Today’s Must Read: Hersh Article On Iran

At the moment, the economy may be the number one issue, however, it won’t be the only thing that gets attention for the rest of the summer.  At some point, the subject of Iran will take center stage for a while.  That said, Seymour Hersh has an excellent article in the New Yorker on the subject that is definitely worth a read.

I’ve excerpted some of the more interesting bits of information especially those that have a relation to election politics…

On the Democratic congress supporting the Bush administration’s decision to increase clandestine military operations against Iran:

In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.

Secretary gates discussing the consequences of a preemptive strike:

A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.”

A commentary on how the Democrats in Congress are doing:

The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. “The oversight process has not kept pace—it’s been coöpted” by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. “The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.”

And some closing thoughts on the subject:

There is another complication: American Presidential politics. Barack Obama has said that, if elected, he would begin talks with Iran with no “self-defeating” preconditions (although only after diplomatic groundwork had been laid). That position has been vigorously criticized by John McCain. The Washington Post recently quoted Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign’s national-security director, as stating that McCain supports the White House’s position, and that the program be suspended before talks begin. What Obama is proposing, Scheunemann said, “is unilateral cowboy summitry.”

Scheunemann, who is known as a neoconservative, is also the McCain campaign’s most important channel of communication with the White House. He is a friend of David Addington, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. I have heard differing accounts of Scheunemann’s influence with McCain; though some close to the McCain campaign talk about him as a possible national-security adviser, others say he is someone who isn’t taken seriously while “telling Cheney and others what they want to hear,” as a senior McCain adviser put it.

Between McCain singing bomb Iran earlier in 2007 and Obama getting some criticism for his statements on negotiations, the topics discussed in Hersh’s article will become a factor at some point later in the election, one way or another.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/25/08)

Today, we discuss (1) McCain’s energy policy proposal to provide 30 billion for clean coal technologies over 15 years and its political implications; and, (2) Barack Obama’s moderating stance on FISA and the Supreme Court’s decision banning capital punishment for child rapists.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/24/08)

John and Angelo are back and will be recording podcasts several times a week now.  This podcast covers (1) Obama’s ‘get over it’ statement and (2) McCain staffer Charles Black’s comments to Fortune Magazine regarding who would benefit from a terrorist attack.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (04/05/08)

During this show, the gurus discuss the state of the race, the Clinton tax returns, Obama’s strategy in Penn., McCain strategy, a general election preview and much more….

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast). 

Sphere: Related Content

Afternoon Briefing (3/26/08)

Here’s a quick roundup of what’s news…

• PBS’s FRONTLINE documentary “Bush’s War” is now available online. It’s a 5 hour documentary about the Iraq War. I strongly suggest watching it at some point.
• There are all sorts of rumblings about the Clinton Campaign’s subversive plot to pursue Obama’s pledged delegates; one blogger recalls Harold Ickes doing something similar in 1980 when he was working for Kennedy. I really don’t think this will ultimately be much of a factor and share Josh Marshall’s characterization as this being a “fog of nonsense” intentionally created by the Clinton Campaign. It’s worth noting that the Obama Campaign is pushing this story, which means they see a political advantage in this story getting press.
• In Wright news: Hillary Clinton says that she would have left the church if Rev. Wright was her pastor on the same day that a member of her finance committee compared Wright to David Duke.
• Audio for yesterday’s campaign conference calls are available: McCain’s, Clinton’s, Obama’s.
• Barack Obama released his tax returns for 2000-2006 and as his campaign increases pressure on Bill and Hillary Clinton to release their tax returns.
• Excellent and worthwhile read on McCain’s view on taxes and current proposals/plans.

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of MSNBC Democratic Debate In Cleveland, Ohio (February 26, 2008)

8:19: Underlying themes aplenty. Will Hillary Clinton continue her harsh attacks from the weekend on Barack Obama? Will Obama maintain his cool presence he’s worked hard to maintain in these debates? Will Tim Russert admit he attended law school at Cleveland State on national television? Will Clinton fight back against MSNBC, or have those battles passed? Will Obama keep up his attacks on Clinton? Will Brian Williams ask more or fewer than 4 pointless questions?

We have the answers for you, here, tonight. Live!

