Archive for the 'White House' Category

Political Exhaustion and the State of Our Union

It came as a surprise (to me, at least) to remember that the State of the Union address is tomorrow night. There has been little to no coverage, little to no discussion, little to no effort. In the lead up to the President’s recent announcement on Iraq a few weeks ago, this country’s political apparatus was concerned, mainly, with the question of whether the President grasped the same reality that was apparent to nearly everyone else.

John McCain was on the first half of Meet the Press yesterday and looked tired. While the senator may be old, its apparent the burden of the war has aged him. Ted Kennedy, Russert’s second guest, was similarly muted, quiet. I don’t think we can blame either man. The war has aged all of us. There are protests - a major march in DC this weekend, events surrounding the anniversary of the war, a renewed examination of the anti-war policies of Dr. Martin Luther King on his birthday. However, for the majority of us, even for the majority of politicians, we seem to lack even the energy to argue, even the energy to disagree. I confess I am as guilty as anyone of skimming past the news stories on Iraq.

I have pled many times publically and privately, in this space and in others, for a greater diversity of thought and direction in this administration and in this country. I fear I have only one plea left. I hope desperately that I am wrong.

I will watch the State of the Union, probably in the background while I type an English paper. I will watch the Democratic rebuttal by Sen. Jim Webb, hopeful that one of the last truly passionate politicians in this country has some to share with me. I plea with either of them, with both of them, to offer some kind of hope. I plea for some thought beyond stay or go. I plea for some action beyond rhetoric gone five years stale. I plea for peace. And I plea for the energy to carry it out. Most importantly, I plea and I pray for the men and women involved in this conflict who don’t have the luxury to be exhausted.

IA-SoS: Hanusa should just move back to DC now

What a carpetbagger. Mary Ann Hanusa used to be a secretary for President Bush in DC and now she thinks she can come into Iowa and be our next secretary of state (something like the 6th choice for the Republican party). She moved here a little less than three months ago and still is campaigning around the state in her Buick with Virginia liscense plates. You can see the car below from a picture taken outside of RPI headquarters here in Des Moines:

Hanusa car

If you have any doubt it is her, check out the bumper sticker in the back window — I zoomed in and this is what I got.
bumper sticker

Honestly, she’s so worried about scuffing up her car that she couldn’t put the sticker on the bumper but instead had to tape it to the back window. Something tells me that she’s not seriously thinking about winning. Why is that you ask?

Well, if she was really interested in establishing roots in Iowa — or going back to the ones she supposedly has in Council Bluffs, she would learn that there aren’t 7-Elevens in Iowa so saying this in Wednesday’s Register just proves her disconnect:

“Why shouldn’t we have to show an ID when we go to vote, which is more important than buying a few bananas and a loaf of bread at 7-Eleven.”

Every Iowan knows that we go to Kum and Go, not an East Coast chain. Not to mention the fact that Iowa has a law that allows poll workers to ask for ID if they feel it is necessary — we don’t need to require it because of the costs associated with getting an ID accepted by state and federal authorities. It is plain and simple: Mike Mauro wants to make voting easier and more secure for all Iowans. Mary Ann Hanusa thinks we have a huge problem with voter fraud and wants to restrict voting as much as possible.

Why else is Hanusa not seriously considering winning next Tuesday? Well, it is because she’s still planning on getting married four days after Election Day. That’s right. You can watch the video here on KCCI’s site, she mentions it at about the 1 minute, 40 second mark (she’s not even getting married in Iowa). Supposedly the date was set before she got the nomination, which is quite understandable that she wouldn’t want to cancel it. But if she was getting married so quickly after election day, would she really be able to fully commit herself to the position she’s running for? Doubtful. Which is probably the reason you don’t see her on TV, she gets criticized for her horrible ads in the Register, and it is why we as Iowans should question her committment.

Mary Ann Hanusa chose not to live in Iowa and consequently, as Iowans we question her intent to run for public office in a state where she hasn’t lived in the past five years. She does not have the experience nor does have the ties to the state necessary to represent the public.

