I'm reading through the Post's front-pager on how the Bush Administration screened political appointees for jobs in post-invasion Iraq based on loyalty to Bush and the conservative agenda. It's another one of a string of reports in recent months that fall into a strange category of news-gathering: stories already known to be true but for which the specific facts weren't yet available.
I know that sounds flip, but there really is something going on here worth noting. For instance, any reasonable person's reaction to the Post story will be a variation on, "Duh!" Bush placed a premium on political fealty rather than competence and effectiveness? Who is surprised by that? No one. So you read the piece for the anecdotes, like the fact that the Pentagon official responsible for screening political appointees is Jim O'Beirne, husband of conservative commentator Kate O'Beirne.
Isn't it usually the other way around? Reporters, and their readers, look for the facts in order to construct a larger picture. Ideally the facts are pieced together into a mosaic in which discrete bits of information that may otherwise be meaningless standing alone now contribute to a greater level of understanding.
Not so with many Bush era stories. The President's modus operandi is so well established, but the cloak of secrecy so tightly closed, that the broad outlines of a story may be known months or years before the particular facts are uncovered to flesh out the details. The closest thing I can compare it to is reading the next day's sports story after watching the game. You read not to learn who won, but for colorful anecdotes, and at some level to confirm what you have already seen and know to be true.
Of course this Administration's record--or, more precisely, the recording of that record--is a far more serious undertaking than a ballgame. The effort is similar in some respects to what people grappled with in the 1990s in post-communist Eastern Europe and post-Apartheid South Africa. There is something fundamental about knowing the details. I'm not sure that journalism as we now know and practice it is particularly suited to filling in the details well after the fact, but I don't think we can afford to wait for the historians.
--David Kurtz
TPM Reader PL:
You wrote, "A special place is reserved for the lawyers who give legal cover for such orders."What leaves me shaking my head, trying to understand, is not the lawyers, but the medical doctors who participate in torture and give guidance into how much more the person can take before they die. I just imagine the kind of person who decides to become a doctor -- that person must want to heal, want to fix people, want to alleviate their suffering or pain or at least want to be someone who has the power to do that.
So this person has years of training, has seen people suffer and die and seen pain first hand -- and yet, that same person is able to not only watch someone being tortured but take part in the process by saying the person could take 100 more volts or 4 more punches or 10 degrees cooler or stay in that position for another 24 hours before their legs break or whatever. I wonder at what point they lose that humanity. I wonder what they think of themselves when they look in the mirror or what goes through their mind when they turn off the light and pull the blanket up to their chin to go to sleep. When their family asks about their day, what do they tell their kids they do? I wonder what they tell themselves to make it be OK.
I simply cannot imagine the gentle hands of a doctor who in one case may be so delicately examining a wound to then be the one to say "Yeah, this guy can take more... he's still conscious so go at it."
Late update: Some readers have questioned whether there is any evidence of doctors having actually participated in the Administration-sanctioned torture. There is evidence, much of it circumstantial, that military health care providers, including physicians, have been complicit in torture. You can find more here and here.
--David Kurtz
Here it comes. The NRCC on Friday dropped almost $2 million on TV attack ads in congressional districts from Washington State to New York.
--David Kurtz
As a number of recent reports have made clear, the Republican's GOTV efforts are formidable. The Democrats, despite trying to keep apace, are not in the same league anymore. But you get the sense that many Democrats, accustomed to decades of dominance on the ground, don't yet fully appreciate the disparity.
I was talking to a union political operative last week who told me that it's real difficult to convince union members that campaigns nowadays start well before Labor Day. Meanwhile, Republican street money is already flowing.
Union turnout is going to be critical in several close Senate and House races, so this mindset is a problem.
--David Kurtz
Brian Williams opened his newscast last night with this: "Good evening from Havana, Cuba, the host city for what is called the Summit of Non-Aligned Nations--in short, all of the enemies of the United States, really, gathered in one room."
