The debate over the war in Iraq has from day one been marked by the disingenuousness of GOP talking points.
Al Qaeda is controlling the insurgency.
We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
We're steadily making progress.
Now that we're there we need to finish the job. Etc, etc.
Each assertion false. But perhaps the most repeated bit of conventional wisdom is that Americans are divided about how the US should proceed.
"The American people have mixed feelings about Iraq--where we are, where we're going there," Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democratic supporter of the war, told the Washington Post yesterday. "The American people really understand that it's a complicated question."
It may be complicated, but the American people are not all that conflicted. For months, a clear majority of Americans have advocated that the US set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. Why is this so hard for elected pols to understand?
As I wrote yesterday, voters in the country's top 68 swing districts prefer a Democrat who supports bringing the troops home within a year over one who does not.
And what about the troops? Well, 72 percent of American forces serving in Iraq said last February that the US should leave within a year.
A similar number of Iraqis feel the same way. Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a prominent Sunni, personally asked President Bush to set a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces when W swooped into the Green Zone last week. Al-Hashimi was acting on the orders of President Jalal Talibani, a close ally of the US.
Maybe it's time for US politicians to listen to the people that elected them and the country they're supposedly fighting to help. Virtually all Republicans and too many Democrats, as former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said this Spring, have become "prisoners of uncertainty."
Kudos to John Murtha, John Kerry and Russ Feingold. How many more years will we be in Iraq before all of our elected leaders decide to lead?
Here's an interesting political position: Keep U.S. troops in Iraq and signal to the Iraqi government that its O.K. to pardon insurgents who kill Americans.
Even in the frequently surreal debate over this absurd war, that sounds like too warped a position for anyone in Congress to take.
Yet, that's the stance 19 senators took Tuesday.
Florida Senator Bill Nelson proposed a simple amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. It sought: "To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States."
Seventy-nine senators -- all the Democrats who participated in the vote, as well as most of the Republicans -- backed the Nelson amendment.
But 19 senators opposed it. All are Republican supporters of the war, who have voted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Yet they voted against a measure putting the Congress on record in opposition to granting amnesty to Iraqis who kill U.S. soldiers.
It would be unfair to suggest that the 19 "no" voters want Americans to die in Iraq, or that they want those deaths to go unpunished. It's just that they are unwilling to provoke an unstable Iraqi government by having the U.S. Congress send such a blunt message.
In other words, the 19 are so committed to making a success of the Iraq imbroglio that they don't want to say or do anything to upset the puppets, er, politicians in Baghdad.
The 19 senators who have given new meaning to the term "pro-war" are:
Wayne Allard of Colorado
Kit Bond of Missouri
Jim Bunning of Kentucky
Conrad Burns of Montana
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
Thad Cochran of Mississippi
John Cornyn of Texas
Jim DeMint of South Carolina
Mike Enzi of Wyoming
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma
Jon Kyl of Arizona
Trent Lott of Mississippi
John McCain of Arizona
Jeff Sessions of Alabama
Ted Stevens of Alaska
Craig Thomas of Wyoming
John Warner of Virginia
Notably, Kyl and Burns face serious reelection challenges this year. It will be interesting to watch them try to explain this vote on the campaign trail.
Well, for starters, there's that stolen election people are finally talking about. But now the far right is attempting an additional travesty on the good people of Ohio. A bill being pushed by a gang of American Taliban in the state's House of Representatives would criminalize all abortions, with no exceptions, even to save the mother's life. (Go to Planned Parenthood's website to help fight this ).
Not all today's Ohio news is bad, though. An excellent article in this morning's Wall Street Journal chronicled, through ample data, the dramatic successes of a Cincinnati-area program (optimistically dubbed Every Child Succeeds) in reducing infant mortality among the city's very poor. Of course, this is wonderful, and the folks doing this work are to be commended. As the sometimes sleep-deprived mother of an infant, however, there was one detail in the story I found disturbing. The social workers call young mothers and wake them up at 6:30 AM. I'm surprised they haven't increased the city's murder rate by doing that. If anyone, other than my baby, woke me up at that hour, I would definitely have to kill them. As slowly and painfully as possible. But that's what being poor in America is all about: either you're ignored, or the nosy nanny state is all up in your grill.
