the list of problems -- structural, practical, ideological, historical -- facing the Republican Party is pretty familiar. Time's Michael Scherer makes the compelling case today that the economic crisis, in addition to contributing to the GOP's electoral defeats, presents the party with a perilous future and threatens the Republicans' fundamental identity.

Liquidity traps are fought with government interventions. They are fought successfully with big ones. Republicans now face the real possibility of a generation of American voters who will see government not as the problem, but as the solution.

The last time America faced such a major economic retrenchment, Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded with a massive expansion of government spending and regulation, new programs like Social Security and new protections for unions and workers, which were controversial at the time, but which proved to be popular over the long haul. It took leaders like Goldwater more than two decades to gain some significant popular traction in opposition to Roosevelt's vision. Conservative economic ideas did not really impose themselves on the White House until 1981, more than 40 years after the bulk of the New Deal era had been established.

In the face of this peril, conservatives find themselves without leadership, direction, or even a cogent ideological response to the crisis. Conservative lodestars, like Dick Cheney, are warning of Herbert Hoover times if Republicans don't open up the federal pocketbooks. Even President Bush has admitted that he "abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." And he did not succeed, clearing the way for much more abandoning to come.

Following widely accepted Keynsian theories, Barack Obama has proposed an economic stimulus next year of perhaps $1 trillion over two years, money that will take time to filter into an ever-worsening economy. Whether or not it succeeds, all the voters who get jobs because of this new spending will know its source: For a time, Obamadollars will pay their mortgage or rent. Obamadollars will feed their children. As such, the Democratic president has the ability to build a vast new political coalition of support, much like the one that FDR built during the 1930s. Ask Republican political strategists to honestly tell you why they hate government spending and they all offer the same answer: It creates Democratic voters.

It's probably fair to say Republican leaders are aware of this, but unsure what to do about it. At this point, they're left sputtering about Neo-Hooverite ideas, which are just slightly too misguided to be taken seriously. House Minority Leader John Boehner has even created an online form, hoping to find credible economists who'll tell him it's OK to oppose an economic rescue package.

So, what's going to happen? Scherer predicts Republicans will "retrench to a guerrilla war," and use EFCA to characterize Democrats as the "party of big labor." (Look out, Democrats are on the side of working Americans! Eek!) It hardly sounds like a recipe for success.

Given the conditions, it's an awfully difficult time to stand athwart history, yelling, "Stop."

—Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

PARDON ME.... Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball recently noted how "stingy" Bush has been on presidential pardons. It's true, by historical standards, this president hasn't exactly been a "compassionate" conservative when it comes to clemency.

As his presidency winds down, however, Bush is exercising the power a bit.

Before leaving for the holidays, President Bush on Tuesday commuted one prison sentence and granted 19 pardons, including one to a man who helped the Jewish resistance in the 1940s.

With this latest batch, which includes forgiveness for convictions ranging from gun and drug violations to bank and mail fraud, Bush has granted a total of 191 pardons and nine commutations. That's fewer than half as many as Presidents Clinton or Reagan issued during their two terms.

Today's batch didn't include any of the "famous" people who are seeking presidential pardons, but White House spokesperson Tony Fratto suggested this morning that there will be more pardons issued before Bush leaves office. Fratto told reporters the president has been "considering" additional clemency requests, adding, "[W]e should have something soon on clemency petitions."

ProPublica's Dafna Linzer had a good item recently about what to look out for during Bush's last month, breaking down convicts by category and rating the likelihood of presidential clemency on a scale of zero to four "Get of Jail Free" cards. Using Linzer's guide, pay careful attention in the coming weeks to the fate of Texas Border Patrol guards Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, Libby, New England phone-jammer James Tobin, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, and Sen. Ted Stevens. Also keep an eye on interrogation officials who've used administration-endorsed torture techniques.

It's a guessing game, of course, but I'd wager that Libby will get a pardon. I'd also bet that Bush chooses Christmas Eve for his most controversial pardon decisions -- it'd be keeping with family history.

—Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

CHENEY AND A 'COMPLETELY INVERTED' REALITY.... Dick Cheney has been spending quite a bit of time outside of his undisclosed location lately. After hiding throughout the campaign season, the Vice President has done a series of "exit interviews" as his time in Washington wraps up.

And as part of his long goodbye, Cheney has offered a series of interesting legal opinions, all of which look pretty ridiculous when scrutinized. Slate's Dahlia Lithwick highlights a few of Cheney's most recent gems, all of which point to an official who has "completely inverted settled and open legal questions."

For example, Cheney made the case that torture is legal, most notably waterboarding, which he not only defended in an ABC interview, but acknowledged having cleared as Bush administration policy. Is he right? Not so much.

That question has been resolved as a legal matter for centuries and is not actually open to relitigation on ABC News. Water-boarding has been deemed torture and prosecuted as a war crime in this country. It violates, among other things, the Convention Against Torture, the War Crimes Act, and the U.S. anti-torture statute. Its illegality is neither an open question nor a close one. Yet again, the handful of people -- including Dick Cheney -- who maintain that torture is completely legal corresponds almost perfectly to the number of people who could be prosecuted for war crimes because it is not.

