Results from Ames
So, how'd things turn out in the Ames Straw Poll? The final tally was delayed after a voting-machine error (insert sly joke here), but here are the results, by way of IowaPolitics.com:
1. Mitt Romney
2. Mike Huckabee
3. Sam Brownback
4. Tom Tancredo
5. Ron Paul
6. Tommy Thompson
7. Fred Thompson
8. Rudy Giuliani
9. Duncan Hunter
10. John McCain
11. John Cox
Marc Ambinder has more details on the final tallies.
Keep in mind, organizers hoped for 20,000 straw-poll participants today, and the total was just over 14,000. Eight years ago, nearly 24,000 Republicans took part in the event.
Some of this, it's fair to say, is the result of some top-tier candidates deciding not to participate in Ames, but it also speaks to the ongoing lack of enthusiasm for the GOP field of candidates. (When Obama polls better among Iowa Republicans than several Republican candidates, I think it's fair to say the field is struggling to inspire the GOP faithful.)
--Steve Benen
A not-quite-shining city on a hill
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) recently told Glenn Greenwald that the United States' legal system -- with its respect for the rule of law and citizens' civil liberties -- has been the envy of the world for years. But as we've departed from our principles, others are following suit.
"[T]here has been an erosion in the world with the rule of the law," Dodd said. "Having led the world in the rule of law in the post-World War II period, and having nations reluctantly moving in the direction we were moving in, and they now see the U.S. has retreated, and they are making a hasty retreat themselves."
Rick Perlstein pointed to Exhibit A.
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe on Friday signed into law the controversial Interception of Communications Bill, which gives his government the authority to eavesdrop on phone and Internet communications and read physical mail. [...]
Secretary General Welshman Ncube of the MDC faction led by Arthur Mutambara called it a "final straw to the curtailment to the liberties of Zimbabweans.". [...]
But Communications Minister Christopher Mushowe said Zimbabwe is not unique in the world in passing such legislation, citing electronic eavesdropping programs in the United States.
Was Mugabe inspired by Bush? It's unlikely; Mugabe didn't need an extra motivation for a power-grab. But as Glenn noted today, "[T]he fact that such powers exist here does provide a potent refutation for those who want to suggest that Mugabe is doing anything extraordinarily tyrannical."
--Steve Benen
Given his track record, Alberto Gonzales probably isn't the best person to be giving anyone, better yet Iraqis, advice about the rule of law.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, under fire at home with calls for his resignation, is spending some time in Iraq.
The Justice Department said that Gonzales arrived in Baghdad on Saturday for his third trip to Iraq to meet with department officials who have been there to help fashion the country's legal system.
"I am pleased to see firsthand ... the progress that the men and women of the Justice Department have made to rebuild Iraq's legal system and law enforcement infrastructure," Gonzales said in a statement released by the department.
First, it's not at all clear why Gonzales is encouraged by the status of Iraq's legal system. Iraq is beset by what the AP charitably described as "sectarian lawlessness."
Second, I suppose there are less qualified officials in the Bush administration to oversee Iraq's drive to fashion a legal system, but no one comes to mind.
--Steve Benen
With McCain, Giuliani, and Fred Thompson sitting this one out, the results of Ames Straw Poll are fairly predictable -- Romney's going to come out on top. But there are still plenty of reasons to keep an eye on the results, and plenty of questions that will be answered once the votes are tallied.
* How much will Romney win by? -- Though Giuliani aides have been trying to raise expectations beyond reason (they've suggested Romney has to win by an 8 to 1 margin), Romney will realistically have to get more than 30% support to have a good day. (Bush won with 31% in 2000.) A big win will solidify Romney as the Iowa frontrunner. A narrow win will raise questions about his chances.
* Who'll come in second? -- With so many second- and third-tier candidates cluttering the Republican field, the race for second is fierce. Either Huckabee or Brownback will use a second-place finish to argue that they belong in the top tier (at least as much as McCain). Also keep an eye on Tancredo, this cycle's Alan Keyes.
* Is Brownback for real? -- The Kansas senator apparently has an impressive Iowa operation, including a fleet of buses to transport supporters. But as Chris Cillizza noted, "If he doesn't place second or -- maybe -- third, it's hard to see how Brownback justifies going on."
* Who'll drop out? -- "Those who fail miserably [in the Straw Poll] are out of the race," said Chuck Laudner, executive director of the Iowa Republican Party. "That's just the coldhearted truth of it all." Tommy Thompson has already suggested he'll likely withdraw unless he finishes in the top two, which is rather unlikely. Huckabee has also hinted he'll "reevaluate" if he fares poorly in Ames. Brownback, meanwhile, has said today is not a "make or break" event for him.
* Is Paul a player? -- Ron Paul has fared poorly in Iowa polls, but the Straw Poll is all about organization, and the Texas congressman has some loyal and active fans. If he manages a strong showing -- say, top three -- Paul will be hard to dismiss as a fringe candidate.