8:40: And, we’re up. As you can see, the site has a new layout. It’ll take a few days for us to get everything in order, but if you notice a problem, please let us know. Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Daily Briefing (October 11, 2007)

What’s news today…

• Steven Stark (Boston Phoenix) takes Barack Obama to task in an analysis of the shortcomings of Obama’s campaign.  Ouch.
• Andrew Sullivan finally tells us why he is not a fan of Hillary Clinton.  He’s already made it quite clear that he was not a fan, but up until this point hasn’t really articulated his opposition.
• Politico’s state by state strategy analysis.
• John McCain will unveil his health care plan today in Iowa.  It’s an an interesting alternative to the Democratic plans and certainly a lot more substantial than the plans of his Republican rivals.  (We’ll take a more comprehensive look at the plan later today)
• Talks of social conservatives supporting a third party candidate if Rudy is the GOP begins to die down.
• Mike Huckabee predicts that he will win Iowa Caucus.  Also, catching some flak for a suicide joke he made. (He swiftly apologized.)
• PressTV (Iran) commentary chastises Bush Administration and current top Democratic contenders, but offers praise for Chris Dodd.

Sphere: Related Content

On Eve of Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, John Grisham Calls Bush Administration “Bad People with Evil Intent” and Iraq War “Immoral Abomination”

Hillary Clinton has remained measured in her words regarding Iraq and the Bush Administration, but those she is holding fundraisers with are showing little such discipline. She is holding a fundraiser with author John Grisham tomorrow in Charlottesville, Virginia, and he took the opportunity to unload on both Iraq and the Bush Administration:

“The war is an immoral abomination that we’ll pay for for decades to come,” Grisham said near the end of a 40-minute telephone interview with The Des Moines Register.

“We’re paying for it now at the rate of 100 kids a month while Bush plays politics with it.”

And later:

Grisham said his differences with the current administration trace back to the beginning of its White House run.

“I’ve always thought that they were bad people with evil intent - and all that, it’s playing out now,” he said. “You can’t hardly look at any aspect of the government in the seven years so far that’s been run properly.”

And lastly:

Part of Grisham’s motivation for getting involved in the political event, he said, is rooted in personal concerns about the current White House.

“I can’t stand those people - and their incompetence is astounding,” he said.

“I always thought you could at least depend on the Republican Party to maintain some semblance of fiscal responsibility.

“But they run up record deficits - taking care of billionaires that they want to take care of. Don’t get me started on politics. I could go for a long time.”

We’ve seen other politicians be held responsible for what some of their supporters say. This will probably be shoved under the rug, though, by the end of the weekend.

Sphere: Related Content

Candidate Reactions To President Bush’s Address On “A Way Forward In Iraq”

Yesterday evening (9/13/07), President Bush delivered a speech to the nation on “a way forward in iraq.”

Below are the candidate reactions…

Barack Obama…

“It is long past time to end a war that never should have started. President Bush was wrong when he took us to war, he was wrong when he escalated this war in January, and he is wrong to stay the course now. I opposed this war from the beginning, I introduced legislation in January that would have already started to bring our troops home, and I will continue to lead the fight in the Senate for a fixed timeline with a deadline for the removal of all of our combat troops. The American people are not going to be fooled by the same false promises of success that got us into Iraq. Iraq’s leaders are not making the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge, but the President wants us to keep giving him a blank check. We must not continue the enormous sacrifice of our troops, our military readiness, our treasury, and our standing in the world just to keep the violence at the same unacceptable levels it was at in 2005 and 2006. That is why I have proposed an immediate and sustained removal of 1 to 2 combat brigades each month to conclude by the end of next year. We have to come together – not as Republicans and Democrats – but as Americans to turn the page in Iraq so that we can recapture our unity of purpose at home and our leadership around the world.”

Bill Richardson…

“Enough is enough. This President lacks credibility. President Bush needs to stop putting his historical legacy ahead of the safety of our troops and the security of our nation.

“As of next summer, the President plans to have 130,000 troops in the midst of a civil war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards would leave between 60,000 and 90,000 troops in Iraq with no timetable for a full withdrawal. All of these plans are unacceptable. We must get all of our troops out of Iraq in six to eight months.

“After years of President Bush’s reckless mismanagement of the war in Iraq, there is only one responsible course of action left to us. We need to get all of our troops out of Iraq, not just the combat troops as others have suggested, and leave no residual forces behind. Our troops have done everything asked of them, but the solution in Iraq involves diplomacy, not military force. Leaving troops behind would serve as a roadblock to political progress. The hard work of diplomacy and reconciliation cannot begin until we start to withdraw our troops and make it clear that we are leaving. If Congress does not join me and get all of our troops out of Iraq, I will show them the way once I am elected President.”

Christopher Dodd…

“Moving us in 10 months to where we were 10 months ago is not progress. It is the very definition of status quo.

“Not only is the President not offering us anything new; he’s insulting our intelligence.