And then there's Cheney's belief that the president has the legal authority to do just about anything he wants as part of his national security responsibilities. This authority is vested in the presidency, Cheney said, because of "the nature of the world we live in." Is this right? Survey says...

The claim that "the nature of the world we live in" warrants a perennially unchecked executive branch can be delivered with all the gravitas in the world, and it still amounts to constitutional nonsense. To this end it's well worth reading Absolute Power, in which distinguished legal journalist John MacKenzie takes a close look at claims about the unitary executive. MacKenzie shows how a scholarly constitutional claim about the right of executive branch officials to interpret the Constitution morphed into the aggressively ahistorical interpretation of executive power that Cheney parrots with such perfect confidence. As MacKenzie writes: "The unitary executive has come a long way for a theory that has a hole in its heart and no basis in history or coherent thought. It simply is devoid of content, not expressed or even strongly implied in foundational documents such as The Federalist, not to mention the Constitution."

Something to keep in mind the next time Cheney sits down for another interview: when it comes to the rule of law, he has a twisted worldview.

—Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

WRONG RESPONSE TO THE WRONG PROBLEM.... I can understand the music industry's concerns about file-sharing and "piracy." I can't understand this.

James Blunt, Madonna and Led Zeppelin are set to disappear from YouTube after their record company, Warner Music Group, fell out with the video-sharing site in a row over royalties.

Warner Music said it would pull hundreds of thousands of videos from the site following the collapse of talks with the Google-owned company about renegotiating a content-sharing deal. "We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide," the group said. Warner Music added that it was "working actively" to find a resolution with YouTube.

The company had yet to remove all material from YouTube by yesterday afternoon, with Madonna fans still able to watch a video for her single 4 minutes posted by WMG on the site -- the promo for James Blunt's ubiquitous You're Beautiful was also available. Other Warner Music artists include Metallica and Bloc Party.

Content will be removed from the site along with recordings owned by Warner Music's record publishing business, Warner/Chappell Music, which controls the copyright to songs including Happy Birthday to You and Winter Wonderland. Warner Music's withdrawal also covers amateur clips that feature its artists or copyrighted songs -- potentially widening the action to hundreds of thousands of additional postings.

Ta-Nehisi Coates explained, "This makes no sense. A music video is nothing more than a really expensive ad. It's amazing that these guys want YouTube to pay them for the right to show their videos."

Quite right. The whole point of music videos is promotion; it's why they exist. The logical thing for Warner Music Group to do is to encourage YouTube to feature as many music videos from Warner artists as possible. It's not complicated -- consumer likes video, consumer purchases music ... consumer doesn't see video, consumer doesn't know about music, consumer doesn't purchase music.

In this particular situation, YouTube was already paying Warner Music Group for the rights to post videos, but Warner decided it wanted more money. So, after YouTube balked, Warner decided to take away the very promotional tool its artists need to sell more music. The company, in other words, is spiting YouTube in the most self-destructive way possible.

There's a reason the music industry is failing.

—Steve Benen 1:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

TAKING INHOFE TO TASK.... As part of his long-time crusade to label global warming a "myth," Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), arguably the Senate's most unhinged member, has released yet another "report" to bolster his arguments.

About a year ago, Inhofe released a similar document, pointing to 400 "scientists" who, he said, rejected the scientific consensus on climate change. Now, he claims 650 "scientists" in his latest contribution to the subject.

Amanda Terkel highlights a very good interview from yesterday, in which MSNBC's David Shuster pressed Inhofe on some of the experts the senator relied on for his report. Among the 650 are economists, engineers, geographers, TV weathermen, and physicists, none of whom have a background in climate science. What's more, Shuster noted that when digging a little deeper, some of the experts Inhofe cites actually believe that human activity and CO2 emissions contribute to the climate problem.

Making matters worse, some of the scientists included on Inhofe's list demanded that their names be removed -- and Inhofe ignored their requests.

It's not as if Inhofe was an especially credible character before. With each new embarrassment, he manages to look a little worse.

—Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Al Franken leads Norm Coleman by 48 votes, but, naturally, it's not over. Expect more movement today.

* Coleman's campaign claims it can make the case for a Coleman lead, if only the state canvassing board would do what Coleman wants it to do.

* A Quinnipiac poll shows 33% of New Yorkers want Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate, while 29% prefer state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. The same poll shows that a 48% plurality believes Kennedy will fill the Senate vacancy.

* New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn't care who Gov. David Paterson picks, he just wants the governor to make a decision "reasonably quickly" because the speculation is "just getting out of control."

* With another census coming up, congressional reapportionment is around the corner. Election Data Services projects, based on population shifts over the last decade, that Texas will gain three House seats; Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and Utah would each gain one; and Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would each lose one.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)

BUSH'S RECORD ON TERRORISM.... As part of the apparent Bush Legacy Project, we've been hearing quite a bit -- from the president on down -- about Bush's record of keeping America safe from terrorist attacks since 2002.

The latest comes by way of Ed Gillespie, a White House aide and former RNC chairman, who wants Americans to remember a key "fact":

Our homeland has not suffered another terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. That, too, is part of the real Bush record.