Well, then. There are 118 developing countries that are part of the nonaligned movement, including India, Pakistan, and Thailand. Sure hope we don't have to invade them all.
--David Kurtz
The torture debate in Congress--I never expected to write such words--is as surreal to me as watching the collapse of the Twin Towers. If the Democrats are able to take control of at least one chamber in November, then surely the President's pro-torture bill will be viewed in hindsight as the nadir of the Bush presidency. If not, how much lower can things go?
I am beyond being able to assess the political implications, one way or the other, of this spectacle. Regardless of which version of the bill finally passes, this debate is a black mark on the soul of the nation. Of course passage of a pro-torture bill will diminish U.S. standing internationally and jeopardize the safety and well-being of U.S. servicemen in future engagements. But merely having this debate has already accomplished that. Does anyone honestly believe that if Congress rebuffs the President in every respect that the rule of law and the inviolability of human rights will have been vindicated? Of course not.
The Republicans have defined deviancy down for the whole world, including every two-bit dictator and wild-eyed terrorist.
In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick writes of the pro-torture presidency:
[L]egal obfuscation is enormously attractive to President Bush. It means all but the most highly credentialed law professors and government lawyers are constantly confused; it means subsequent legal claims that interrogators "did not know that the practices were unlawful" have real credibility. And perhaps, most importantly to this White House, it obscures where things have gone awry up and down the chain of command. One possibility, then, is that all these eleventh-hour redefinitions of torture are presidential attempts to "afford brutality the cloak of law," in the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. But increasingly, it seems clear that its real purpose is simply to brutalize the law.
And to brutalize people.
Only the weak, scared, and evil torture. Those who order and sanction torture, but leave the dirty work to others, are an order of magnitude more culpable morally. (A special place is reserved for the lawyers who give legal cover for such orders.) In their fear and their weakness and their smallness, the President and those around him stepped over the line. To do so in the heated days after 9/11 is understandable to a point, though not justifiable. Yet they persisted, first in saying that they did not step over the line and now in seeking to redraw the line. So which is it?
They are descending from the morally reprehensible to the morally cowardly.
--David Kurtz
This is just unbelievable. The IRS is suddenly ramping up its investigation of whether All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena violated its tax-exempt status with an anti-war sermon just before the 2004 elections.
On Friday an IRS investigator served a summons on the current rector, Rev. Ed Bacon, ordering the church to turn over all documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year that referred to political candidates:
After nearly a year without communication with the agency, Bacon said he was "quite surprised" Friday when an IRS agent handed him the summons at his church.In addition to seeking electronic communications, the summons requests "a copy of all oral communications identifying candidates for public office delivered at All Saints Church or at events sponsored by All Saints Church between Jan. 1, 2004, and Nov. 2, 2004."
The summons also asks for various financial records.
The church has until September 29 to produce the documents, and Bacon has been summoned to testify on October 11. For frame of reference, Election Day is November 7.
So the IRS holds its fire in an investigation of allegedly improper political activites just before the 2004 elections until just before the 2006 elections. How about an investigation of that?
--David Kurtz
CNN anchor Tony Harris: "We have to take the president at his word when he says that the problem with Common Article 3, which prohibits outrages against personal dignity, is that it is unclear. And we can't have our interrogators trying to get information that we need to protect this country under a bit of language here that is this vague. We can do better than this."
Late update: TPM Reader JS says Harris was simply playing devil's advocate here, and that the video makes it clear, in a way the transcript does not, that "We have to take the president at his word" was not declarative.
--David Kurtz
A new report out this evening from McClatchy on the Bush Administration's Iran machinations:
Some officials at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department said they're concerned that the offices of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney may be receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles, including a discredited arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, who played a role in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.Officials at all three agencies said they suspect that the dubious information may include claims that Iran directed Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, to kidnap two Israeli soldiers in July; that Iran's nuclear program is moving faster than generally believed; and that the Iranian people are eager to join foreign efforts to overthrow their theocratic rulers.