Michael Mauro’s 23 years election experience, a pristine record of performance in field, and top designation as one of the most qualified elections officials in the country makes him the best candidate for Secretary of State in Iowa.

IA-03: They still can’t get his name right

Maybe Jeff Lamberti’s change he speaks of during his campaign is the change in pronunciation of his last name by national VIP Republicans. Dave Price documents more mispronunciation here by the First Lady.

Pro-active Reporting? That exists?

NYU Prof. Jay Rosen’s PressThink blog suggests a revolutionary idea:

It wasn’t much noticed, but last week, the new chief of staff at the White House, Joshua Bolten, told Fox News Sunday that “it may be worth considering whether to end the daily televised press briefings where reporters and the press secretary frequently air disputes in front of the cameras.”

He also said he will leave the decision up to Snow.

End the briefings! I suppose it would never occur to Bolten that such a decision also belongs to people being briefed. If Snow turns out to be McClellan with better hair, the press ought to quit the briefing room and give up on getting explanations from the White House. Beat Bolten to the punch, in other words.

By “quit” I mean pull your top talent. Send interns instead to occupy the seats. That means no correspondents at the two daily briefings, none on the President’s plane, none at his public appearences. (Except for foreign trips.) Let the White House publicize itself.

Meanwhile, re-deploy your top people, so that they still report on the Bush Administration and what its doing, but only from the outside-in. (Which is what the top reporters say they do, anyway. See this portrait of Elisabeth Bumiller.) Outside-in reporting, a practical step, recognizes the futility of trying to get information out of the White House. Quitting the briefing—before Bolten gets to close it down—would be a symbolic step, recognition of how far the contempt for reason-giving, and information-sharing has gone under Bush.

First of all, somebody ought point out to the White House how bad things get when you start snubbing the press. (The hard time Clinton got for every real or imagined scandal was as much a Vast Press Wing Conspiracy as anything else … its the same reason Stephen Colbert was supposedly not funny) Second, how much I wish Rosen’s suggestion were so. By and large, I think the White House press corps has become lazy because they’re guarenteed a story in the paper or on the newscast every day and a position in the Punditocracy without anything necessarily ever happening. So why is a White House press pass a necessary prereqisite to becoming a White House correspondant? For that matter, why don’t we have an “executive branch” correspondant instead, whose objective is to find the stories in the agencies rather than reporting on the political game the White House is playing? (In other words, stop feeding us stories whose basic premise is, “They told us to tell you this.”) For that matter, let’s please get rid of the Pool system. The President does not need to be photographed everywhere he goes, as if he’s Tom and Katie.

Gore rehires old aide

This news makes me positively giddy:

“Al Gore is getting the band back together.

Gore spokesman Mike Feldman confirms that the former Vice President is hiring Roy Neel, a key aide on his 2000 presidential campaign and the manager of Howard Dean’s 2004 run, to coordinate a new push on his main cause, global warming.

Gore’s new movie and book are raising his profile as the nation’s leading voice of warning about a coming climate crisis, but Feldman told The Daily Politics Neel’s role is not connected to the book or film, but to a broader agenda.

“Roy is going to be coordinating a bunch of the former Vice President’s activities focused specifically on an increasingly high-profile role he’s going to be taking on issue of climate change,” he said.

Gore has said he’s not thinking about 2008 at the moment, but putting a political staff back together inches him that much closer toward being able to run for President. (Also reported today, his campaign committee has also written a check to a pollster, though they say it’s a debt from 2000.)”

Hat-tip to MyDD and Political Wire, and this news comes via the New York Daily News. The only 2008 potential candidate I’m squarely behind is Al Gore. I don’t know what it is, but the man just puts out this aura now of Presidential quality and candor. He’s a man fit to lead this country and he’s got the right stances on the right issues.

Anyway, go read Ezra’s American Prospect cover story on Gore and then go watch the trailer for his new movie on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Run, Gore, run!