First, this is plainly false. In the fall of 2001, someone (presumably scientist Bruce Ivins) launched an anthrax attack on the country using the U.S. postal system. Five people were killed, 17 were injured, and millions had the bejesus scared out of them. Why so many like to pretend this didn't happen is a mystery to me.

Second, Gillespie focuses on "our homeland," but it's worth noting that U.S. troops have been subjected to terrorist attacks overseas, as have our allies.

And third, this notion that evaluating Bush's legacy on counter-terrorism should start on Sept. 12, 2001, is just odd. Gillespie and others seem to be arguing, "Just so long as one overlooks the terrorism that killed 3,000 people in 2001, Bush's record on domestic security is excellent."

But that's absurd. As Yglesias explained:

The vast majority of Americans to have ever been killed by foreign terrorists were killed under George W. Bush's watch. As Gillespie says, whether or not a president succeeds in preventing foreign terrorists from murdering thousands of American citizens is an important part of that president's record. And Bush took office on January 20, 2001. Nine or so months later by far the largest terrorist attack on American soil was perpetrated. That's a fantastically enormous failing. If you only look at Bush's final seven years, you'll see that he was as good as every other president at preventing terrorist attacks. And if you include his entire presidency, you'll see that he was by far the worst.

—Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (76)

LINCOLN'S BIBLE.... The Politico reported recently that Barack Obama faces a possible "backlash" for his "ostentatious embrace of all things Lincoln." It looks like the president-elect doesn't much care.

On January 20th, President-elect Barack Obama will take the oath of office using the same Bible upon which President Lincoln was sworn in at his first inauguration. The Bible is currently part of the collections of the Library of Congress. Though there is no constitutional requirement for the use of a Bible during the swearing-in, Presidents have traditionally used Bibles for the ceremony, choosing a volume with personal or historical significance. President-elect Obama will be the first President sworn in using the Lincoln Bible since its initial use in 1861.

"President-elect Obama is deeply honored that the Library of Congress has made the Lincoln Bible available for use during his swearing-in," said Presidential Inaugural Committee Executive Director Emmett Beliveau. "The President-elect is committed to holding an Inauguration that celebrates America's unity, and the use of this historic Bible will provide a powerful connection to our common past and common heritage."

I suspect Obama's choice of Bibles will draw complaints from his more aggressive detractors -- Sean Wilentz, I'm looking in your direction -- but presidents routinely use historical items as part of their inaugurations. In Reagan's second inaugural, the Bible was placed on a marble-topped table that was built for Lincoln's second inaugural. Jimmy Carter used a lectern that had been used at Washington's inauguration.

Regardless, it's a nice symbolic gesture for Obama.

Post Script: Time for a scavenger hunt -- which will be the first prominent right-wing blog to express surprise that Obama isn't using a Koran?

—Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

A GROWTH INDUSTRY.... For all of the nation's financial problems, lobbyists are still doing quite well.

Washington's influence industry is humming steadily while the national economy is declining in what several economists predict will be the worst recession in 50 years.

More than half a million Americans lost jobs last month, and the value of most 401(k) plans plunged, yet government and public-relations pros in town expect to make a lot of money over the next two years.

Fueling the industry along K Street is an anticipation of sweeping changes that President-elect Obama and the newly emboldened Democratic Congress will pursue together -- from ending Bush-administration tax cuts to enacting the broad health reforms proposed during the campaign.

Wright Andrews, a partner at a lobbying firm, told The Hill, "A number of interests are extremely concerned that they are going to be hit with legislation, and this includes a number of parties who have not had to worry in the Republican era and now see a major threat... Everyone I've talked to thinks it's going to be a banner year. I'm just smiling, quite frankly, at what seems to be happening."

It's frustrating to think the only group of people able to thrive in this economy are K Street lobbyists, but this is not altogether unexpected. As Yglesias noted yesterday, "With business investment and consumer spending tanking, public sector expenditures are going to rise as a share of the economy even faster than they rise in absolute terms. And lots of firms are going to be cutting back, but already you can see that the hard-hit financial services and auto sectors are going to be counting on their government relations departments as key to their business models. Beyond that, I think big business trying to get its way in a Democratic-controlled Washington becomes more of a nakedly transactional affair -- old-school influence peddling reigns supreme -- with less ideological encrustment and profession of principle."

Tony Podesta, a high-profile Democratic lobbyist, told The Hill that companies simply can't afford to cut their lobbying budgets when policy makers are poised to pass landmark legislation. "Lobbyists and discounters may be the only people who grow," he said.

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

CREATIVE ATTACKS ON EFCA.... We learned last week that conservative activist Rick Berman will be taking the lead in opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, supported by congressional Democrats and Barack Obama, which would make it easier for unions to organize. Berman, Greg Sargent noted, is "a D.C. cartoon villain business lobbyist who fights efforts to restrict drunk driving, mandate healthier foods, and, of course, to hike the minimum wage."

Berman's hardball background suggested that his attacks on labor and EFCA would get pretty ugly, and thanks to the corporate and far-right financial support Berman enjoys, his tactics are likely to have a significant reach.

We're already getting a sense of what to expect.