The officials said there is no reliable intelligence to support any of those assertions and some that contradicts all three.
The officials said they fear a replay of the administration's mishandling of what turned out to be bogus information from Iraqi exiles in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, documented earlier this month in a Senate intelligence committee report.
The article also reports that former defense officials have been told airstrike plans for Iran are being updated and that the leader of a Persian Gulf country failed to get the assurances he was seeking, during a recent visit to Washington, that the military option was off the table.
There was also this nugget:
Adding to the unease, Rumsfeld's office earlier this year set up a new Iranian directorate, reported to be under the leadership of neoconservatives who played a role in planning the Iraq war.Current and former officials said the Pentagon's Iranian directorate has been headed by Abram Shulsky. Shulsky also was the head of the now-defunct Office of Special Plans, whose role in allegedly manipulating Iraq intelligence is under investigation by the Pentagon's inspector general.
Some officials say they fear the office, whose existence was first reported by the Los Angeles Times, is being used to funnel intelligence from Ghorbanifar, the arms dealer, and an Iranian exile group known as the Mujahedeen Khalq.
You may recall that after Republican gains in the 2002 mid-term elections, Vice President Cheney declared privately that more tax cuts were "our due." If the GOP retains control of Congress in November, will military action in Iran be their due?
--David Kurtz
Bush: I won't question my opponents patriotism. But if others do that's cool.
--Josh Marshall
Debate moderator asks Muslim House candidate whether he 'associates with terrorists'.
--Josh Marshall
Karl Rove is certainly playing high stakes poker on the Kangaroo Courts. Set aside for the moment the merits of the underlying questions of whether our country should continue to abide by the rule of law and the principles our founders based the country on. Hard I know, but for a moment, put that to one side.
The aim here was to unite Republicans behind a bill and then force Democrats either to vote for or against -- demoralize the supporters of those who vote for and crush with 30 second ads those who vote against.
But if the White House actually gets tripped up in a fight with members of his own party over what kind of torture we should use, and that's the last legislative story out of Washington going into the election, that really seems like it would be a big disaster for the White House.
I don't pretend that it's a clear political shot to argue, in a highly polarized electorate, that there are certain rights we should afford to anyone in our custody, no matter how bad they may be.
If there's some division over a president who wants to sully our national honor by enshrining torture as national policy, I don't think there's much division over a would-be torturer-in-chief who's so feckless that he can't even get his bills through congress -- and this while he's twiddling his thumbs as Iraq goes to hell.
The question is, Am I really supposed to believe that Republican senators are willing to hand their party leader that kind of reverse on the eve of a critical mid-term election? I have a hard time believing that's going to happen. And yet, who's going to blink?
A friend suggestst that President Bush will do what he's done before in similar cases -- fight up to the end, then embrace the opposition's position, repackage it as his own and declare victory.
The problem is that that's not necessarily enough for the president and his chaperone in this case to get an agreement with members of his own party. The whole point of this exercise, which is entirely political, is to pick a fight with the opposition. So the president needs to find a political sweet spot that guarantees agreed with senate Republicans and disagreement with most senate Democrats. This is the first thing to remember. Agreement, consensus is the last thing the president wants because then he loses his political cudgel.
--Josh Marshall
Maybe it'll work. And maybe it won't work. But whichever way it falls out, we can still point out the cartoonish logic and unbridled cynicism of the president's last ditch election ploy.
The president is now warning that "time is running out" for Congress to pass his Kangaroo Court bill.
It is of course more or less a perfect replay of 2002. At least then there was a notional, if bogus, argument for urgency. Now? Time is running out to set up military tribunals to try suspected terrorists who we've had in custody for two, three, four, in some cases I think even close to five years with no particular need or urgency to try them at all. But right now, seven weeks before the election time is running out because when Congress comes back in December it'll be too late.
By then I guess we'll have had to release them and give them a clean suit, two hundred bucks and release into some American city.