“Despite the fact that his top General is unable to say that the war is making us safer, all the President offers today is quite literally more of the same. More loss of life, more strain on our military readiness, and more degradation of our national security and our standing in the world. It is time for Congress to say ‘no more.’

“What was clear to me before, and what should be abundantly clear to my colleagues after today, is that this President is not going to change course unless we force him to. There is only one way to do that - we must set a clear, hard and fast deadline for redeployment and, in order to enforce it, that deadline must be tied to funding.”

Dennis Kucinich…

“Tonight, we were promised a war without end. It is now up to Congress to bring an end to the President’s war”, said Kucinich. “The Democrats have an obligation to the American people who voted for a new direction in Iraq. The Democratic-controlled Congress needs to take a stand against this President and say they will not give him any more money.”

He continued, “The President’s policies have failed and it is up to the Congress to take decisive action. I call on the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate to fulfill their promise to the people who elected them in 2006 to end the war and bring our troops home.”

Hillary Clinton…

“Regrettably, the President did not seize the opportunity tonight to offer the American people a candid assessment of the challenges that we continue to face in Iraq, or offer a change in course to his failing strategy. Instead, he portrayed an unavoidable reduction in U.S. troops to pre-surge levels as a marker of progress. Redeploying over the next year five of the twenty combat brigades currently deployed in Iraq will merely bring our total number of troops back to the same level that existed before the President announced his escalation in January of this year. As was discussed during General Petraeus’s testimony this week, troop levels in Iraq must decrease by this amount regardless, in order to avoid extending Army deployments beyond 15 months and straining our military even further than it already is.

What the President told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home.

The Commander-in-Chief has the authority to issue the order to greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many more of our troops home so much faster. They have done everything we have asked of them and more, but are now stuck in the middle of a civil war. I continue to implore the President to change course, bring our troops home faster, and end this war responsibly as soon as possible.”

Joe Biden…

Tonight, President Bush will give the American people a progress report on the war in Iraq.

This war belongs to the President, not to his generals or his ambassadors. It is the President’s time – and his responsibility – to answer a question that the general carrying out his policies in Iraq could not answer: is pressing ahead with the war making America safer? Based on everything we heard this week from the President’s surrogates and everything I have seen and heard during my eight trips to Iraq, the answer is no. The President’s strategy in Iraq is not succeeding. It is not making America safer. Doing more of the same would be a disaster. The President’s strategy is to stand up Iraq security forces so that we can stand down. But four years and $20 billion later, the Iraqi army is still years away from being ready to take over. The Iraqi national police force is so corrupt and so sectarian that one of our most respected military leaders, General Jim Jones, recommended that it be disbanded. The President’s strategy is to build a united, democratic central government in Baghdad that secures the support of all Iraqis. The primary purpose of the President’s surge was to buy time for that central government to succeed. But eight months into the surge, there has been no political progress in Baghdad. The sectarian war continues unabated… militias still dominate the country… and more Iraqis are fleeing their homes for fear of sectarian violence than ever before. Despite these failures, President Bush is about to tell the American people that: He will continue the surge for another six months, putting more American lives and limbs at risk for no strategic gain.

When the surge finally ends next year, we will be right back where we started: with 130,000 Americans in Iraq, no lasting change on the ground and no end in sight. That is unconscionable. Pressing ahead with this war, in this way, will not make America safer. The President does not recognize that reality. I do – and I know what we should do about it. We need and I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to end the war in Iraq while protecting our troops and not leaving chaos behind.

First, instead of continuing the war with no end in sight, we have to start to bring our troops home now, and withdraw most of them next year. I would limit the mission of those that remain to fighting al Qaeda, training Iraqis and helping them protect their borders.

Second, so long as we have any troops left in Iraq, we must treat them with care, not disdain, and give them the best protection this country can provide. If a soldier spends a year in Iraq, he should get at least a year at home before we send him back. And if a soldier spends a single day in Iraq, he should be able to ride in the Mine Resistant vehicles I’ve been fighting so hard to build — vehicles that can cut by 70 percent casualties and deaths from roadside bombs.