The 30-second television spot opens with a picture of Chicago's skyline and a mug shot of an allegedly corrupt governor. Then another photo bleeds onto the screen of a labor union boss with ties to the politician.

It may sound like a preview for the latest mobster-inspired drama. Instead, the commercial is a not-so-subtle attempt to implicate one of the fastest growing U.S. labor organizations, the Service Employees International Union, in the corruption scandal swirling around Illinois Democrat Rod Blagojevich.

The aim isn't mere union bashing. The larger goal behind the ad campaign is to derail controversial legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, the so-called card-check proposal.

"We will keep hammering on this," said lobbyist Richard Berman, referring to the Blagojevich scandal. He heads Center for Union Facts, a Washington-based group that ran a full-page ad in the New York Times last week that sought to discredit the card- check measure by connecting the Illinois governor and SEIU.

Along with Americans for Job Security, a separate organization that paid for the recent television ads, the groups are following a common tactic of Washington's influence industry: a clear message funded by hard-to-trace benefactors.

Both are incorporated under a federal tax-code section that allows them to keep their donors secret. They declined to release a list of those funding them.

What does Blagojevich have to do with making it easier for workers to form a union? Nothing, but when debating legislation on the merits isn't an option, this is what the right comes up with.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

COMEY ENDORSES HOLDER FOR AG.... Jim Comey, Bush's former deputy Attorney General, oversaw the investigation of Marc Rich from 1987 to 1993 as a New York City prosecutor. He admits he was "stunned" by Clinton's 2001 pardon of Rich, a decision Comey obviously still disagrees with.

Given this background, one might expect Comey to be a leading critic of Eric Holder becoming the next Attorney General. As it turns out, the opposite is true.

The prosecutor who hunted Marc Rich for years has asked the Senate to confirm Eric Holder as attorney general, despite his "misjudgment" in approving the fugitive financier's presidential pardon.

James Comey, a longtime federal prosecutor in New York who rose to become Manhattan U.S. Attorney and deputy attorney general under President Bush, said Holder's role "should not disqualify him" as the nation's first African-American to lead the Department of Justice.

"I think Mr. Holder's [mistake] may actually make him a better steward of the Department of Justice because he has learned a hard lesson about protecting the integrity of that great institution from political fixers," Comey wrote last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will convene Holder's confirmation hearings next month.

Comey's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee notes that he hopes "very much" that Holder is confirmed. "I'm not suggesting errors of judgment are qualification for high office, but in this case, where the nominee is a smart, decent, humble man, who knows and loves the Department and has demonstrated his commitment to the rule of law across an entire career, the error should not disqualify him," Comey wrote. "Eric Holder should be confirmed as Attorney General."

Republicans decided recently that the Holder nomination would make for some ideal grandstanding, not only attacking Obama, but allowing the GOP to return to its heyday of Clinton-era controversies. To that end, Comey's endorsement will, at a minimum, help bolster Holder's defenders.

I should add, for those who've forgotten, that Comey's name should sound familiar. Comey was the acting Attorney General in early 2004, after John Ashcroft was hospitalized, and balked at reauthorizing the NSA warrantless-search program, leading to the now-infamous Card/Gonzales hospital room visit.

In light of Comey's defense of the rule of law, it stands to reason that Senate Republicans will completely disregard his support for Eric Holder's nomination.

—Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

CONSERVATIVES' CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES.... For a while, before the presidential campaign, conservatives on Fox News and talk radio had an idea: the economy wasn't that bad, but Americans had been led to believe it was, thanks to an elaborate conspiracy involving the media and Democrats.

After the election, high-profile conservatives, including Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove, publicly described a new theory: an elaborate conspiracy involving the media and Democrats is still working to convince Americans the economy is in bad shape, so as to help Barack Obama appear even more impressive when conditions turn around.

This week, we have yet another conspiracy theory, this time from Rush Limbaugh, who's just delusional enough to believe Democrats, most notably Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), deliberately created the global economic crisis for partisan gain.

Here's how Limbaugh's conspiracy theory goes: Schumer caused on run on IndyMac bank in California this summer, in order to create a feeling of financial panic amongst the public. Democrats then capitalized on this panic with electoral wins in the White House and Congress. The purpose of gaining this power, according to Limbaugh, was to nationalize U.S. industries:

"Who's benefiting? Aside from the people being bailed out. The Democrat [sic] Party and Barack Obama are benefiting.

"They got elected, they increased their numbers in the House, they increased their numbers in the Senate, they got the White House now, and they've got a crisis that people think can only be fixed with the all-mighty and powerful government interceding to save this or to save that, when in fact, the government is going to nationalize the automobile industry. It's going to nationalize some banks. It's going to nationalize the mortgage industry, and may end up nationalizing the automobile industry."

Keep in mind, this isn't just some poor man ranting on a street corner; this is a well-paid, well-connected conservative media personality.

It just doesn't occur to any of these clowns that the economy really is in awful shape, and Bush's conservative economic policies fueled the crisis. Since reality couldn't possibly be true, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Rove, and others concoct these bizarre ideas about conspiracies to help them make sense of the world. It's kind of sad, really.

Krugman added, "Why does such stuff flourish? Probably because there is no punishment for it -- as long as you're on the right, and I mean right, side."