Time's running out!
And that from the same guy who wants a permission slip from the Pakistani government to hunt down Osama bin Laden.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush responding today to a question about reports that the Pakistani government has called off the hunt for bin Laden and whether the US should be searching for him on its own ...
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: Now recently, you've also...
BUSH: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.
QUESTION: Well, recently, you've also described bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why, if you can explain, why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden wherever he is.
BUSH: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question.They were asking me about -- somebody report -- well, you know, your special forces here. Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, which this person thought he might be who was asking me the question -- Pakistan's a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that. And then when you find him, you bring him to justice.And, you know, there is a kind of an urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn't stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it. It's convenient throw-away lines, you know, when people say that.We have been on the hunt, and we'll stay on the hunt until we bring him to justice. And we're doing it in a smart fashion, Richard, we are.And I'll look forward to talking to President Musharraf.Look, he doesn't like Al Qaida. They tried to kill him. And we've had a good record of bringing people to justice inside of Pakistan, because the Paks are in the lead. They know the stakes about dealing with a, you know, a violent form of ideological extremists.So we will continue on the hunt, and we've been effective about bringing to justice most of those who planned and plotted the 9/11 attacks, and we still got a lot of pressure on them.The best way to protect the homeland is to stay on the offense and keep pressure on them.
I don't think we've had any good explanation of the recent reports that the Pakistanis have agreed to stop hunting for bin Laden as long as he doesn't launch attacks within Pakistan.
--Josh Marshall
Senate Democrats call for hearings on whether the White House pressured top military lawyers to go along with their torture policy.
--Paul Kiel
Bob Ney issues statement apologizing for crimes, says "dependence on alcohol has been a problem."
Late Update: Ney's lawyers say he's already entered rehab.
Even Later Update: Former federal prosecutor says Ney got off easy, didn't even have to agree to cooperate.
--Josh Marshall
"The president wants us to forget the mistakes he's made in Iraq. He says capturing bin Laden isn't a priority for him. And now he's off caught up in a fight with senators of his own party about which kinds of torture we should use. This president just can't or won't keep his eye on the ball. President Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan when bin Laden was in our grasp because he wanted to hurry up and get into Iraq. And now he wants us to forget about Iraq because he doesn't want to take responsibility for all the mistakes he's made in Iraq. The American people have a choice on November 7th. If you think our country is going in the right direction, if you think Iraq is making us safer, vote Republican. If you've had enough and thinks it's time for a change, vote Democratic." -- quoted from a (fictional) congressional candidate.
--Josh Marshall
Apparently the Feds got Rep. Ney (R-OH) to 'fess up about those dodgy poker winnings in London too.
Here's the Ney press release from the DOJ. We'll have the documents up shortly.
--Josh Marshall
10:30 Justice Department press conference scheduled on "public corruption case". TPMmuckraker's Justin Rood will be on hand.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, we're still waiting for the details of the predicted/reported guilty plea of Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), which we expect some time today, probably on the early side. But to get your corrupt congressman juices flowing we've put together a cornucopia of past Ney denials of any wrongdoing for your morning reading pleasure.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) to become the first lawmaker to fall in the long-running Abramoff investigation. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
More on the new venture from the Swift Boat Vets' money man, Bob Perry. Boy, have they been busy....
--Paul Kiel
Another Abramoff related guilty plea -- a big one. Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) has agreed to plead guilty.
--Paul Kiel
Here's more on the administration's alleged arm-twisting of military lawyers to sign that pro-torture letter.
--Paul Kiel
A big new Pew poll taken right before September 11th shows that the public's still not buying the administration's line on Iraq and terrorism.
--Paul Kiel
TPM Reader JO ...
The President launches a series of speeches that repeatedly quote the words of Osama Bin Laden to highlight how terrorists want to kill Americans. Then, a week later, he says that catching Osama Bin Laden is not a priority. Words vs. action. Rhetoric vs. reality. The Bush presidency. If only the Democrats knew how to take advantage of the glaring inconsistencies.