I was on a panel this morning about the 2006 elections with twoconsultants--Republican Ed Rollins and Democrat Doug Schoen--andTime magazine columnist Joe Klein. The conversation was fairlycivil. After all, the early morning event at the tony Regency Hotel inmidtown Manhattan was sponsored by The Common Good, a group dedicatedto civil discourse on current affairs.
So, I'm not sure why Joe Klein turned on me with such ferocity halfwaythrough the panel, virtually grilling me like the drill sergeant henever was: "Do you even know what counterinsurgency is?" (This afterKlein argued that we were making real progress in Iraq because Iraqiand US forces were embarking on a door-to-door sweep to secureBaghdad.) Klein is certainly entitled to his views about Iraq and thenature of occupations--however uninformed. But for a man who preachesabout the need to restore civility in American political life, he isa hypocrite.
Put aside my morning encounter with the man, but in these last weeksKlein has been all too quick to label those who disagree with his viewsabout national security and Iraq as people with a "hate Americatendency" His favorites are "many writers at The Nation andMichael Moore." As Paul Krugman wrote last week, " That's a grosslyunfair characterization."
Klein seems to have a desire to depict all of the American left, andtoo many good liberals, as crazy, malign or unpatriotic. Consider howKlein recently assailed John Conyers, the courageous and distinguishedCongressman who will be chair of the Judiciary Committee if theDemocrats win control of the House in November. Klein wrote of Conyers,"...in addition to being foolishly incendiary, he is an AfricanAmerican of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped byRepublicans. He is one of the ancient band of left-liberals who grew upin the angry hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics..." Klein is certainly making Karl Rove's job easier.
After the panel, I pulled out something I'd written a few weeks ago,replying to Klein's ugly charge that "many writers at TheNation" were examples of people with a "hate America tendency":
I am not sure exactly who Joe Klein has in mind when he says 'many writers at The Nation.' We have a range of scholars, public policy analysts and writers who cover US foreign policy but none of them would fit that ugly label. Since when it is anti-American to believe that American foreign policy ought to be consistent with international law, that the use of military force should be limited to legitimate self-defense or sanctioned by international organizations, that American foreign policy should be democratically accountable and guided by American republican principles, that the United States should not only oppose empires but eschew imperial policies, that wherever possible the United States should act like a good neighborhood in trying to work with other nations to solve common problems, and that the United States should promote the advancement of human rights, shared prosperity, and ecological sustainability.
"Many of the writers at The Nation opposed the Iraq war not because they hate America because they understood that Iraq posed no threat to the United States or to regional security and that a crusade to remake the Middle East would be resisted by the great majority of people in the Middle East and would more likely create chaos and more terrorism that it would advance the cause of democracy. Klein is either lazy in that he has not read the Nation writers he seeks to smear or is trying to score cheap political points by dismissing the left so as to establish his own hawkish centrist credentials. Or perhaps he understands America less than he would like his readers to believe because he is uncomfortable with the American tradition of principled dissent and with The Nation's faith in the common sense of the American public as a source of democratic accountability.
If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk. If you're going to preach political civility, the very least you could do, Joe, is be civil--even to those you disagree with.
After all the reports of corporate crimes and contract abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan -- including the recent revelation by Halliburton Watch that Halliburton and its KBR subsidiary knowingly exposed thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq to hazardous levels of unhealthy water from the Euphrates River, including human fecal matter -- the Senate was offered an opportunity on Tuesday to restore a measure of Congressional oversight to the process by which tax dollars are distributed to private corporations and the activities of those corporations in regions of the world that are supposed to be of critical importance to the United States.
As part of the Senate debate over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 -- the Pentagon budget -- North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan proposed a simple amendment "to establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism."
The amendment was rejected.
Fifty-two senators voted "no" -- all of them Republicans, including supposed "straight-shooters" such as Arizona's John McCain and Nebraska's Chuck Hagel.
Forty-four senators voted "yes" -- all of them Democrats, except Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee.