Third, while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not enough. We need a plan for what we leave behind so that we do not trade a dictator for chaos in Iraq and the region that endangers America’s interests for a generation. I have a plan that offers the possibility, not the guarantee, of stability in Iraq as we leave. It’s based on the reality that Iraq cannot be governed from the center, as this President believes, because Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are not ready to entrust their fates to each other. Instead, we have to give Iraq’s warring factions breathing room in regions, with local control over the fabric of their daily lives – police, education, jobs, marriage, religion – as Iraq’s constitution provides. A limited central government would be in charge of common concerns, including distributing Iraq’s oil revenues. A federal, decentralized Iraq is our last, best hope for a stable Iraq. More and more people, inside Iraq and out, are coming to that realization. We should refocus our efforts on making federalism work for all Iraqis. I would initiate a diplomatic surge to do just that, bringing in the U.N., major countries and Iraq’s neighbors to help implement and oversee the political settlement I’m proposing. It is time to turn the corner. Stop the surge and start bringing our troops home. End a political strategy that cannot succeed and begin one that can. And always, always protect our troops.

This is President Bush’s war. But it is America’s future. We have to get this right, together.

John Edwards…

This week - as we will forever - we remember those lost on September 11th. And this week, Washington refocuses on Iraq. But the question of Iraq is separate from September 11th - as it has always been, whatever George Bush would have us believe.

Likewise, supporting our troops and pursuing a failed war are not the same things - whatever George Bush would have us believe.

All Americans honor the incredible sacrifice of our troops. They have done everything asked of them with courage and resolve. Now we should bring them home.

They are policing a civil war, and the only way to end that civil war is for both sides, Sunni and Shia, to take responsibility to end it by agreeing to a political solution. And the only way to force them to take responsibility is to withdraw our troops - starting now.

Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he has ever had - more time, more troops, and more war.

In January, after years of evidence that military actions cannot force a political solution, the president announced a military surge to force a political solution. In May, he vetoed a plan to end the war, demanded more time to show the surge could work, and Congress gave it to him. Now, after General Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when we know it won’t.

Our troops are stuck between a president without a plan to succeed and a Congress without the courage to bring them home.

But Congress must answer to the American people. Tell Congress you know the truth - they have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice: a firm timeline for withdrawal.

No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

It is time to end this war.

Fred Thompson…

“Tonight we expect President George W. Bush will tell the nation that success in Iraq is achievable and that, conditions on the ground permitting, up to 30,000 troops will be coming home by next summer. I am encouraged by reports by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker that the security situation is improving and momentum is on our side.

“I believe that the troop withdrawal plan that General Petraeus has proposed is the right course. This recommendation is a result of the success being seen on the ground in Iraq.

“With the momentum of an effective military strategy now on our side, we must press forward, never wavering, and unite in our determination to defeat al Qaeda and other extremists who remain committed to forcing our surrender. This is central not only to success in Iraq, but also to our long-term plan to bring our troops home.

“A wholesale withdrawal of American troops from Iraq–as many Democrats propose — would embolden al Qaeda, strengthen Iran, betray our allies, and dishonor the memories of the men and women who have sacrificed so much to keep us safe.

“Gen. Petraeus’ report also leaves me even more concerned about Iran’s role in Iraq. Iran is headed down a dangerous path, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must understand that.

“Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight. The average 20 year-old serving in Iraq apparently knows more about national security than many of the 20 year-political veterans serving in Congress.”

Mike Huckabee…

“I agree with the President and his decision to accept the recommendations of General Petraeus. During his speech, the President gave an honest assessment of the status of the war in Iraq : while the challenges remain formidable, the surge is working and there’s been significant progress – particularly in Anbar province.

“The current policy of providing security and stability has to be carried out. We can’t walk away and not honor those who are serving our country. If we leave now, it will show weakness, which would do irreparable damage to America ’s reputation and ability to protect our national interests, as well as create chaos and massive suffering in the region.

“The war we are fighting in the Middle East is a theological war. It is not a traditional geo-political war; it is a war against against Islamic fanatics who want to destroy us. It is a test of will and purpose. ”

“The question is, do we have the will to fight the enemy and take the fight to them or will they prevail? For the sake of future generations of Americans, this is a war we must win. We must give our commanders and troops what they need to succeed.”

Mitt Romney…

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Let’s start with the first question, how did the President do last night?”

Governor Romney: “Well, I think he advanced the ball last night. I think people recognized that one thing that’s unacceptable to this country is that Iraq would become a safe haven for al-Qaeda or other Jihadist terrorist groups. And the fact is that over the last several months, we have seen progress in helping Sunnis respond and react and reject al-Qaeda, and that’s critically important.”

Rudy Giuliani…

“I think the concept of return on success is the right one. It’s hard for me to see what part of that you disagree with, you know, the return part or the success part.”

As always, more will be added if brought to my attention.