* What about the no-shows? -- As Eric Kleefeld and T. W. Farnam noted, if Giuliani, McCain, and/or Thompson actually generate some decent results without trying, there will be even more pressure on candidates who compete and come up short.
The voting is ongoing right now and will wrap up at 7 p.m. eastern. The results will be announced an hour later. Stay tuned.
--Steve Benen
Obama addresses question of whether he's "black enough" head on. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
'He had his own elevator'
Wayne Barrett has done the political world a great service with a devastating piece in the Village Voice on Rudy Giuliani and the "five big lies" surrounding the former mayor's claim to fame: his performance on 9/11. The entire piece -- which, if read, should effectively end Giuliani's presidential ambitions -- is important, but there's one part of the story that's particularly worth highlighting.
It's Lie #3: Giuliani doesn't deserve the blame for putting the city's emergency-command center in the World Trade Center, an obvious, and once-attacked, terrorist target. The former mayor was warned, in writing, about the inherent flaws in the choosing the site, and was offered a better and more effective alternative, but Giuliani moved forward anyway. As Barrett explained, "The 1997 decision had dire consequences on 9/11, when the city had to mobilize a response without any operational center."
So, why is it, exactly, that Giuliani picked the WTC site? The mayor personally established a specific standard: he had to be able to walk to the command center from his office. ("I've never seen in my life 'walking distance' as some kind of a standard for crisis management," said Lou Anemone, the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the NYPD. "But you don't want to confuse Giuliani with the facts.")
There is, however, an explanation for the walking-distance standard.
The 7 WTC site was the brainchild of Bill Diamond, a prominent Manhattan Republican that Giuliani had installed at the city agency handling rentals. When Diamond held a similar post in the Reagan administration a few years earlier, his office had selected the same building to house nine federal agencies. Diamond's GOP-wired broker steered Hauer to the building, which was owned by a major Giuliani donor and fundraiser. When Hauer signed onto it, he was locked in by the limitations Giuliani had imposed on the search and the sites Diamond offered him. The mayor was so personally focused on the siting and construction of the bunker that the city administrator who oversaw it testified in a subsequent lawsuit that "very senior officials," specifically including Giuliani, "were involved," which he said was a major difference between this and other projects.
Giuliani's office had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.
For the city, this meant that on 9/11, the NYC make-shift command center didn't exist until seven hours after the attack. As for Giuliani's poor judgment, the most rational conclusion is that he put his center in the wrong place because he was creating a "convenient love nest."
Kevin Drum wonders how the GOP base is going to respond to news like this.
Right now, they're probably not aware of the whole story, and simply perceive Giuliani as someone who held some impressive press conferences on 9/11. But it's only a matter of time. Giuliani's decisions should be a national scandal that not only force him from the presidential race, but may even shame him permanently.
Inevitably, this is going to become a part of this campaign, and when it does, it's going to be ugly.
--Steve Benen
'It's the kiss of death'
Last weekend, during a GOP debate in Iowa, George Stephanopoulos noted that Bush's alleged democracy-spreading foreign policy hasn't exactly worked out well: "There have been free elections in Gaza; they elected Hamas. There have been free elections in Lebanon; they empowered Hezbollah. There have been free elections in Iran; they elected President Ahmadinejad." Asked about the track record, former Gov. Mike Huckabee responded, "Sometimes when you get what you want, you don't want what you get."
With that background in mind, Hassan Fattah has a terrific report on how the U.S. government can promote elections, champion democracy, and stand behind like-minded international allies, but our support doesn't always translate well.
Lebanon's political spin masters have been trying in recent days to explain the results of last Sunday's pivotal by-election, which saw a relatively unknown candidate from the opposition narrowly beat a former president, Amin Gemayel.
There has been talk of the Christian vote and the Armenian vote, of history and betrayal, as each side sought to claim victory. There is one explanation, however, that has become common wisdom in the region: Mr. Gemayel's doom seems to have been sealed by his support from the Bush administration and the implied agendas behind its backing.
"It's the kiss of death," said Turki al-Rasheed, a Saudi reformer who watched last Sunday's elections closely. "The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win."
The paradox of American policy in the Middle East -- promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West -- is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.
Throughout the post-WWII era, foreign leaders used to promote their bonds with the United States as a sign of strength and credibility. We were a beacon of hope that countries were anxious to be associated with. Not anymore.
In reality, Bush's democracy talk has always been more about rhetorical games than actual policy anyway, but so long as the administration continues to call for more elections, it can continue to expect discouraging results.
Digby added a compelling approach to what has to happen moving forward, starting in 2009.
--Steve Benen
Last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) may have inadvertently leaked classified information during a Fox News interview, disclosing an aspect of a FISA court's decision regarding warrantless wiretapping. On Thursday, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, may have unintentionally done the same thing.
ABC News' (and TPM alum) Justin Rood explains.
For the second time in as many weeks, a senior House Republican may have divulged classified information in the media.
In an opinion article published in the New York Post Thursday, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., reported the top-secret budget for human spying had decreased -- the type of detail normally kept under wraps for national security reasons.