Jim Nussle is a George Bush sycophant

Drew’s got a good post up here on Grassley’s skepticism of the Bush port deal and the relative silence coming US Rep. and Chairman of the Budget Committee Jim Nussle. When CNN discussed the House Appropriations Committee’s vote last night to block the deal, they titled their segment during the Situation Room (from Capitol Hill) “Republican Revolt.” It’s a serious deal and Nussle’s relative silence on it quite interesting.

And I loved this bit from Drew:

“I’m not feeling the whole “Nussle is a Bush clone” argument, but in this situation as well as plenty of others he certainly comes off as a Bush sycophant. I’d say that’s worse. I’m guessing “sycophant” is not a word that polls very well, though, so let the cloning continue.”

I love the sycophant, but since I’m pretty sure its an SAT (or, if you live in Iowa, an ACT) word you don’t want to use it, especially when it comes to messaging.

Anyway, I haven’t commented much on the port deal, as I’m working hard to keep this blog Iowa-focused for the most part (save the always intriguing posts from Chase and Nate), but a good amount of my objects are reflected in this post from Charlie.

The New Meme on the Presidency of George W Bush

First, it was Rebel-in-Chief, now its Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media. Is there a new character these books are trying to send about the White House? We all joked about Bush the cowboy in 2000 and the percieved liability there. Is - dare I say it - is cowboy, “misunderestimate” Bush cool now?

The Real Shot-in-the-Face-Gate Scandal

For those of you looking for a fresh angle on an otherwise stupid and overdone story, the libertarian Reason magazine offers this attack of the VPOTUS hunting trip:

Under the 1989 Ethics Reform Act, President Bush and other heads of agencies are supposed to file reports with the Office of Government Ethics detailing who is paying for their travel, food, and lodging. Cheney’s office doesn’t. Why? The Vice President’s Office, according to the Center for Public Integrity, labels all trips “official travel.”

The article is harsh, labeling the VP’s office as a travel agency and citing the enormous caravan of aircraft surrounding Cheney’s trips. One wonders if this was the last secret hunting trip.

Where the Hell Did That Come From?

I have never particularly regarded President Bush as a wordsmith. Actually, the speeches practically make my ears bleed. But mark this day down in history, because its taken me six years, but this may be the first time I was ever truly impressed with something the President said. Check out this Bush Q & A from The Note

Here was what a fellow citizen of the president asked:

As a leader, as many of us are going to need to know here because we’re going to be leaders in just a few years, what’s the best way that you go about preparing yourself for attacks on your character, and how do you deal with others in those matters?

Yes, we know, its another one of these formatted Town Halls news events. Obviously what the President says here is not off the cuff. But read this response. Watch the rhythm and the tone, how it evolves across the paragraphs and how he takes it home in the end (all emphasis added):

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that. I would summarize it: faith, family and friends. (Applause.) I am sustained mightily by the fact that millions of citizens — for whom I’ll never get to thank personally — pray for me. It’s hard for me to describe why I feel that way, why I’m so sustained. I guess it’s just called faith. And I’m sustained by my family. And there’s nothing better than going home to somebody who understands and is sympathetic and is part of — we’re working together. I mean, Laura’s job is just as important as mine in many ways.

The girls still love me. (Laughter.) I really love them. And then there’s my man, Barney, a little Scottish terrier. (Laughter.) I say this — and Laura will be furious at me — he’s the son I never had, you know? (Laughter.)

Yeah, corny. But give it some space. He’s not done yet, and he won’t entirely fall down the folksy road.

I believe in what I’m doing. And I understand politics, and it can get rough. I read a lot of history, by the way, and Abraham Lincoln had it rough. I’m not comparing myself to Abraham Lincoln, nor should you think just because I mentioned his name in the context of my presidency — I would never do that. He was a great President. But, boy, they mistreated him. He did what he thought was right.