How about, the president is more interested in quoting bin Laden than in catching him. Doesn't that work?
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader CB ...
The President has handed the Democrats a gift. They have to consistently and daily say:
"The President said that getting the guy who masterminded 9/11 is not a top priority, if you elect a Democratic Congress, we will make it a top priority. That is what is riding on this election. If you want Bin Laden captured or killed (need to use the word "killed"), you have to vote for a change." Over and over and over again.
Can you imagine what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot?
--Josh Marshall
Did White House coerce JAGs into signing pro-torture letter to Congress?
You'll want to see this video.
--Josh Marshall
Following up on Tony Snow's presser earlier this afternoon, as we noted, Snow argued that the White House doesn't want to gut or reinterpret the minimum level anti-torture protections under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. They just want to help clarify the vague language.
Check back to the article in the Washington Post that ran on August 9th, however, for some helpful perspective.
The Post spoke to Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who until recently was chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General.
Corn told the Post ... "that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, 'left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects.'"
--Josh Marshall
The Tony Snow press conference, going on now, is really a classic of our age. You should flip it on if you're near a TV. It's Tony Snow going back and forth with, I think, David Gregory, with Snow arguing that they're not gutting article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It's just no one has defined it before. It's just no one has realized there was a problem over the last 59 years until the Bush White House realized we were all flying blind.
Weird.
Now at 2:43, it's getting better. The problem hadn't occurred to anyone before because, says Snow, the issue 'hadn't come up' before. In other words, we hadn't really been in the torture business until now. So there wasn't as pressing a need to lawyer the Geneva Convention. Fascinating.
--Josh Marshall
If you have a chance, flip on the White House briefing from Tony Snow. I guess it turns out Vessey and Powell just don't understand what the White House is trying to do. They're not trying to reinterpret/gut the 3rd article of the Geneva Conventions. They're just trying to clarify 'vague language'. Okay, I guess it was all just a misundersanding.
--Josh Marshall
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water: Swift Boat 2.0.
Bob Perry, who bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, ponies up five million for new group running attack ads against Democrats.
--Josh Marshall
So at least two former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs -- Vessey and Powell -- think the president's proposal for Kangaroo Courts to try accused terrorists is wrong. Among the opinion set in Washington though, the proposal is still seen as tough and good politics. That's the lay of the land.
--Josh Marshall
Is it just me or is it kind of weird that the front page of CNN's website has been completely given over since last night to 'hey i'm a tough guy' self-portraits of the Montreal college gunman? So far, I think we've had one with him with a knife, one with a gun and now one with him holding up his fist with a Dr. Evil grimace on his face.
Late Update: As of 1:41 PM, welve got another picture of the guy, now with him pointing his knife directly into the camera. I think it's a knife. But it's pointed directly into the camera. So I guess there's a small chance it's just a metal handle. I think this is picture number 5 from Kimveer Gill's home website.
Later Update: New Kimveer Gill snuffshot at 2:12 PM. This one has Kimveer giving a heavy metal rock on sign with one hand and holding an automatic rifle in the other. Rock on!
--Josh Marshall
Santorum: Terrorists more dangerous than Hitler and Stalin, Soviet nukes.
--Josh Marshall
New Jersey senate candidate Kean holds fundraiser with Rove, can't make time to show up in person.
--Josh Marshall
Curtains for the Count?
A new poll out of Indiana's 2nd CD has Rep. Chris Chocola (R-IN), and a major Social Security bamboozler, down by 12 points. Challenger Donnelly has 52% to Chocola's anemic 40%.
--Josh Marshall
For those of you who are interested in this sort of thing, TPM Reader DC passes on the latest graph of the election futures at the University of Iowa political markets site: shows a medium sized slosh back toward Republicans holding the House.
--Josh Marshall
"Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels." Which Bush administration official said that -- and which agency was he talking about? That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Oh that's not good.