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Toyota announced this morning that it expects to post its first annual operating loss in more than 70 years. U.S. markets did not respond well to the news, and finished down again.

* A jury convicted five men today of conspiring to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The plot, you may recall, came to light when the men gave a Circuit City clerk some of their training videos to be converted to DVD. The clerk contacted authorities.

* Nearly two years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers identified 122 levees across the country that were in "unacceptable" condition and in need of repair. To date, only 45 have been fixed.

* Did Arab leaders really give Condoleezza Rice jewelry worth more than $300,000? Apparently so. (thanks to B.G. for the tip)

* The New York Times accidentally published a letter to the editor that claimed to be from the mayor of Paris about Caroline Kennedy. The paper neglected to verify the authenticity of the letter. Oops.

* Barack Obama is poised to have four African Americans in his cabinet. The Congressional Black Caucus is reportedly disappointed. A senior member of the CBC apparently told The Hill that Obama "isn't doing enough for the black folks."

* The Boston Globe always seems to have the most amazing photo collections.

* Cokie Roberts' on-air complaints about Hawaii being "foreign" and "exotic" deserve the label of "Most Inane Punditry of the 2008 presidential campaign."

* Both the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune included "The Middleman" among the best television shows of 2008. I'm glad; I was afraid I was the only one watching.

* I just can't figure out why Joe Scarborough says such dumb things on a daily basis.

* Here's hoping YouTube ignores the Parents Television Council.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

THE CAP KERFUFFLE.... You've probably heard a little bit about the blogospheric issue of the day.

If you're just joining us, the estimable Matt Yglesias had a brief item on Friday afternoon, principally about Barack Obama convincing centrists that an ambitious, progressive agenda is a great idea. The same post criticized Third Way, a DLC-like group that emphasizes Democratic messaging and tactics in a think-tankish kind of way. Specifically, Yglesias referred to the group's domestic policy agenda as "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit," adding that the group's policy ideas "are laughable in comparison to the scale of the problems they allegedly address."

The post was not especially shocking, and by Friday night, it had garnered a grand total of 11 comments, which is quite modest by Yglesias standards.

Sunday night, however, Jennifer Palmieri, acting CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, had a post on Matt's blog, reminding readers that his views are his own, his opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and CAPAF has "partnered with Third Way on a number of important projects." The disclaimer of sorts led to a fairly significant kerfuffle (and an unusually entertaining comment thread).

There's no shortage of opinions and angles to this. Brendan Nyhan warns that "a chilling effect on Yglesias" is inevitable. Brad DeLong argues that the incident undermines the Center for American Progress' credibility. James Joyner noted Palmieri's "hamhanded" post, and lamented the apparent "institutional tone deafness." Josh Marshall said this was handled in a "clumsy" way, and argued, "Adding to the problem is that the fact that the 'guest post' seems pretty clearly to stem from inter-group Dem politics rather than any disagreement that some actual person has with what Matt said."

In light of the hullabaloo, ThinkProgress has done its own item on the blog's editorial independence, and Matt has his own piece, explaining that Palmieri's item just reiterated what has always been the case: "I'm posting un-screened posts on an un-edited blog and covering every issue under the sun. Under the circumstances, it's better for me, better for CAP and CAPAF, and better for everyone to understand that I'm writing as an individual not as the voice of the institution. Pointing that fact out isn't contrary to me having an independent voice, it's integral to having one."

I had finally figured out what I wanted to say about all of this, but noticed that Ezra had already written what I was thinking.

Jennifer Palmieri's actual message, oddly delivered though it was, says something quite banal: In case it wasn't clear, CAP does not agree with Matt's contention that Third Way, CAP's coalition partners, are proponents of "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit." Or, at the least, they wouldn't phrase it that way (however, as compared to CAP's policy agenda, Third Way's offerings are inarguably hyper-timid incrementalism).

CAP is not a blog publisher. They are a think tank. They are the nerve center of the Democratic governing class. Their president has led Obama's transition effort. It's fairly uncharted territory for a think tank of that prestige -- indeed, of any prestige at all -- to hire a young progressive blogger and let him retain his voice on their site. Brookings doesn't do it, and nor does EPI, or Heritage, or the Urban Institute, or the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. But CAP is following a model in which they provide income support to promising progressives so their work isn't lost to law school or the commercial sector. That requires giving them a fair bit of editorial freedom, which will inevitably lead to conflicts and uncomfortable moments. As Ben Smith says, there are real consequences if Third Way is seen to be disfavored by CAP. And CAP has to balance that against their desire to support bloggers.

The fact that Palmieri's message was public is, I think, a good sign. It's transparent. They could have called Matt into the president's office, explained that he would never ever write anything like that ever again, and the editorial intervention would have been simultaneously invisible to readers -- no one would be criticizing CAP -- and much more pernicious. They did not do that.

Indeed, they didn't come close. At this point, Matt's original post is still online; he hasn't backpedaled on his opinion; and he hasn't apologized. Palmieri's post last night turned out to be clumsy, but the message wasn't that troubling -- Matt says things, and sometimes his employer disagrees with those things. All things being equal, that's not an unreasonable position for a think tank in CAPAF's position to take.