Arguably, it was Chafee who cast the most courageous vote. He faces a September primary by a conservative foe who charges the Rhode Island moderate with failing to follow the party line. Of course, Chafee can counter by explaining that he did not know that, to be a good Republican, a senator must defend the freedom of corporations to provide U.S. troops with water containing fecal matter.
The Federal Communications Commission will again attempt to do the bidding of big media this year, with a scheme to rewrite ownership rules in much the same manner as it did in 2003. FCC chairman Kevin Martin is expected to announce Wednesday that the commission will embark upon a rulemaking initiative that will seek to make it possible for one company to own all daily and weekly newspapers, as many as three television stations, as many as eight radio stations, the cable system and primary internet sites in the same community. This "company town" scenario -- known in FCC parlance as "cross-ownership" -- was agreed to by the commission three years ago, despite broad public opposition. Only when Congress and then the courts intervened did the scheme get tripped up.
But big media companies, which hope to reap massive profits by creating one-newsroom towns where a handful of "content providers" produce all the local print, broadcast and digital coverage of government, culture, sports and community affairs, did not accept defeat graciously. In collaboration with friendly FCC commissioners, they kept looking for an opening that would allow them to renew their demands. And they think they have found one now that the five-member commission -- which had a GOP vacancy for months -- has a newly-minted 3-2 Republican majority. [Republican commissioners, now led by Martin, have generally sided with big media companies in recent years, while Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein have been stalwart defenders of divisity and competition.]
Martin, a Bush appointee with extremely close ties to a White House that has long wanted to implement rule changes favored by the generous campaign donors who own the nation's largest communications firms, has calculated that in an election year when the country's attention is focused on issues such as the war in Iraq, immigrations and mounting trade deficits, it will be possible to slip significant rule changes past an American public that is passionately opposed to them.
The FCC chair is a smarter politician than his predecessor, Colin Powell's son Michael. But Martin may have miscalculated.
Even before tomorrow's announcement of that the commission will attempt again to rewrite the rules in a manner that allows for greater concentration of ownership of local and national media by fewer companies, Martin was being challenged by members of Congress.Led by New York Democrat Maurice Hinchey, who chairs the Future of American Media (FAM) Caucus that was organized after the last fight over ownership rules, sixteen House members launched a preemptive strike in a letter to Martin.
The House members wrote:
We have noted with interest recent reports that you intend to revisit the issue of media ownership... If the FCC does in fact consider this issue, then we hope that the Commission will strengthen existing rules, and not further damage an already weak structure intended to protect diversity in American broadcasting. Put simply, we believe that any action on media ownership similar to what was proposed by the FCC in 2003 would be an unmitigated disaster.
Since their enactment in the 1940s, our media ownership rules have been a vital safeguard, ensuring that the power to inform the public is not inappropriately concentrated among a relative few. But since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, we have seen a significant relaxation of the media ownership caps limiting the number of outlets that one company may own in a single market. The unfortunate effect has been consolidation of newspapers, television channels, radio stations, and other media under the control of a handful of giant media conglomerates. The resulting monopoly situations have forced independent broadcasters out of business, limited minority ownership, and denied the American public the wide array of content they deserve.
The FCC's 2003 proposal to weaken the local TV ownership limits, national TV ownership caps, and newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules would have delivered a fatal blow to our media ownership infrastructure. For example, if these rules had been enacted, a single corporation would have been.allowed to acquire as many as threetelevision stations, eight radio stations, and the only daily newspaper -- all within a single city. While such action would not have caused a media blackout per se, it would have essentially reduced content to a single source, rather than providing communities with the full array of information that should truly be available. As you know, millions of Americans and dozens of Senators and Representatives have contacted the FCC to express their concern about the proposed rules. The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals echoed these concerns by remanding the issue back to the Commission in June 2004.
As Members of Congress who are deeply concerned about the impact that further media consolidation would have upon our democracy, we believe that the Federal Communications Commission should fulfill its intended role as a strong defender of diversity in broadcasting. We hope that the FCC will move to strengthen existing ownership rules to guarantee an array of content and wide variety of viewpoints for everyone seeking news, information, and culture across our country.