"The 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill cut human-intelligence programs," Hoekstra wrote in the piece, in which he also criticized "leaks to the news media."
Formerly the chairman of the intelligence committee, Hoekstra is now its highest ranking Republican. In its recent budget authorizations, that committee kept from public view all figures and most discussion of spending on such classified items as human spying. Hoekstra's apparent slip was first noted on the liberal Web site, Raw Story.
"If Mr. Hoekstra wants to break ranks and disclose that information, that's fine with me," said Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert who has long pushed to declassify overall spending on intelligence. "But it is the sort of thing he has harshly criticized in the past."
Given Hoekstra's hackish history, this week's alleged disclosure is par for the course. After all, Hoekstra has had a series of recent intelligence-related embarrassments.
* In November 2006, Hoekstra pushed the administration to publish online a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The idea was to let far-right bloggers "prove" that Saddam had WMD, but Hoekstra's plan led to the accidental release of secret nuclear research, including a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
* In October 2006, Hoestra "stripped the credentials of a Democratic committee aide he believed may have leaked a then-classified document to The New York Times. A month later, he quietly reinstated the aide's access."
* In July 2006, Hoekstra called a humiliating press conference to announce, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" -- despite failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
* In June 2006, Hoekstra and Rick Santorum wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed, alleging that some officials in the intelligence community are attempting to destroy the Bush administration -- and America itself.
Maybe House Republicans can find someone a little less reckless to serve as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee?
--Steve Benen
The Philadelphia Daily News' Stu Bykofsky, one of the city's most widely-read columnists, caused a bit of a stir with his latest column, which posited a provocative idea: another 9/11-style attack to "help" America. As Bykofsky sees it, "we have forgotten who the enemy is," and the murder of thousands of Americans would help us get back on track.
America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater. What would sew us back together? Another 9/11 attack.
The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda. [...]
Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again? If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
Everything about this column seems misguided -- the diagnosis of what ails America, the description of the symptoms, the proposed cure. The surprising part of this, however, is that a variety of far-right media outlets seemed to embrace Bykofsky's message. ThinkProgress noted that Drudge seemed to think highly of the piece, conservative radio host Mike Gallagher invited Bykofsky on to his show, and Fox News' John Gibson went so far as to endorse Bykofsky's thesis on the air: "I think it's going to take a lot of dead people to wake America up."
For a column that pines for mass murder, this isn't the reaction I expected.
--Steve Benen
Lute: It 'makes sense' to 'consider' draft
Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, confirmed by the Senate in June to serve as the president's war advisor (aka, the "war czar"), has kept a remarkably low profile. NSA Stephen Hadley told reporters a while back that Lute would be "up close to the president" to work "full time, 24/7" on implementing Bush's war policy, but that apparently includes practically disappearing from public view.
In fact, Lute has not been mentioned by Bush, Cheney, or any White House spokesperson, in any context, since he was confirmed. I was beginning to think we may want to put his face on milk-cartons.
Yesterday, Lute finally emerged -- and immediately sparked a controversy.
Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."
"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," said Lute, who is sometimes referred to as the "Iraq war czar." It was his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.
And with that, we may not be hearing from Lute again anytime soon.
--Steve Benen
Mitt Romney is expected to win tomorrow's Ames straw poll, but he really has to win big. That and other straw poll and political news in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Bill O'Reilly and John Edwards, Two Ships that Crossed in the Night
Fibbing goof Bill O'Reilly can't understand why John Edwards won't give any love to Fox News after they've given him such fair coverage on Fox. Take a look. It'll start your weekend on a good note ...
Also nice to see the Foxies crying a river about the hard shake they're getting from the Democrats.
--Josh Marshall
Beauchamp Update
If you've been following the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Affair, I strongly recommend reading the latest update from The New Republic. The short version is that the Army's investigation of the case appears to be confined to a) releasing no information about their investigation or details of its findings, b) leaking alleged details to the Weekly Standard, which no one will confirm on the record and c) keeping Beauchamp himself in communications lockdown where no one but family members in monitored conversations can communicate with him.
Perhaps Beauchamp made this stuff up. And that's not a throwaway line; I freely concede it may turn out to be the case. There's no getting around the fact that the legacy of the Glass Affair puts an extra hurdle of credibility in TNR's way.
But the behavior of the Army Public Affairs Office suggests that what they are pushing is not an investigation that would pass any muster in the light of day but a war against a particular article and publication.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but going back over recent years -- the WMD stories, al Qaeda link, the Iraq War and more -- when you've got the goods, you take it to a real press outlet. When you're blowing smoke, you take it to the Standard.
--Josh Marshall
Global War on Verbs
I think it's a measure of how brain dead the Republicans have become on the "war on terror" that their big puffing or policy statements on the issue now most often amount to bizarre and sometimes incomprehensible grammatical reformulations or, failing that, reorderings of sentence structure.
So for example, now you have Mitt Romney saying, "There's not a global war on terror. There's a global war being waged by the terrorists and if I am president, there will be a global war waged on the terrorists and we will win."