My hunch is someone at Third Way called CAPAF, complained that Matt had said something mean, and asked for a public acknowledgement that CAPAF thinks nice thoughts about Third Way. If so, that's a shame. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm not especially concerned with Matt or ThinkProgress having to blog with one arm tied behind their back. CAPAF has said their blogs will keep their editorial independence, and I'm inclined to believe it.

—Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

PALIN WANTED MORE MEDIA TIME.... Opinions may vary, but looking back at the 2008 presidential campaign, Sarah Palin seems to have an unusual idea about what went wrong for her.

Palin told Human Events' John Gizzi she would have fared much better if she ... wait for it ... had done more media interviews.

GIZZI: What was the biggest mistake made in the '08 campaign?

PALIN: The biggest mistake made was that I could have called more shots on this: the opportunities that were not seized to speak to more Americans via media. I was not allowed to do very many interviews, and the interviews that I did were not necessarily those I would have chosen. But I was so thankful to have the opportunity to run with John McCain that I was not going to argue with the strategy decisions that some of his people were making regarding the media contacts?

But if I would have been in charge, I would have wanted to speak to more reporters because that's how you get your message out to the electorate.

Now, as I recall, Palin seemed to run into trouble when she started doing media interviews, so I'm not sure if more airtime would have helped (unless she has a "practice makes perfect" approach to answering substantive questions).

But I was also struck by Palin's admission: "I was not allowed to do very many interviews." I suspect everyone understands this just fine, but I'd really like to ask the governor: why do you suppose this is?

—Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)

THE BASELESS DRIVE CONTINUES.... Last week, the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman suggested Barack Obama and his transition team should ignore Patrick Fitzgerald and federal prosecutors, and release a list of contacts with Rod Blagojevich's office immediately. As Weisman put it, Obama could have "easily" ignored the wishes of law enforcement officials in the middle of an investigation, and "reassured" the public last week, instead of this week. For support, Weisman quoted Karl Rove's lawyer.

In the latest effort to connect Obama to the Blagojevich controversy, the WSJ's Weisman tries a new trick today.

[Obama] promised to account for any and all contacts between his staff and the governor's, setting a release within days. Finally, he said the account was complete, but he wouldn't release it until Christmas week.

The slow dribble "hurt him slightly," because it made him look like an ordinary politician in scandal mode, not the antipolitician people believed they voted for, said Ron Bonjean, a Republican consultant who dealt with scandals affecting then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Of course, those of us familiar with what happened know that Obama delayed the release of the contact list because federal prosecutors requested it -- a fact that Weisman doesn't note at all. There was no "slow dribble"; there was cooperation with the U.S. Attorney's office conducting a criminal investigation.

Weisman added, "Regardless of how clean the Obama camp is, the release of the report isn't likely to be clean." I don't kow what this means. Even if the report shows no wrongdoing whatsoever, it will be scandal fodder anyway?

This was tiresome before, but it's getting worse. When we learned over the weekend that Rahm Emanuel had one pro-forma courtesy call with the governor, and that the transition team really didn't offer Blagojevich anything, I hoped this would discourage reporters from pursuing this angle of tying the president-elect to the controversy. Apparently, "regardless of how clean the Obama camp is," the baseless drive will continue.

—Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

'THE STEVENS LOBBY' NEEDS A HUG.... This holiday season, it's important not to forget those who've fallen on hard times -- like the impressive network of well-paid lobbyists who were dependent on Sen. Ted Stevens (R) of Alaska.

Until recently, there were few better ways to start a lobbying career than by leaving the office of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.

With 40 years of seniority on important Senate committees, Mr. Stevens, a Republican, wielded unrivaled power over industries like fishing, forestry, communications, aviation and the military, steering billions each year to pet Alaskan projects like Eskimo whaling, missile defense and even salmon-based dog treats called Yummy Chummies.

His power made his good will a valuable commodity on K Street, where many lobbying firms are located. During the past five years, just nine lobbyists and firms known primarily for their ties to Mr. Stevens reported over $60 million in lobbyist fees, not including other income for less direct "consulting." The most recent person to leave his staff to become a lobbyist reported fees of more than $800,000 in just the last 18 months.

So when Alaskan voters narrowly rejected Mr. Stevens's bid for re-election last month, just days after a jury convicted him of federal ethics violations, it was in some ways like the closing of the plant in a company town.

Yeah, my heart bleeds for the gang the New York Times calls "the Stevens lobby," which includes whole offices specializing in lobbying the Alaskan.

An email that was making the rounds among Stevens-staffers-turned-lobbyists joked that Alaskans made a terrible mistake. "[Voters] don't understand the connection between Ted and the way of life they have come to take for granted," the email said. "For those of us long on the dole, the coming reality will take some getting used to."

—Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

KRUGMAN TALKS TO TRANSITION TEAM.... The Politico's Anne Schroeder Mullins notes that Paul Krugman appeared on Bill Press' radio show this morning, and made just a little news.

Krugman in contact with the Obama team?

Yes.