In addition to Hinchey, House members signing the letter included: California's Anna Eshoo, Barbara Lee, Diane Watson, Henry Waxman and Lynn Woolsey, Hawaii's Ed Case, Illinois' Jan Schakowsky, New York's Louise Slaughter, North Carolina's David Price, Ohio's Sherrod Brown and Marcy Kaptur, Oregon's Peter DeFazio, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, Washington's Jim McDermott and Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin.
Both Sanders and Brown are ahead in the polls in contests for Senate seats from their respective states, while most of the other signers are ranking minority members on key committees and subcommittees.
Translation: This time, the FCC is going to be watched by thoughful members of Congress from the start, just as it will be dogged by a media reform movement that is dramatically bigger and better organized than in 2003. To be sure, the fight will be a serious one. And determination of Martin -- whose long-term political ambitions are no secret -- to deliver for the White House and the big-media companies it favors should not be underestimated. But if the letter from Hinchey and his colleagues is any indication, the FCC chair's not going to be able to sneak new ownership rules past anyone. In deed, Martin might find that he has created an issue that -- instead of being obscured by the 2006 election campaign -- will be central to it.
In 2005, Congress failed the middle class.
This is the blunt assessment of the nonpartisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI), which today released its third annual scorecard, Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record. Aimed at assessing Congress's voting records on issues of concern to the nation's middle class and "those who aspire to a middle-class standard of living"--surely the vast majority of Americans--Congress at the Midterm is a forceful indictment of Congress's performance and the party in power.
"In vote after vote," the scorecard notes, "Congress disdained the concerns of middle-class Americans and opted instead to favor the already wealthy and powerful: a surefire recipe for a shrinking middle class." From the passage of a bankruptcy bill that benefited credit card companies but squeezed middle-class families already overwhelmed by debt, to the failure of legislation to raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, to the House's vote to repeal the estate tax on the nation's most privileged heirs, the scorecard paints a grim, but devastatingly accurate, picture of what our elected representatives have been up to under the Capitol Dome.
First and foremost, the scorecard illustrates the utter failure of the Republican rank-and-file to support their middle-class constituents. Embattled incumbents like Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (who earns a zero grade for casting not a single pro-middle-class vote) resolutely voted against a bill to reject deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt in any Social Security "reform" plan. And he was far from alone: 99 percent of GOP House members failed the scorecard completely. 95 percent failed in the Senate. And only four Republicans--Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey--even manage to earn a mediocre "C" grade under the scorecard's generous scoring system.
While the party in power clearly comes out looking the worst, Democrats also fall in for their share of blame. Democratic backing for the middle class was very good when it came to things like increasing the minimum wage, saving Social Security and averting dangerous budget cuts, but the same strong level of support was not in evidence on bills like the Energy Policy Act, the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act, and the Class Action Fairness Act--cases where, as DMI notes, "powerful industries lobbied for legislation that would increase their profits at the expense of the middle class." While there are nine scores of 100 percent among the Democratic Senators, and more among House members, 11 percent of Democratic representatives failed completely.
As we head into the 2006 elections, voters looking for a concise way to evaluate Congress on basic, bread-and-butter issues would do well to be armed with Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record. And more of them than ever will find out about it. With DMI's pioneering embrace of Google AdWords, web surfers from around the country will be alerted to their Congress member's record whenever they do a Google search for their representative's name in the next month. A search for "Katherine Harris" for example, reveals a little blurb in the upper left-hand corner of the screen linking to the 2005 House record of the woman Florida voters are considering sending to the Senate.
When John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold offer an amendment to the defense spending bill Wednesday calling on US troops to leave Iraq by July 1, 2007, only a handful of Senators voted with them.
If the American people had a say, the outcome would be different. A majority of the public supports setting a timetable for giving Iraq back to Iraqis. And the issue is particularly salient in Congressional districts in play this November.
MoveOn.org, with the help of the polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, recently surveyed voters in the country's top 68 swing districts, two-thirds held by Republicans.
By 50 to 42 percent, these voters want Democrats to control Congress. Roughly half of the respondents are more likely to vote for Democrats, and against a Republican, because of the war. When Democrats embrace Kerry and Feingold's position, their lead increases to 54 to 41 percent over a stay-the-course Republican.