This comes after Rudy's insistence on rebranding the War on Terror as the "Terrorists' War on Us." (see the video)
Their perplexity and paralysis in the face of reality is making them look like one of those alien computers or robots at the end of one of the old Star Trek episodes where Capt. Kirk hits them with too much kick-ass logic and smoke starts to come out of their ears and then they explode.
Late Update: Alternative Headline: Emerging GOP consensus that War on Terror is being waged in the passive voice!
--Josh Marshall
Give to the RNC, Or Else
Turns out fear isn’t just an RNC campaign strategy. It’s also useful, apparently, to spook up contributions.
The political parties use a variety of tactics in fundraising pitches to try and grab attention. But here’s a letter from the RNC that seems particularly beyond the pale. It styles as a “Voter Registration Verification and Audit Form” and warns the voter about “irregularities” in his/her party affiliation.
Check it out. And thanks to TPM Reader Dennis Sidwell for sending it in after it succeeded in spooking his 83 year-old father.
--Paul Kiel
Rudy: I Was a 9/11 Recovery Worker Too
In Ohio yesterday Rudy said, inter alia ... "I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. ... I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them."
I think this is going to be a real problem for His Rudiness. And unlike many gaffes, which are just offhanded statements that tell us little about the person in question, I think this one points to an underlying contempt for the folks who ended up sacrificing their health or even their lives during the clean-up process.
--Josh Marshall
Obama and Clinton explain "old school" opposition to gay marriage; Edwards says he isn't "uncomfortable" around gays; and Richardson stumbles over whether being gay is a "choice." That and other items in today's Election Central gay issues debate roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Giving Thanks
Conservative economist and AndrewSullivan.com guest blogger Bruce Bartlett giving thanks for the new Michael Gerson take-down piece in The Atlantic ...
Judging by Scully's account, no bigger phony than Gerson ever walked the corridors of the White House--and that's saying a lot. Apparently, Gerson spent just about every waking hour trying to figure out how to take credit for anything good that came out of the West Wing and had any number of gullible accomplices in the press corps that were happy to oblige him in his effort ... Another reason I'm grateful to Scully is that I could never understand why the Washington Post gave Gerson a column when he clearly has nothing interesting to say about anything. Apparently, it is payback for all the leaks Gerson was spilling to the Post all these years. Unfortunately, the Post erred by not also hiring the speechwriters who did all the work Gerson took credit for as well.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Bill Sali (R-ID): God may destroy America over Hindu prayer in the senate. Muslim congressman probably won't help any either.
--Josh Marshall
Coconut Road
Here's a corruption case that raises an interesting constitutional question. Actually, the 'question' seems pretty open and shut to me. But it is apparently being treated as one of some ambiguity. So here goes.
In 2005, rapscallion Congressman Don Young (R) of Alaska snuck in a $10 million earmark for a highway interchange (the "Coconut Road" project) which stood to benefit real estate mini-mogul Daniel Aranoff. The earmark appeared just days after Aranoff raised 40 grand for Young at a fundraiser. Adding to the fun on this little escapade is that this was an earmark for a road building project in Florida, which -- unless my spatial reasoning is failing me -- must be about as far as you can get in the United States from Alaska, the state Young nominally represents.
Okay, so far, not a particularly surprising story, certainly for the Alaska congressional delegation. But here's where it gets more interesting.
The 'Coconut Road' earmark wasn't in the bill passed by the House and Senate. I don't mean it wasn't in the original bills before they went to conference (where the separate bills from the House and the Senate are reconciled into a single bill). It wasn't in the final, reconciled piece of legislation passed by both houses of Congress after conference.
But it is there now.
So here's what happened. Apparently Young added the text after Congress had already passed it but before the president signed it. As Laura McGann explains in this post, this must have occurred during the process called "bill enrollment" when revisions of grammar and technical but not substantive changes are permitted to be made.
The president did sign the bill. But the portion apparently added by Young, if I understand anything about our system of government, was never passed by Congress. So it means nothing.
Based on this -- to my mind -- neatly fatal insufficiency to the earmark, local officials in Southwest Florida are investigating whether they can ignore the earmark and use the money to widen Interstate 75, which is what the bill had prescribed before Young's extra-constitutional handiwork.
Now, here's my question. I know some squirrelly things happen in the legislative process. But this strikes me as in a whole other category. In the previous Congress there was a lot of controversy over the fact that the Republican leadership was basically rewriting bill's de novo in conference. And while that may make a mockery of the legislative process it doesn't have narrowly constitutional implications -- at least as I read it -- since the whole Congress does pass the final law, even if it was just something Tom DeLay wrote out on a gumball wrapper and they're only given five minutes to read it.
Anyway, to my question: how common is this? Laura got a quote on this from Keith Ashdown from Taxpayers for Common Sense who said, "I’ve seen little gimmicks and little tricks used to make sure somebody’s friend or contributor is taken care of but this is by far one of the more underhanded, surreptitious examples I’ve seen — ever."
Is something even similar to this a commonplace occurrence?