When master economist, columnist, and plain ole intellectual (so few left these days) Paul Krugman was asked this morning about whether or not he was "in communications" with the Obama administration regarding the economy, he declared: "Yes ... I am. And that's all I care to talk about."

Now, admittedly, that's not much to go on, but I'm encouraged anyway, in part because I think Krugman's right about the economic policies the Obama administration should pursue, and in part because I was under the impression that Krugman wanted no part of government service.

I recall an item Krugman wrote in January, explaining his belief that he's "temperamentally unsuited to public office." He noted that he interviewed with Bill Clinton shortly after he'd won the Democratic nomination in 1992, but was turned down. Krugman said he was "lucky" to have been rejected, because "it would have been a great disaster had I been offered a job."

If Krugman's 12-word comment on the air this morning is any indication, he's probably striking the right balance -- he's not looking for a job in the administration, but he's "in communications," presumably offering economic advice, with the president-elect's team.

—Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Over the weekend, Al Franken's campaign in Minnesota said it expects to win the unsettled Senate race by 35 to 50 votes. By the Star-Tribune's count, Franken currently leads by 251.

* On a related note, the recount will continue in Minnesota this week, with somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 ballots left to be processed. (Will the AP call the race once those votes have been settled?)

* The presidents of both NBC and NBC News believe that Chris Matthews will not run for the Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010. Network president Phil Griffin said over the weekend. "I've talked to Chris. I think he's going to be here [at MSNBC] for a long time."

* Hillary Clinton is still burdened by a significant debt from her presidential campaign, but it's down to $6.4 million from $12 million. There are a total of 16 creditors remaining, the biggest of which is Mark Penn's consulting firm.

* Kentucky Democrats seem to think Sen. Jim Bunning (R) will be vulnerable in 2010, and some big in-state names are eyeing the race. Last week, Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo (D) said he's considering a rematch of the 2004 contest, and a few days ago, state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) said he's thinking about the race, too.

* Former Denver mayor and Clinton cabinet official Federico Pena (D) does not want to be appointed to fill Ken Salazar's (D-Colo.) Senate seat.

* There will be a lot of people in D.C. for the Obama inauguration, but not quite as many as previously feared.

* And in Alaska, if Sarah Palin challenges incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in a 2010 Republican primary, a new poll shows the governor as the clear favorite.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

WHEN WATER CARRIERS PUT DOWN THEIR BUCKETS.... Conservative talk radio continues to be a major political force, and arguably the only thriving component of the conservative movement.

It has, however, been burdened with its general support for a certain failed presidency that is nearly over. Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, have managed to maintain a loyal following of conservative Republicans, but they've nevertheless struggled to carry water for a White House that's failed in nearly every endeavor.

With this in mind, far-right blowhards are disappointed with the outcome of the elections, but they're thrilled about having new targets for their rage.

Amid all the pressures on the radio industry, news-talk stations see an opportunity -- and his name is Barack Obama.

After eight years of playing defense for President Bush, the conservatives who dominate talk radio are back on offense.

Hours after Mr. Obama's election, the country's most popular radio host, Rush Limbaugh, was talking about the "rebirth of principled opposition." Sean Hannity, the second highest-rated host, quickly cast his afternoon show as the home of "conservatism in exile."

It is a lively time to be behind the microphone. One television talker, Joe Scarborough, is starting a radio show. Another, Bill O'Reilly, is ending his.

Several of the supporting actors in this year's Republican primary are showing interest in the medium, too. Fred Thompson, the "Law & Order" star turned presidential candidate, will begin hosting a two-hour show in March, as the syndicator Westwood One is expected to announce this week. Mr. Thompson's show would take the place of Mr. O'Reilly's.

If I were to guess, I'd say Thompson will soon grow tired of hosting a two-hour daily program -- let's just say his strengths lie elsewhere -- and his fill-in guest hosts probably shouldn't make any lengthy travel plans.

Regardless, every Republican with credible name recognition seems to be trying to sign a radio deal. Thompson got a show, Giuliani wants a show, and Huckabee is starting to dabble in radio, with expectations that it'll lead to more airtime in the future. All of this comes, of course, after lucrative new contracts for Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Laura Ingraham over the last 24 months. (A middle tier, featuring Monica Crowley and Lou Dobbs, is also apparently expanding its on-air presence.)

Whether these folks can actually keep an audience engaged remains to be seen, but the rush for microphones looks a bit like conservatives playing an odd game of musical chairs.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (62)

IT'S BEEN THAT KIND OF PRESIDENCY.... On Fox News yesterday, Chris Wallace asked Dick Cheney to identify the "highest moment" of the last eight years. It wasn't a trick question.

Cheney pondered this for a few moments before answering, "Well, I think the most important, the most compelling, was 9/11 itself, and what that entailed, what we had to deal with."

Wallace followed up by noting that the highest moment was also the lowest, which Cheney was quick to agree with.

Now, to be fair, Cheney didn't exactly say that terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans was the "highest moment" of the Bush presidency; he instead changed the question a bit to make 9/11 the "most important" moment.

But it was still rather odd. Jed noted, "[I]t tells you something about the darkness of Cheney's mind that this was the first thing to come to his mind when looking for bright spots over the past eight years was 9/11."