[Photo Credit: The White House]

Sphere: Related Content

Daily Links (August 20, 2007)

Today’s notable reads…

• Someone used an Obama computer to make a weird change on Wikipedia. [The Caucus]
• Fred Thompson had to clarify his position on gay marriage, as he tries to push his federalist message. [Marc Ambinder]
• Domenico Montanaro goes over the reverse psychology possibilities on what Rove said on Clinton. [First Read]
• Bob Kerrey might run for Senate if Chuck Hagel does not. [The Caucus]
• Tom Tancredo vowed in the notes here to campaign through to 2008. [Denver Post]
• Giuliani is barely leading in Oregon, but compared to a few months ago, his support has “fallen off a cliff.” and is down almost 20 points. [Oregon Live]

Sphere: Related Content

Who is the biggest Democratic threat to Republicans?

This has been brought up in numerous places over the past week, but this article in the LA Times is worth of extra emphasis:

Why did Rove, who often stays in the background, step forward to deliver such public attacks — especially when the Democrats haven’t begun to choose their presidential candidate for 2008 and when the general election is more than a year away?

The answer might seem obvious: Rove saw Clinton as a formidable opponent and wanted to get his licks in early.

For high-level campaign professionals like Rove, however, that kind of thinking may be too simple.

…..

In this case, Rove’s weeklong broadside against Clinton — which he is expected to repeat in multiple appearances on television talk shows today — looks suspiciously like an exercise in reverse psychology that his team employed three years ago when it was preparing for President Bush’s reelection bid.

The ploy was described by Rove lieutenant Matthew Dowd during a postmortem conference on the 2004 election at Harvard University the month after Bush defeated Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who Bush’s opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush’s reelection.

But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove’s team opened fire at Kerry.

Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party’s nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.

Unlike Kerry, who had been in public service for decades, Edwards was a political newcomer and lacked a long record that could be attacked. And, unlike former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who had been the front-runner but whose campaign was collapsing in Iowa, Edwards couldn’t easily be painted as “nutty.”

The truth might be somewhere in between this time: take focus off candidates able to appeal to independents while also rallying the base around Clinton, who is still incredibly likely to be the nominee. The best chance the Republicans have as of right now might be if they get their base and Republican leaning candidates to really turn out in high numbers to vote against Clinton. That’s not to dismiss the attacks on Obama and Edwards, but they are less likely to inspire the vitriol that Clinton does, and can still make somewhat a claim that their positions are not really yet understood. People are so familiar with the Clintons that she really is running a re-election type of campaign more than anything.

But for Republicans, attacking Clinton now is really a win-win scenario: it locks in her nomination and will likely raise her negative numbers again. I said as much earlier this week:

The second most pertinent question is will Republicans follow Rove’s suggestion and begin a series of attacks on Clinton that she would be unable to fend off. That could cement her status as a front runner if Obama and others have to scrap even for attention, but assuming she does get nominated, it could also change the shape of the general election as well. Rove isn’t a perfect at giving political advice, but he’s far more successful historically than not, and a concentrated campaign against Clinton could get her negative numbers rising again, which is something Obama’s suggestives about being more electable has failed to do.

The win-win scenario rests, though, on finding a candidate able to take advantage of what Rove is trying to do. And given the general disaffection of Republican voters, there has to be some skepticism over whether that candidate exists.

Related at 2008 Central:

• How Obama Factors in to Rove v. Clinton
• Live Blog of John McCain on Face the Nation (August 19, 2007)
• Live Blog Of ABC News Democratic Debate (August 19, 2007)

[Photo Credit: Flickr user brainy smurf]

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Morning Talk: Democratic Debate, McCain, Rove

This Week (ABC): Iowa Debate featuring Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson.

Meet the Press (NBC): Karl Rove

Face the Nation (CBS): Karl Rove, John McCain

Fox News Sunday: Karl Rove

Late Edition (CNN): Kit Bond, Robert Casey, Mahmoud Othman, and Stephen Moore.

Sphere: Related Content

Giuliani Calls for School Vouchers; also for no Palestinian state

Giuliani today discussed education while campaigning in New Hampshire, specifically supporting school vouchers, which seems to be on its way to becoming a political issue in the general election:

“How is it that we have the best higher education in the world and a weaker K-through-12 system?” Giuliani said. “What’s the difference? Why does one operate so well and the other not nearly as well? American higher education is based on a quintessential American principle - choice.”

As mayor of New York, Giuliani backed vouchers for private and parochial schools in the face of opposition from his own schools chancellor.

“I’d give parents control over their children’s education,” Giuliani told the audience of about 150 people at a solar power products plant. “We’ve got to have competition operating. If we don’t do that, our education system is going to deteriorate.”