So, how common is this -- addressed to those of you on the Hill? Is there any question that this never-passed earmark lacks any force of law? And shouldn't there be some sanction -- by the Congress itself if not legally -- for his having done it?
--Josh Marshall
Academics-turned-political-donors gave most to Barack Obama! That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Band of Brothers
Sentimental snark from TPM Reader MD ...
Reading about Mitt's claim that his five sons are serving the nation by driving the Winnebago through Iowa, I was put in mind of the once-famous Sulllivan Brothers, five Iowa boys who were all in the navy during WWII, were all serving on the same ship, and were all killed at the same time. I hadn't thought of the Sullivan Brothers in years. After their deaths, the military put in a rule that blood relatives could not all serve in the same unit. So the Romney boys should not all be riding around in the same Winnebago.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush on Accountability
On Scooter Libby: "Lewis Libby was held accountable."
On Al Gonzales: "I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong ... Why would I hold someone accountable who has done nothing wrong?"
--Josh Marshall
Obama and Pakistan
I'm always interested to try to tease apart and find the meta-debates operating beneath the surface of campaign debates. As I wrote a few years ago in what I called the bitch-slap theory of GOP electoral politics, the whole swift-boat saga was less about the specifics of Kerry's injuries forty years ago than whether he could defend himself from the charges today. Someone who can't defend himself is weak; and if a guy can't defend himself he can't defend you.
That's what that whole song-and-dance was about.
So what is this back and forth about Obama and Pakistan about?
What this has boiled down to -- and this became even more clear after Tuesday night's labor-hosted debate, when Biden and Dodd acted as Hillary's proxies -- is Hillary, in league with the party's foreign policy establishment, trying to make Obama, implicitly or explicitly, concede an error, that he misspoke.
Precisely what he misspoke about is largely beside the point. The key is that they get him to concede that in the complex and serious world of foreign policy big-think, where words have consequences, he made an error. Of course, it's almost good enough if most observers decide that Obama screwed up. But once he concedes it himself, if he does, he stipulates from now through the end of the Democratic primary campaign that his inexperience in foreign policy is a basic premise of the campaign upon which the battle between him and Hillary will be waged. He can learn, improve, make progress, whatever, but his inexperience compared to Hillary will continue to be the reference point throughout.
But I think he's done a pretty good job so far refusing to get put in that box. And the truth is that I think Obama's actual words are so clearly unobjectionable that this is all Kabuki theater of a particularly strained and disingenuous sort. All Obama said was that if we have actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of high-value al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, and Pakistan won't act, we will act.
Clearly, no Republican can quibble with this. They're on the record for invading countries because they might become dangers to us at some point in the future. They're hardly in a position to disagree with Obama if he says we'll hunt down people who committed mass casualty terror attacks within our borders. And I'm not sure Democrats are in much of a position to do so either.
The unspoken truth here, I suspect, is that Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are. I think everyone can see this. But Obama got there first. So they need to attack him for saying it.
--Josh Marshall
Yearly Kos: In Conclusion
In today's episode of TPMtv we bring you the final chapter in our coverage of Yearly Kos 2007, the last Yearly Kos that will ever be held (beginning next year the convention will go by the name Netroots Nation). We thought it appropriate to conclude with our interview of the Kos himself, Markos Moulitsas, but we'd like to thank everyone who was kind enough to give us a minute and chat with two random dudes wandering around with a video camera. And thanks to Josh for allowing my colleague Andrew and me to partake in such an adventure. Goodnight Chicago, you've been wonderful!
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
A number of Guantanamo Bay prisoners fear being sent back to their home countries out of a fear of... torture.
--Paul Kiel
Big Athletic Idiot
Okay, sort of thin gruel for Romney-bashing. Today he's forgetting how many counties there are in the state he was allegedly governor of.
--Josh Marshall
A new poll finds John McCain at all of three percent in Iowa. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Sigh. Andrew Golis' TPMtv interview with Time mag's Jay Carney, shot at Yearly Kos, seems to be developing into a genuine controversy, though I'm not even sure what they're arguing about.
--Josh Marshall
Bonfire
Apparently there's a spontaneous grassroots movement to draft Alan Keyes into the GOP primary race -- oddly enough, the movement has emerged on Keyes' own website.
--Josh Marshall
The Dream Candidate
I don't want to rush anyone. But are we ready to say that Fred Thompson's proto-incipient campaign for president might not be quite ready to sweep the current crop of goofballs from the field?
Or, isn't there a serious possibility now that this guy may never actually get into the race? If for no other reason than to salvage some of the aura of dignity upon which the lucrative acting career is based?
Today Thompson tapped his third campaign manager. Which means he's now operating at a ratio of 3 managers to 0 campaigns. And I guess that means a ratio of like infinity or something like that. But let's not get distracted by that.
In any case, I need to ask you a favor. Can you send me links to quotes of glitz columnists and yakkers gushing about Fred's gravitas, Reaganosity and generally inevitable waltz to the Republican nomination?