Yes, but it also occurred to me that Cheney probably couldn't come up with anything that resembled a highlight. He might have mentioned, say, the capture of Saddam, though that turned out to be of little practical consequence. He might have mentioned the passage of the Republican tax cuts, but that would only remind people of how poorly the administration's policies have fared.

In other words, I don't necessarily blame Cheney for drawing a blank and changing the basis for the question. If I were in his shoes, and was asked to think of the "highest moment" of the last eight years, only one moment comes to mind, but it clearly wouldn't work as an answer for Cheney.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON OUR MONEY.... It's pretty outrageous that some of the banks that have received taxpayer bailouts have also rewarded their top executives with "nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits," which included personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, and country club memberships.

And what else have these banks been doing while benefitting from the bailout? Apparently, the institutions themselves aren't sure.

It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?

But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.

"We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."

It's not the only one. The AP contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion each, asking four questions: "How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?"

Of the 21, not one was willing to answer the questions. The AP noted that none of the institutions "provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money." In some cases, they couldn't -- the banks didn't know exactly where the taxpayer money had gone.

Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout, told the AP, "It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry." There is, however, nothing in place for the public to get this information.

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT.... A global recession is tough on most businesses, but the president is doing his part to stimulate at least one part of the economy -- in Turkey.

Seems that shoe an Iraqi journalist threw at him last week has become a hot-ticket item, with orders for 300,000 pairs pouring in from Iraq, the United States and Iran, Bloomberg News reported.

The Turkish shoe manufacturer, Ramazan Baydan, said he may rename the brown shoe, called "Model 271," the "Bush Shoe" or "Bye-Bye Bush," and he's hired an agency to look into television advertising.

The new orders for the shoe are four times what he normally sells in a year for that model, he said, so the company is going to hire 100 more people to boost production. In addition to orders in the Middle East, Baydan said he's received a request for 4,000 pairs of shoes from a Maryland-based company called Davidson.

The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well. Executives at Ramazan Baydan are no doubt wondering why someone couldn't have thrown one of their shoes at Bush even sooner.

—Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

BAAL WORSHIPERS.... During the holiday season, it's not unusual to see news items focusing on cultural traditions, but leave it to WorldNetDaily, a far-right news website, to break new ground.

Matt Barber, the "director of Cultural Affairs" at one of the late Jerry Falwell's operations, explored in a very strange piece the "ancient Canaanite practice of Baal worship," which he described as pagan idolatry in Semitic Israel. The pillars of Baal worship, Barber argued, included "child sacrifice, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and pantheism (reverence of creation over the Creator)," which naturally led Barber to think of -- you guessed it -- U.S. political liberals. (thanks to reader N.B. for the tip)

Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants -- men and women alike -- would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of "mother earth."

The natural consequences of such behavior -- pregnancy and childbirth -- and the associated financial burdens of "unplanned parenthood" were easily offset. One could either choose to engage in homosexual conduct or -- with child sacrifice available on demand -- could simply take part in another fertility ceremony to "terminate" the unwanted child.

Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar. The worship of "fertility" has been replaced with worship of "reproductive freedom" or "choice." Child sacrifice via burnt offering has been updated, ever so slightly, to become child sacrifice by way of abortion. The ritualistic promotion, practice and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality and promiscuity have been carefully whitewashed -- yet wholeheartedly embraced -- by the cults of radical feminism, militant "gay rights" and "comprehensive sex education." And, the pantheistic worship of "mother earth" has been substituted -- in name only -- for radical environmentalism.

I've been a liberal for as long as I can remember, and I have to admit, I've never been compared to a Baal worshiper before.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (73)

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.... It's not yet clear what this new task force will do, but the goals are certainly encouraging.

President-elect Barack Obama on Sunday announced the creation of a task force to bolster the standard of living of middle-class and working families in America, tapping Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. to lead the effort with four members of the cabinet.

"Our charge is to look at existing and future policies across the board and use a yardstick to measure how they are impacting the working- and middle-class families," Mr. Biden said in a statement on Sunday. "Is the number of these families growing? Are they prospering?"

The effort, which is called the White House Task Force on Working Families, is intended to focus on improving education and training for working Americans as well as protecting incomes and retirement security of the middle class. The group, officials said, will work with labor and business leaders.

The task force is the first discrete assignment for Mr. Biden. He said the Obama administration would measure the success of its economic policy by whether the middle class was growing and prospering. Other members of the group include the secretaries of labor, education, commerce, and health and human services, as well as the top economic advisers to the president.

Speaking with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Biden said, "I'm going to chair this group and it is designed to do the one thing we use as a yardstick of economic success of our administration, is the middle class growing? Is the middle class getting better? Is the middle class no longer being left behind? And we'll look at everything from college affordability to after-school programs. The things that affect people's daily lives."

I'm generally skeptical of task forces, commissions, and blue-ribbon committees, but whatever Biden's panel ends up doing, I'm at least glad someone in the executive branch is going to start asking these questions for a change.

As Yglesias noted yesterday, "Over the past eight years to a remarkable degree the focus has been on trying to put as good a spin as possible on things rather than on trying to actually improving wages and living standards for the bottom 80 percent of Americans."

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)