This article in Roll Call describes how Google, preeminent search engine and purveyor of fun online gizmos, is courting Republicans in Washington, as part of their efforts to build up a bigger presence in DC.
Fair enough: they can't afford to be completely on the outs with what is at least for now the majority party.
But buried down deep in the article it says they've hired the DCI Group.
If you're a dirty tricks and slimey opps afficionado a chill most certainly just went down your spine.
DCI, if you're not familiar with them, is an interlocking group of companies which is the phony seed bed for most noxious astroturf organizing and general bamboozlement in contemporary politics.
Here's an old post from 2003 on DCI, here's one on astroturf organizing in general and here's a selection of posts on the Johnny Appleseed of GOP astroturf opps, Tom Synhorst, the main man at DCI.
--Josh Marshall
On my mind: two polls now show at least a blip of heightened voter attention to the terrorism issue, which has in turn buoyed at least the president and possibly (depending on which poll you look at) the GOP. Not much. But a bit. They won't have another September 11th to whoop the drums over. The right now were likely at the high water mark. But where's the response?
I don't find this particularly worrisome in itself. But I do think what we see over the next week or so will be a telling test case for how the Democrats are able (and prepared) to wrestle with the White House over the basic definition of the election.
--Josh Marshall
A sobering article from the Post on the GOP's voter-turnout ground game.
--Josh Marshall
Keep 'em scared, keep 'em votin.
From The Hill ...
During a Tuesday meeting of the House Republican conference, Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) unveiled a handy new rhetorical device aimed at furthering House Republicans tough-on-terrorism national security agenda.Instead of referring to military tribunals as, well, the military tribunals that they are and have been known as throughout their entire existence, House Republicans should start referring to them as “terrorist tribunals,” to emphasize the bad guys they will be trying. (Very clever. Never mind that good ol’ American adage “innocent until proven guilty.”)
But even after Pryce’s instructions, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) needed a reminder. When he rose to speak about next week’s floor schedule, according to our fly on the wall, he mentioned “military tribunals for suspected terrorists.” He then caught himself, looked at Pryce, and asked, “What is it again?”
Pryce corrected Boehner, who then amended his speech with the by-the-playbook phrase “terrorist tribunals.”
These bozos so deserve to go down.
Now back to incisive analysis.
--Josh Marshall
White House repeatedly tried to muscle the CIA into letting them use the bogus Atta in Prague story in Bush and Cheney speeches.
That's what seems to be lurking under the redactions in the Senate intel report, says Mark Hosenball of Newsweek.
You can only imagine what they'd find if a non-straight-jacketed investigation ever took place.
--Josh Marshall
Some analyses from the field.
First TPM Reader KF from Rhode Island ...
Just a few points regarding this race. From the perspective of a life long Rhode Islander.1. Rhode Islander's tend to elect a Senator to life appointments. Examples, Aldridch, Green, Pell, Pastore, Chafee (the elder) to name a few: Senator Reed is about a safe a seat as there is.
2. Whitehouse, has the whiff of a loser, he's lost every race he's run and will not beat Chafee. So don't get excited about his ads going after Bush. Or his possibilities. Remember you heard it here first. He's a good man and would be granted the RI lifetime appointment but he's stuck. We just don't have enough seats in Congress. Maybe the Kennedy seat? (oh ya, lifetime appointments, I forgot).
3. Laffey never stood a chance against Chaffee, too much of a tool, shrill, spastic, plays to the pitchfork crowd. For such a blue collar state Rhode Islanders elect Senators with gravitas, the rest of the country should watch how we do it.
Anyway we've got Chafee. And we'll have him for a long time.