--Josh Marshall
Huckabee to GOP: Let's Stop Being the Party of Plutocrats
Late Update: If you missed Tuesday night's AFL-CIO debate, here is a clip of the question posed by retired union steel worker Steve Skvara, the man referred to by Huckabee and Matthews in the above clip:
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Barack Obama Break Out Session at Yearly Kos
We've brought you footage of Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards's Q&A Breakout Sessions at Yearly Kos. In today's specially-tripod-enabled episode of TPMtv, we give you highlights of Barack Obama's session ...
--Ben Craw
Romney Clan Battles for Straw Poll Ridge
Okay, so now we've listened to this audio that the Romney campaign released to rebut the AP story which quoted him saying that his sons had chosen to work for his presidential campaign as opposed to fighting in Iraq as a way to serve their country.
I'd say that listening to it in the context of his rather lengthy gee-golly explanation takes a bit of the edge off the remark. But not that much. Basically instead of shooting right from the hip with his sons' campaign work as a form of national service, this point comes at the end of a much lengthier silly response.
But, hey, you decide.
Late Update: I think TPM's Eric Kleefeld, currently subbing over at Andrew Sullivan's site, gets closest to the mark on this one, adopting what amounts to a mens rea analysis of Romney's buffoonery. Eric doesn't believe that Romney "is so insensitive that he would intentionally compare the service of our troops to people working for his campaign." But Romney's ad lib pablum is so mindless, inane and self-serving that such an unfortunate incident was bound to occur sooner or later.
--Josh Marshall
In the Nation's Service
Asked why none of his sons are serving in Iraq, Mitt Romney says they're serving in another way: by working for his campaign for president.
Leaves me snarkless. You'll have to provide your own.
Late Update: The Romney campaign says the remarks were taken out of context by the Associated Press, and has now provided audio and transcript. Take a look. -- gs
--Josh Marshall
Where's Ben?
Ben Stevens update alert. We thought Ben Stevens, disgraced son of semi-disgraced Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) had signed on with a fishing boat to make a buck in his post influence-peddling career. Now it seems he's working as a crewman aboard a Shell oil exploratory vessel.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
In the wake of the FISA bill, Democrats ask: Was intelligence chief Mike McConnell bamboozled by the Bush administration? Or is he a bamboozler himself?
--Spencer Ackerman
Hillary Clinton is given a second chance to dodge the lobbyist money question - and she runs with it. That and other Tuesday night debate news in the Election Central Debate Roundup.
--Ben Craw
Uglier and Uglier
Earlier this month we brought you the on-going story of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a US Army private who published a series of 'Baghdad Diaries' in the New Republic under the name Scott Thomas.
Thomas told a dark story US soldiers 
in Iraq acting in various dishonorable and sadistic ways.
This brought forth a storm of charges from the right-wing blogs and the Weekly Standard claiming that the diaries were fabrications. Then TNR did its own reinvestigation of the diaries and found that with the exception of one error, the stories checked out.
Post media critic Howard Kurtz has been writing about these criticisms in his column. And tomorrow he reports that now the US Army has determined that Beauchamp's claims were "found to be false."
Kurtz got a few more statements from an unnamed "military official" who would not go on the record "because the probe is confidential." And he was told that the investigation into the truth of Beauchamp's article will not be released. The unnamed official further explained that the Army will not prosecute Beauchamp but rather deal with the matter administratively "by having his cellphone and laptop confiscated."
For reasons I'm not entirely clear on, the statement announcing the investigation and its verdict appears not to have been a public release but rather a statement released uniquely to the Weekly Standard. That's how the Kurtz article reads and some quick reporting on my part suggests this is in fact the case.
And it gets better.
The Weekly Standard, which has been leading the charge against Beauchamp, says another unnamed military official told the magazine that not only had the Army found Beauchamp's written accounts to be false but that Beauchamp himself has now signed a recantation of all his claims. So case closed; he fessed up. Yet when TNR contacted the Army public affairs a Maj. Steve Lamb told them: "I have no knowledge of that."
So what's up here?
Beauchamp makes his charges. The US Army allegedly investigates and finds the highly embarrassing charges to be false. But no information will be released about which of his charges were false, how they were false or how they were determined to be false.
They then punish Beauchamp by preventing him from having any communication with the civilian world. And if that's not enough, an unnamed military source tells the Standard that Beauchamp has undergone a successful self-criticism session and has recanted everything. But an Army spokesman tells TNR that he's not aware of any confession or recantation.
We can at least be thankful that the matter is being handled with such transparency.
Maybe Beauchamp was always a teller of tales. He wouldn't be the first nor even the first to have wormed his way into the pages of The New Republic. But it's hard not to have some suspicion that the Army has put itself in charge of investigating charges which, if true, would be deeply embarrassing to the Army; that it has provided itself a full exoneration through an investigation, the details of which it will not divulge; and it has chosen to use as its exclusive conduit for disseminating information about the case, The Weekly Standard, a publication which can at best be described as a charged partisan in the public controversy about the case.
This hardly inspires much confidence.