This site has a nice history of Giuliani’s history on education, including trying in vain to take over the city school system (Bloomberg succeeded in that effort) and saying that the city system ought be ‘blown up.’

Earlier in the week, Giuliani published an essay in Foreign Affairs magazine. The reviews in general have not been kind, suffice to say. The most sanguine criticism I have read is that the essay seems to be a stump speech, not a serious academic effort. On the stump in Iowa, I would not think twice about some of the things Giuliani says. But in a foreign affairs essay it raises serious practical issues, even among Republicans.

But, in terms of election year politics, perhaps the most intriguing part of the essay is this section where Giuliani makes the case against developing a Palestinian state right now:

America has a clear interest in helping to establish good governance throughout the world. Democracy is a noble ideal, and promoting it abroad is the right long-term goal of U.S. policy. But democracy cannot be achieved rapidly or sustained unless it is built on sound legal, institutional, and cultural foundations. It can only work if people have a reasonable degree of safety and security. Elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy. Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbors. History demonstrates that democracy usually follows good governance, not the reverse. U.S. assistance can do much to set nations on the road to democracy, but we must be realistic about how much we can accomplish alone and how long it will take to achieve lasting progress.

The election of Hamas in the Palestinian-controlled territories is a case in point. The problem there is not the lack of statehood but corrupt and unaccountable governance. The Palestinian people need decent governance first, as a prerequisite for statehood. Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians — negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America’s commitment to Israel’s security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy.

This would seem to be an issue that could become a platform perhaps for his party in the next election. There are favorable reviews already up of it, including at the National Review. I can’t imagine that Democrats would look forward to defending Palestinian statehood in a national election, although Bush’s acceptance of that policy might make it slightly easier, though more risk politically.

Sphere: Related Content

How Obama Factors in to Rove v. Clinton

Karl Rove, after resigning, was on Rush Limbaugh’s show and talked about Hillary Clinton, mostly criticizing her policy positions, but also talking about her as a candidate:

RUSH: Because, you know, people want leadership. They crave it. They love the president and have a lot of respect for him, and they just hate seeing this stuff go un-responded to. I think yesterday, when Mrs. Clinton ran this ad saying the White House doesn’t see some people, they’re “invisible” to the government, and the White House responded yesterday.

KARL ROVE: Well, look, what’s interesting, too, about that is, it’s really amazing that she would say that. You know, it’s sort of disappointing. This is… After all, Senator Clinton voted against the prescription drug benefit for seniors. Senator Clinton voted against allowing people to save tax-free for their out-of-pocket medical expenses. Senator Clinton opposes giving every American a standard health deduction so that they can deduct from the cost of their income taxes, their insurance premiums. You know, when we started as a country to say, “You know what? You can deduct your mortgage interest off of your income taxes,” there was an explosion of home ownership in the country, which was a good thing. When we started saying to people, “You can save tax-free for your kids’ college expenses or save tax-free for your retirement expenses,” we saw an explosion of 529 Plans for college education, and 401(k)s and IRAs for people’s retirement. That was a good thing. Yet Senator Clinton, who deems to lecture this president on health care, opposed allowing people to do either save tax-free for their out-of-pocket medical expenses, or, she also opposed — she also opposes — allowing there to be a tax deduction for people to take off their income tax costs of their insurance premiums. She’s against having a level playing field so that the guy who has to pay for health care for his family or her family out of their own pocket, gets the same tax break the big corporations get for providing health insurance to their employees. She’s against allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines like we routinely buy auto insurance today so you can shop for the cheapest price and the best product for your family’s needs.

RUSH: So she wants to –

KARL ROVE: So I’m a little surprised that she jumped out there and made such an accusation when she’s got a record that’s so spotty and poor on health care issues. If she really believed people ought to have more health care, she should have been — she should be — standing with us and making some different votes.

RUSH: Well, since we’re talking about Mrs. Clinton, how about your assessment of the Democrat presidential field and where they’re headed?

KARL ROVE: Well, I don’t want to become a prognosticator. So I’ll simply repeat what I said publicly on the record. I think she’s likely to be the nominee, and I think she’s fatally flawed. I think that it’s going to be a tough general election. It always is at the end of an eight-year run. It’s very hard, if you look back in history, for a party to win a third term for that party. It happened in 1988 when 41 succeeded Ronald Reagan. It happened in 1948, if you will, when Harry Truman who had succeeded to the job won reelection. But between 1988 you have to go back to, literally, 1908 to find a real example of somebody succeeding at the end of two terms and even then TR had inherited the office on the death of McKinley. You know, it’s rare, but it can and I think will be done, but it’s going to be a tough race, and it will be against her.