A lot of politicians, a lot of Presidents have gone through some tough times in the presidency, and I understand that. One of my biggest disappointments is the tone in Washington, D.C. I’ve done my best to try to elevate the tone. I just — needless name-calling, to me, is beneath the dignity of the office of the President. (Applause.) I also make time in my day not only for prayer, but also — and my family, but also for exercise. I found that part of keeping a positive outlook is to kind of burn off that excess energy, you know what I’m saying? (Laughter.) I work out, I try to work out five or six days a week. It’s really important — if you feel that’s important for your life, to schedule your life. In other words, I have trouble with people saying, I’m so busy I can’t exercise. I don’t think you’re too busy for things that are important in your life, and you can figure out ways to make time in your life.

And so I’m the kind of guy — I’m not running too well these days; I’m not running hardly at all. It’s kind of like my knees are like tires, you know, and they’re bald. (Laughter.) I’m a mountain bike guy. And it’s a fantastic experience.

I think to answer your — summarize your question, is to make sure that you’ve got good priorities in your life. By having good priorities in your life, it helps you keep perspective on your life. And perspective is very important, as you assume responsibility. Thanks for the question.

Yeah, I know, its not poetry, its not Webster, its not even Bartlet. But try to read it again, this time reading only what I have in italics. Its selective, yes, but at the same time, it is almost like he’s turned his speaking style around. There’s some rhythm and flow to it, some dramatic pause, some actual character in the line. And I haven’t heard it spoken aloud, which is a little unfortunate. But in the lead up to SOTU, its almost as if — and I’m shocked to say this — Bush could actually give a decent speech.

Snoopgate and the Supremes - Executive Authority Redux

Sitting here pondering the wiretap issue keeps leading me back to the same essential question - why do we know? After all, the White House kept this from the public for at least the year the New York Times had it and didn’t publish, NYT isn’t exactly known for digging hard for stories these days, and it would be difficult to assume that this is the first administration that’s done something similar. Then the story comes out immediately after the Iraqi elections and Bush immediately takes ownership of it (something he’s not usually prone to doing either.) Is it possible the White House wants us to know and is looking for a fight?

Remember what I said during the John Roberts confirmation process:

Everything the pundits say about this nominee is wrong. (I know, a real shocker.) It’s not about abortion or age or steady jurisprudence or compromise or a pretty resume. It’s about the administration’s overall strategy to expand and change the role of the executive branch in American government

Meirs was, perhaps, a sneaky way to get a similar ideology on the court and Alito is a completely overt way to do so. I think the White House wants - either in this case, in Padilla, in the black sites, et al - the Supreme Court to come out and say that the executive earns the right to subvert separation of powers in times of war. And I think their nominees give them a decent chance of getting it.

Briefings aren’t checks on authority

In Bush’s press conference this morning (a real interesting one, because he seemed to get a bit heated), he tried to equate briefs to Congressional leaders with Congressional checks on executive power in the case of Bush’s NSA illegal domestic wiretaps:

“To say unchecked powerful is ascribing some sort of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject….”

“There is oversight. On this program, to suggest that there is unchecked power is to not listen…we have briefed the United States Congress a dozen times.”

Umm…not so much, no. Just because Congress gets to hear about your plans to remove American citizens’ rights to due process and privacy doesn’t mean its a check on your power. Especially if you make some kind of “case” that it would jeopardize national security.

Thank God for the New York Times (if only they would’ve done it last year).

“Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts”

Thus the headline from the article in the New York Times. Apparently, the Administration has given the NSA the power to conduct warrantless wiretaps on, among others, American citizens on American soil. According to the article, they still need a warrant for calls between two American points, but international calls–by anyone in America–can be monitored.

Indeed, publication of this article has apparently been delayed for a year, which is almost staggering to think about. It almost makes one wonder about the publication date in juxtaposition with the 2004 election–ironically, officials in the article at the NSA were afraid that, because of the potential illegality of the procedures, if John Kerry were elected President that there could be investigations. But, of course, I’m not as willing to grant the possibility of conspiracy as others, though the appearance to those more liberal with that type of theory could be manifest. The ability for the executive to do all in its (constitutional) power to defend against enemies ought to be exercised to the fullest extent, but there ought to be limits to powers against American citizens, and where there are, they certainly ought to be followed.

“Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that ‘the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.’” If that doesn’t fall under “judicial activism,” I don’t know what does.

Bush and his fermented drinks

A dKos reader has a great catch from Bush’s trip to Mongolia that raises just a few flags: Bush drank fermented milk while in Mongolia. Evidently, the reader at dKos first heard about this while watching CNN in the morning on Monday.

Here’s an AP report from late Monday confirming what was reported on CNN:

“He drank fermented mare’s milk — sometimes likened to a mix of warm beer and buttermilk — sipped tea and nibbled cheese curd, a White House official said. Reporters were kept outside and could not watch.”

The fact that the press was kept outside causes an even greater problem. The secrecy like that is one of the first signs that one has slipped off the sober train.

The drink Bush supposedly drank is known as kumis, or to the Mongolians it is known as airag. This Wikipedia article explains that while the drink is alcoholic, it is only about a 4 proof, or about 2% alcohol. However, it can be made more alcoholic with greater distillation.

What is the big deal about Bush’s drinking? Well, the biggest issue is the fact that it once consumed his life and almost led his wife Laura to leave him. Wonkette pointed this same story out yesterday, but in a comedic sense. I think the issue needs to be talked about much more seriously. And the mainstream media needs to get involved. If they can make sure to dive into the depths of a President’s personal adultery, why can’t they look at a President’s alcoholism?

Alcoholism is a seriously problem. In fact, it is a disease. Now, Bush has never made the claim to be a recovering alcoholic, but it is a fact that most close to Bush and insiders in Washington realize.

In September, the National Enquirer (yes, we all know its a tabloid) published their little article about Bush going back to the bottle. To most of us on the liberal blogosphere, we just treated it as fun and games. I even linked a few weeks ago to a video of Bush campaigning for Jerry Kilgore and seeming pretty drunk. But this is really serious. Relapsing into your alcoholism is a terrible thing. You don’t just start over from scratch drinking a little bit at a time and then gradually increasing how much you drink. You start off right back where you quit.

And trust me, I know a bit about alcoholism. I’ve lost a family member to it and other members of my familly have had to seriously confront it. The media needs to seriously confront this issue and bring it into the public discourse. Clinton made bad personal moral choices and Washington Republicans decided that those choices made him deserving of impeachment and prosecution–they claimed he wasn’t fit to be President. Now we have a man who can generally be classified as a recovering alcoholic who may have reindulged in his problem and we can’t even get a serious question about it from the press? Is a drunk man during a time of war fit to be President in the modern age?

Murtha attacked by White House and other Washington Republicans

After Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA-12) amazing speech today on immediate redeployment of US troops in Iraq, you would expect some backlash from conservatives. So, here you have it from a bunch of wingnuts during a press conference.

But even the White House is getting fierce in this one. Or they’re trying to. All they can do is equate him to Michael Moore:

“Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.”

Somebody must’ve let the new kid in the press office handle this one.

As the Hotline says, “Wow.”

Woodward and PlameGate

Talk about destroying a reputation.

“Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.

In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.”

Oops. The text of Woodward’s formal statement is here.

I don’t suppose he forgot about it or something? Nah, he just kept trying to downplay the significance of the investigation over and over and over and over again.

Atrios gives a good reason as to why his claim that the source told him in off the record, almost gossip-like style doesn’t really seem to match up with the fact that their was some kind of confidentiality agreement.

Josh Marshall also has a good review here, but I think he might grant just a bit too much leeway to Woodward.

What does this mean for the continued investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald? A lot. It shows just how much information there still is to gather and how deep the investigation goes. The West Wing is about to get a lot more hectic trying to combat stories, rumors, and a pissed off press corps who can’t get answers. Oh, and prepare for Bush to get even more ponies as his poll numbers will continue to drop.


Subscribe

Subscribe to my RSS Feeds

Categories