--Josh Marshall
The Contractors
I think we all know as a general matter that there are a lot of 'contractors' in Iraq and that quite a few of them have gotten killed. But I'm not sure I've ever seen actual numbers.
Here are some numbers.
According to this article in the Times, the US military estimates there are 125,000 in country. In other words, there are almost as many there as US military personnel, who I think now number around 160,000, post surge.
And 1001 of them had been killed as of the end of June.
--Josh Marshall
Fred Thompson relaunches his Web site, and is even testing the waters for an eventual "issues" section. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Ben Craw
Buck Rogers Will Still Be Fighting the War on Terror
I've noted several times recently how public support for the "Global War on Terror" appears to be inversely proportional to the outlandishness of its proponents claims on its behalf. A case in point came in Sunday 
morning's Republican debate in Iowa. I think it's actually part of John McCain's stump speech now. But it was the first time I'd really focused in on the substantive claim amidst the claptrap.
McCain said that the fight against militant Islam is the calling or fight of our generation, or something to that effect -- and of course that's a quite subjective statement so he can say whatever he wants.
Then he says, though, that this is a fight that will be with us for the rest of this century. To quote the man, "I also firmly believe that the challenge of the 21st century is the struggle against radical Islamic extremism. It is a transcendent issue. It is hydra-headed. It will be with us for the rest of the century."
Now, think about that. That's ninety-three years. My old graduate school advisor Gordon Wood used to say that humans have a very hard time seeing more than fifty years into the future. Of course, even a year into the future is difficult. But more than a few decades and we haven't the slightest idea what the world is going to look like -- what the technologies will be, the great moral issues, the threats, etc. It's something we can actually study empirically as we look at what people during, say, the Civil War thought the 1910s would be like or the Revolutionary War era folks thought the 1820s would look like.
Consider too that fascism, which was no walk in the park, was around for roughly a quarter century (I'm a 'small fascism' man: the copycats in South America in the latter 20th century don't count and I don't think even Franco's regime in Spain does out past the 1950s). And communism, which also had a pretty good run, was around for about three-quarters of a century.
But John McCain states it as a matter of fact that the war against militant Islam will still be the defining national security threat for this country in 2099 and for years after.
I know we customarily give a rather wide berth to rhetorical excess in the theater of politics. But what on earth is McCain talking about? Not long ago it was enough to sate the historical vanity of the War on Terror mongers to dub it a 'long war' or 'generational struggle', which it may well be. But apparently even that is now insufficient. Only an entire century will do. It is almost as if as the concept in the real-world present looks more and more ill-judged and foolhardy its credentials must be buffed up by giving it more and more ridiculous lifespans ranging off into the unknowable future.
"You may think it's stupid," you might say, "But this baby's lasting a hundred years at least!"
Perhaps it is the chronological equivalent of the way that President Bush salves the universal verdict of his strategic foolhardiness by imagining a future in which historians are as out of it as he is.
It makes sense that it is their final redoubt as the future is the only territory where empirical evidence or -- more plainly put -- reality can't be brought up to contradict you.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: John Edwards Breaks Out at Yearly Kos
Yesterday we brought you footage of Hillary Clinton's Q&A "Breakout Session" at Yearly Kos. In today's episode of TPMtv, we give you highlights of John Edwards's session ...
And stay tuned tomorrow morning for highlights of the Barack Obama session.
--Ben Craw
TPM Wants You
Don't forget, applications for TPM's Fall Internship are due this Friday!
Also, if you're a design, code or video expert who thinks a TPM internship isn't for you, think again. In addition to writing, research and media monitoring, we want a few interns who can help with TPMtv, do design work and generally support all of our various technological efforts.
So email us!
--Andrew Golis
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin wades into Clinton-Obama no-nukes argument -- and agrees with Obama. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read
Will the Democratic reform bill change Washington? It's unclear. But it sure is a huge bummer for lobbyists, lawmakers, and staffers.
--Paul Kiel
Brownback Gets Tubular
I don't agree with the issue Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is advocating in this campaign web video (he's pushing his consistent pro-life position in contrast to Mitt Romney's 'light on the road to the White House' conversion to the cause). But this strikes me as one of the better, maybe the best use of distributed or viral video by a campaign yet.
The backstory here is that at the Sunday Republican debate Sam Brownback got asked about robocalls his campaign has been using in Iowa against Romney. The calls attacked Romney as a Johnny-come-lately to the pro-life cause. Romney said the accusations were false. But when debate moderator George Stephanopoulos pressed Romney on just what was false, it became pretty clear that the charges must all be true since Romney just blathered on without specifically challenging any of the claims. Nor should this be surprising since Romney was pro-choice right up until the point where he was pretty sure he wanted to run for president in 2008 and then he became pro-life.
In any case, here's Brownback following up.
One thing I like about this video is that it's one of candidates continuing the dialog outside of the often distorting and constraining time limitations of a debate. It also comes across as pretty genuine and unscripted (a subjective appraisal, but take a look). He speaks right to the camera. And it's a case where a candidate has what I think is demonstratively truth on his side, and he's using the technology to make his point and point viewers to third party analyses.