And TM Reader DB from Tennessee ...
what's "happening in TN" is that Ford is simply out-working and out-campaigning Corker. The guy is tireless and seems to get good press everywhere he appears in person across the state. He's following Governor Bredesen's lead of campaigning hard in east tn (the Republican part of the state) to neutralize the GOP advantage there instead of ignoring it like we've done in the past. And he's being very very tough on Corker and on Bush. Meanwhile Corker has been virtually non-existent since the primary. He's just started his ad campaign and it's bo-ring and typical. Ford's premise that this is not about liberal and conservative but about the future and the past is a nice complement to Corker's old-time image versus Ford's energy. It's as if Corker thought he could coast. Where is he on Social Security? On the war? Nobody knows. It doesn't hurt that the social conservatives of the state are still smarting from what Corker did to Bryant and Van Hilleary.Ford seems determined to win in a way that Sasser and Cooper never were. Unfortunately, there are lots of things still working against us. Ordinarily the fact that the Governor is so popular would help suppress Republican turnout--the GOP candidate is weak. But there's also an anti-gay amendment on the ballot that will get those disaffected social conservatives to the polls. With them, it's a question of whether Corker can convince them to push his button while they're in there. Then there's the money...Corker's campaign budget is unlimited and he's still essentially tied even with mounting virtually no campaign whatsoever so far (he's had one bio ad that I've seen, and the GOP has run an anti-Ford ad but that's about it).
I'm a liberal and I don't appreciate many of Ford's high-profile positions. But I think many of the netroots crowd (who are *really* anti-Ford) are missing the toughness he's showed so far, and are over-estimating his conservatism. I would have voted for him anyway of course, but his energy and determination have won me over. I suspect it has alot of folks, at least enough to make this close. And it would be an exciting thing here. In Nashville, we just elected our first black female judge (yeah yeah we elect our judges...) There's a certain pride in the city over that, and I think more people than you would guess would be excited to send our first black Senator to Washington. Whether that's over 50% of the state is another question. At any rate, there are many reasons to root for Harold Ford.
I spent several years of my life in Rhode Island. And I'm not sure I agree with KF. But I understand what he's getting at. With DB, dunno. But I like the sound of it.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), retiring after 11 terms, is refusing to endorse the GOP nominee to replace him.
--Justin Rood
This new ad for Joe Sestak, the retired Navy admiral running against Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) in Pennsylvania's 7th District is really pretty good. Take a look.
--Josh Marshall
Apparently Sen. Allen (R-VA) now says the noose he had as an office decoration was "more of a lasso".
--Josh Marshall
Rhode Island Democratic candidate Sheldon Whitehouse airs the first negative ad of the general election there... and doesn't mention incumbent Lincoln Chafee.
--Paul Kiel
BREAKING: Controversy over Sen. Allen's Racism Overshadowed by New Evidence He's a Big Fat Liar!
Yes, more fun from the Virginian-Pilot's article on Allen Macaca Apology 3.0.
Deep down in the article, the piece quotes Allen waxing contemplative about his learning process about referring to non-whites with racial epithets ....
I've learned a valuable lesson about the power of words, about how words carelessly chosen, or in my case, even made up, can have a totally unintended meaning and impact for another person from another background or from a different cultural perspective.
This, of course, is a reference to his calling the Webb campaign volunteer "Macaca".
But let's review. We know that not only is "macaca" a widely used racial epithet in American crypto-racist and white supremacist circles. Its apparent origin is among the colonial population of francophone North Africa -- where Allen's mother was raised.
Now, call me ungenerous, but given those facts, the idea that "macaca" was simply three syllables Allen randomly strung together when digging at a dark-skinned young man who was getting on his nerves just doesn't strike me as credible.
I don't expect Allen to admit now that rather than make this name up it was a synonym for the N-word that he was fond of when he was a kid. But he's practically begging for renewed attention to this transparent lie by weaving it, again and again, into his strained apologies.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader GM has a nice catch out of the Sen. Allen Macaca Apology 3.0 article in today's Virginia-Pilot, emphasis added ...