What's more, battleground voters prefer a Democrat who supports the Kerry-Feingold amendment over one who does not. A candidate who advocates bringing the troops home within a year polls three percentage points better than one who says the US needs a "new direction," but stops short of calling for an exit date.
A "New Direction for America," you may recall, is the latest slogan unveiled by Democrats last week. But the public wants specifics, not slogans.
And as election time approaches, the war is by far the most important issue to the Democratic base. Half of Democrats cite the war as their top concern in these swing districts, 20 points ahead of the next issue, jobs and the economy. Key constituencies, such as African-Americans and women, respond very favorably to candidates who favor an exit strategy.
If Democrats ignore the war, voters may ignore them come November.
Some strange goings-on out here on the Left Coast. The progressive Democrat Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, has so far not endorsed the party's nominee for Governor, Phil Angelides.
A couple of reasons why: First, Angelides has refused to support Villaraigosa's plan to place the ossified L.A. Unified School District under the Mayor's control. Villaraigosa is a former organizer for the teachers' union; but the union is simultaneously opposing the takeover plan and bankrolling Angelides. So that, in part, explains the rift.
The other part is that Villaraigosa --like many others-- may figure that Arnold Schwarzenegger is going thump Angelides in the November general election. The City of L.A. has a lot riding on some bond measures that Arnold is supporting and Villaraigosa might figure there's more in it to quietly support the Republican Governor than there is in investing in a losing Democratic challenger.
The third factor is that Villaraigosa is a wildly popular pol and by far one of the most favorably looked-upon Democrats in the state. He might be figuring the best thing for his personal future is to have Angelides go down in flames this fall opening the way for his own candidacy four years from now.
It's all evolving as a wonderfullly juicy story of political intrigue and calculation. Bill Bradley has more gruesome details.
In his scathing dissent in the Supreme Court decision that overturned state sodomy laws, Justice Scalia objected to the court's imposition of "foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans." Scalia was directly referring to the citation of a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case in the court's majority opinion, but he was also reiterating a long-standing, right-wing jeremiad against "activist judges" taking any international law into consideration. Such objections would become a minor theme of "Justice Sundays" and even prompted a rare public rebuke from Sandra Day O'Connor, who said in a 2004 speech at Georgetown that "international law is a help in our search for a more peaceful world." Indeed it's not just on matters of world peace and anal sex that U.S. judges look abroad for ideas. The Supreme Court cited a UN convention in Roper v. Simmons, which struck down the juvenile death penalty, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court mentioned Canadian law when it legalized same-sex marriage.
Now it seems that the right-wing legal establishment has decided that if you can't beat them, join them. In an article for U.S. News and World Report, Scott Michels documents how the Alliance Defense Fund, the Christian Right counter to the ACLU, is "taking the culture wars overseas." Michels' opens with the ADF's role in the case of Stephen Copsey, a British man who was fired for refusing to work on Sundays, and quotes ADF chief counsel Benjamin Bull as saying "if these cases are imported by the United States courts as controlling precedent, we basically abandon America as we know it." According to Michel, the ADF and other right-wing groups have "developed international networks of Christian lawyers, trained foreign lawyers, and sent their lawyers abroad."
The ADF was founded in 1994 by prominent right-wingers such as Bill Bright (Campus Crusade for Christ), James Dobson (Focus on the Family), James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries) and Don Wildmon (American Family Association). Its leader Alan Sears was the Executive Director of the notorious Meese Commission on Pornography and authored The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. While most of the ADF's $17 million annual budget is spent litigating domestic culture war cases such as Boyscouts v. Dale and Cupertino, as well as organizing a national "Day of Truth" to oppose the "Day of Silence" organized by LGBT activists -- you can expect their international reach to grow along with evangelical interest in global issues like AIDS, religious conflict and sex trafficking.
Whatever one may think about the ADF and their ilk, you gotta admire their savviness. Blast liberals for their global ambitions; launch a stealth campaign to do the same. Since the right to discriminate against gays (or what they creatively term their "freedom of religion") seems to be ADF's raison d'etre, I refer readers to Michael Bronski's recent article on the shortcomings of the gay rights movement, in particular how gay liberation's global roots (the Gay Liberation Front was an homage of sorts to the Vietnamese National Liberation Front) are both inspiring and under-developed.