RUSH: What are her fatal flaws?

KARL ROVE: Well, you know, you’re trying to make me into a prognosticator and I want to set a high tone here, on the high road, but look, she is who she is. There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling. She’s going into the general election with, depending on what poll you look at, in the high forties on the negative side, and just below that on the positive side, and there’s nobody who has ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.

The Clinton campaign responded:

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, fired back today saying that “Mr. Rove’s famed political radar is off.” He added that Mrs. Clinton’s strong poll numbers are evidence that “Americans are seeing that she has the strength and experience to deliver change.”

Some G.O.P. leaders seem to be relishing the possibility that Mrs. Clinton will be the Democratic party’s presidential nominee — she offers them a ripe target for attacks. But, the Clinton campaign has repeatedly touted her ability to fight back.

Not only that, but The NYT pointed out that there was one candidate who won the White House with the types of numbers Rove said could not be overcome, as well as her unfavorable ratings trending down:

The CBS News poll, conducted from Aug. 8 to Aug. 12, showed Mrs. Clinton’s unfavorable rating at 39 percent. That number has been falling bit by bit since its high mark of 46 percent in April.
That 46 percent was the highest negative rating measured by The New York Times and CBS News since the two news organizations began polling about Mrs. Clinton in 1992.
Over the last few months as her negative ratings have fallen, her positive ratings have fluctuated, with the most recent poll showing that 41 percent of voters have a favorable view of her.
Mr. Rove’s point was this: “There’s nobody who has ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.”
In fact, Mrs. Clinton’s husband was in that very position and did win. And Mrs. Clinton’s numbers are better than his were at this point in his first campaign for the White House.
In April 1992, only 26 percent of voters had a favorable view of Bill Clinton, while 40 percent viewed him unfavorably, according to a Times/CBS poll. By June 1992, his favorables had plunged further, so that only 16 percent had a favorable opinion, with 40 percent still unfavorable.
After Mr. Clinton won the nomination and after his convention, his favorable rating began to rise. By October 1992, his ratings had become about even, with 34 percent favorable and 35 percent unfavorable.

The Clinton campaign also tried to tie Rove to Obama:

Is there any other way to look at yesterday’s Rove attack on Clinton? Is he trying to help or hurt Clinton’s campaign? The simple fact we’re talking about Rove vs. Clinton is making the folks near the Ballston Metro smile this morning. Nothing gives someone more lefty bona fides (especially online) than having Karl Rove pick a fight with them. Also, Rove’s criticism of Clinton allowed her campaign to tie Obama — who yesterday told the Washington Post he could do a better job of bringing the country together than Clinton can — to Rove (as absurd as that sounds). Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told CNN, “It sounds like Karl Rove is writing Sen. Obama’s talking points.” Then again, couldn’t Clinton end up caught in a trap with this Rove spat, because it ends up proving Obama’s point about Clinton’s ability to bring the country together?

For his part, Barack Obama is also trying to capitalize on the public view of Clinton:

In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Barack Obama laid out as explicitly as he has to date what many believe is his strongest argument for his candidacy against that of Hillary Clinton: that he is a less polarizing figure on the national scene. “I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do,” Obama said. “If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be running.”

In making this case, Obama can find both affirmation and reason for concern in an intriguing and overlooked nugget in the Post-ABC poll on the Democratic presidential race released late last month. Simply put: independents and Republicans seem to recognize that Obama has the potential to appeal to voters outside the Democratic base — but Democratic voters themselves don’t yet seem to be taking that fully into account in their thinking about whom to nominate.

Asked which Democratic candidate would have the “best chance to defeat the Republican nominee in the general election,” 54 percent of Democrats polled said Clinton would, compared to 22 percent who said Obama would.

But when the same question was put to independents and Republicans — which Democrat would have the best chance in 2008 — those voters had a notably different view: 35 percent of independents said Clinton would have the best chance, and 29 percent said Obama would; 37 percent of Republicans said Clinton would have the best chance, compared with 33 percent who said Obama would. (John Edwards was deemed most electable by 9-10 percent of voters in all three groups of voters.)What to make of this 17-19 point gap in the estimation of Clinton’s general election prospects between Democrats and other voters? One might surmise that independents and Republicans — the very voters whose views matter most, come November 2008, in determining how electable a Democrat would be — are basing their estimation of Clinton’s chances on their own misgivings about her, and the misgivings of other independents and Republicans.