"The point is, symbols matter, they should matter, and this is something that I wish I learned a lot earlier," Allen said. "Even if your heart is pure, the things you say and do and the symbols you use do matter because of the way others may take them."Allen wore a Confederate flag pin on his lapel in his 1970 graduation picture from a Southern California high school. He hung a noose from a plant in his Charlottesville law office in the 1980s and a Confederate flag inside his home. As governor in the mid-1990s, he alienated some by signing a resolution that designated a Confederate history month in Virginia but did not acknowledge the evils of slavery.
I guess you have to hand it to Sen. Allen since in his feeble efforts to wriggle his way out of his history of bigotry he has actually managed to lend an element of bleakly dark humor to this country's heavy history of racial segregation and violence.
A noose? He missed the symbolism of that one? Thought it was just about southern heritage?
The weird thing is, as Ed Kilgore pointed out back in April, it's not even like George Allen is even a southerner. As Ed wrote then, "Allen's whole cowboy-boot-wearing, tobacco-chewing, country-music-loving Southern Man routine was something he cultivated during his formative high school years in the hyper-exclusive Southern California community of Palos Verdes."
What was the noose about?
Even with all the Macaca coverage, this guy's still getting a free ride from most of the press.
--Josh Marshall
Litigation saves the day -- Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) will likely not be indicted before the November election.
--Paul Kiel
A new ad hits Sen. George Allen (R-VA) for a vote against funding body armor for troops in Iraq.
--Paul Kiel
Bush's beard? Middle school teacher Gary Weddle pledged he wouldn't shave his beard until bin Laden was captured. Click here to see his very long beard.
--Josh Marshall
As of just before 11 AM, Maryland incumbent Al Wynn seems to have retaken a very thin lead over challenger Donna Edwards. But it's certainly not over.
--Josh Marshall
The House Intelligence Committee has investigated Duke Cunningham's dirty deeds for months. Why don't they have anything to show for it? That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Latest numbers out of Maryland at our TPM Election Central numbers board.
--Josh Marshall
So what does the result out of Rhode Island mean?
I think this basically speaks for itself. The Republicans could have guarenteed themselves the loss of a senate seat tonight. They dodged that bullet. As these numbers show, I think Whitehouse, the ironically named Democratic candidate, still has the advantage. But it's going to be close.
The real question in looking at this race is which number is more important: the spread between Whitehouse and Chafee, which I don't think has ever been outside the margin of error but with Whitehouse almost always ahead, or that fact that Chafee, the incumbent, hasn't been able to get over 43% in any poll I've seen.
Here's Steve Clemons' take, in the context of the Bolton nomination.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, I think it's about time to close the books on the Laffey challenge.
At 10:36 10:43, with 84% 90% of the vote in, it's Chafee 54%, Laffey 46%.
That margin has been close to set in stone from the first precincts reporting. So I don't see any reason to think it'll change.
Late Update: the Projo primary blog suggests that some of the few remaining votes are from Warwick, RI's second city, where Chafee was once mayor. So I'd say, Laffey is down for the count.
For the latest on the primaries in Maryland, see our numbers board at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
Linc may be pulling this one out.
73% reporting, Chafee 54%, Laffey 46%.
As of 10:20 PM, 78% reporting, spread stays the same.
10:26 PM, 80% reporting, same spread.
10:30 PM, 81% reporting, same spread (I think it's time to get out the fork.)
--Josh Marshall
RI senate a smidge tighter. 62% reporting. Chafee 53%, Laffey 47%.
As of 10:07, 66% reporting, same spread.
As of 10:15, 67%, same spread.
--Josh Marshall
Providence's WPRI is reporting 59% of votes counted, Chafee 54%, Laffey 46%.
--Josh Marshall
Chafee with a narrow lead with almost 40% more than one third of votes counted.
--Josh Marshall
The NBC affiliate in Providence has some numbers earlier that the state elections website.
From a minuscule 3% precincts reporting, Chafee 55%, Laffey 45%.
--Josh Marshall
Here's where the official Rhode Island state board of elections results are going to be posted.
--Josh Marshall