Marc Ambinder wrote more on this on his blog:

Two Republicans close to Karl Rove said that his decision to tie his exit from the Bush White House to a series of frontal assaults on the political viability of Sen. Hillary Clinton stems in part from his conviction that she will be the Democratic nominee, as Rove said. But there’s also a bit of envy: Clinton has so successfully rehabiliated her image — she’s established her own political identity — that Rove wants to pressure Republicans to begin their character attacks on Clinton now, rather than later.

It’s a strategy Rove employed during the 2004 re-election, when the Bush campaign decided early to cover Bush’s own negatives by portraying Sen. John Kerry as completely to lead the country during perilous times.

Aides to Sen. Barack Obama have another take. “There is a long view, which I think folks are missing,” an Obama aide says. ” This just underscores the old politics that we’ve been running against.” In other words: Democrats are tired of Bush v. Clinton fights.

Obama even issued a statement to that extent when Rove announced his resignation earlier this week:

“Karl Rove was an architect of a political strategy that has left the country more divided, the special interests more powerful, and the American people more shut out from their government than any time in memory. But to build a new kind of politics, it will take more than the departure of a man or even an Administration that constructed the old it will take a movement of everyday Americans committed to changing Washington and reclaiming their government.”

It’s a weird three way dance going on here. Rove wants Republicans to attack Clinton more, Clinton responds strongly and says that it’s what Obama would say as well, and Obama tries to use the attacks and Clinton’s equally strong responses as a reason to turn away from both Clinton and Bush.

It’s a lot of noise, and the pertinent question for the moment is how will it affect the election. For the time being, there are two ways it can go. People who get fed up with all the back and forth wil tend to side with Obama (or another candidate other than Clinton). People who just don’t care about this back and forth and ignore it will be more inclined to see Clinton fighting back and side with her.

The second most pertinent question is will Republicans follow Rove’s suggestion and begin a series of attacks on Clinton that she would be unable to fend off. That could cement her status as a front runner if Obama and others have to scrap even for attention, but assuming she does get nominated, it could also change the shape of the general election as well. Rove isn’t a perfect at giving political advice, but he’s far more successful historically than not, and a concentrated campaign against Clinton could get her negative numbers rising again, which is something Obama’s suggestives about being more electable has failed to do.

Either way, it seems the race is getting far more interesting now…

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Finally Goes on Offensive; Clinton Pushes Back

After Tuesday, where Clinton called Obama “irresponsible and, frankly, naive” on the issue of meeting foreign leaders, both sides had issued memos and sent their advisors to go over talking points, and it seemed over … and then Obama on Wednesday said this on camera to NBC News:

“I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out — and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue.

“The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.

“Now, they may not like what we want to hear — so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what’s necessary to protect them — that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic spadework has to be done ahead of time.

“The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous.

“But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on — and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevents us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies, and I am not interested in continuing that.

“I know that she has said in the past that we have to talk to our enemies — well that’s what this is about. And if we say that we will not talk to them unless they meet a series of preconditions, then that’s the same position that Bush and Cheney have maintained over the last six years, and it has made us less safe. And that’s what I think is going to be a significant part of this debate in 2008.”

It starts with tying in the explicit attack on Clinton that Obama made during the debate that somehow got glossed over, and then Obama went really the most on the attack that he’s ever done during this campaign.

Since Obama has previously refrained from doing anything like this, one has to ask if his plan all along was to rely on retaliatory rhetoric (when the public is far less likely to see someone as playing politics) or if he is defending his position after seeing what passivism did to John Kerry in 2004.

This morning, after picking up an endorsement in New Hampshire in the form of Rep. Paul Hodes, Obama strengthened and furthered his language comparing Clinton to the Bush Administration:

“I’m not afraid of losing the PR war to dictators,” continuing, “I’m not going to hide behind a bunch of rhetoric. I don’t want a continuation with Bush-Cheney. I don’t want Bush-Cheney light. I want a fundamental change.”

On a conference call he went on:

“You’ll have to ask Sen. Clinton what differentiates her position from their position.” He added that his answer at the debate — that he WOULD be willing to meet with the leaders of Syria, Iran, etc. with preconditions — “sends a message that we’re willing to sit down and talk, and that increases over leverage and our capacity to get something done.”

Responding to another question on the matter, Obama then referred to Clinton’s 2002 war authorization vote. “It’s a debate over the same conventional thinking that led people to authorize the war in Iraq without asking questions.” He said that thinking was “talking tough and not acting very smart.” He continued, “Part of what I believe we have to have is a willingness … to talk tough, but be tough and smart enough to engage our enemies.”

The Clinton campaign’s immediate response Wednesday