There's always a temptation to imagine that new technologies transform the terms of communication more profoundly than they do. But this is a case where Brownback is doing something that wouldn't be possible unless the candidate controlled the medium of distribution.
Brownback's chances of winning the nomination are next to nil I think. Maybe (nil+2) or (nil+3). But if one of the top-tier candidates, on either side, could do this I think it could be a very powerful force for their campaign.
Of course, in most cases, to appear genuine and unscripted requires in some degree actually being genuine and unscripted. And that may greatly reduce the number of candidates for whom this is an option.
--Josh Marshall
Call Me Ishmael (Stevens)
These are tough times for the Stevens clan. The Boss, Alaska Sen.Ted Stevens (R), is now at the center of major public 
corruption investigation. And his son, former Alaska state Senate President Ben Stevens looks to be in even more dire legal jeopardy, after one of the VECO bribers admitted to bribing Stevens as part of his plea agreement.
In any case, back in fatter days, Ben lived large on multi-hundred thousand a year consulting fees for unspecified services provided to major corporations in the state while he was also serving as senate president. But now he's fallen on such hard times that he's been forced to take up work on a fishing vessel to make ends meet.
At present, Ben Stevens is at sea.
What's not clear is whether Sen. Ted Stevens (R) might also be forced to put to sea if his legal woes get any worse.
--Josh Marshall
Tommy Thompson: Big Idiot?
In my post yesterday about the Republican debate in Iowa, I said I thought that Tommy Thompson was supposed to be a "sharp guy." And that because of that purported sharpness I was surprised that his answer to one of the questions about Iraq was one of the stupidest and more ignorant things I've heard on the subject in some time.
Well, a lot of TPM Readers in Wisconsin beg to differ. Like TPM Reader RK, for instance ...
My drink nearly came out my nose when I read your remark about Tommy Thompson (he's supposed to be a "sharp guy"). Those of us who have lived with him for decades here in Wisconsin know his reputation for being a mental midget, a clown, an inarticulate moron. I don't know where you're getting your impression, but -- as much as I love and respect you -- I can't share it.
We got several other emails in a similar vein. And I got the sense this wasn't your garden variety not liking a guy because you don't like his politics but a more considered appraisal that the man is in fact a doofus and a buffoonish moron.
So where did I get this idea? I think the root of my misapprehension is the sense I had back in the 1990s that as Governor of Wisconsin Thompson was something of an innovator in the world of conservative social policy -- with things like school vouchers, welfare reform and health insurance provision. I think I also had the impression that Thompson was someone who was interested in this stuff at the level of substance and because of that I jumped to the conclusion -- a flawed leap in light of what I'm hearing now -- that Thompson was a sharp guy when in fact he may be a real boob.
Late Update: Another TPM Reader dissents ...
As a news volunteer at Madison's community radio station, WORT, I interviewed Tommy Thompson when he was minority leader of the Wisconsin Assembly. I found him articulate, funny and charming, even though I knew even then (circa 1985) that Thompson was an early version of Newt Gingrich. I don't think Thompson is stupid, but I think that, like Mike Gravel, he humors himself by speaking unedited. He thinks this makes him authentic. As governor of Wisconsin, he came across as a clumsy, folksy gadfly, which was part of his political schtick. Something he probably copied from Proxmire, but which Proxmire did with much more actual authenticity.Thompson's brother, who ran for governor last time as a libertarian, is an even more extreme gadfly. Pretty funny, but not taken seriously.
My brother who still lives near Lacrosse hates Thompson with a passion, quoting him shouting, "WisCONsin, where eagles soar and Harleys roar!!!"
As for all the Republican innovative policy clap trap -- that was rolled out by the Heritage, Bradley and Olin foundations. Thompson was smart enough to get out of the way.
Still, I wouldn't mind sitting around the Memorial Union's Rathskeller and sharing a pitcher or two with Thompson, not that I'd ever consider voting for him. Given how he came across in the interview, Thompson would probably be down for that.
Even Later Update: TPM's Eric Kleefeld, guest-hosting at Andrew Sullivan's site, takes us deeper into the Thompson: Doofus or Policy Wonk? debate.
--Josh Marshall
Some For My Homies
I've only just now caught up on watching all of the 26 videos we produced at YearlyKos over the weekend, so I suspect you might be a bit behind, too. In case you don't have time to watch them all, some favorites of mine you might have missed:
The distinguished Juan Cole calls the DailyKos community his "homies":
Max Blumenthal, of videoblogging fame, explains the Freud-on-steroids method to his wonderful madness:
Time's Jay Carney woos the netroots and attacks the pseudononymous all at once:
And finally, debate moderator Matt Bai gives his postgame take on the debate and explains how he achieved netroots cred:
We had a grand time. Thanks to everyone who chatted with us and to TPMtv leader Ben Craw for his tireless editing.
--Andrew Golis
Obama and Edwards hit Clinton over YearlyKos lobbyists flap. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Noise or Change?
From USA Today ...
USA TODAY's Susan Page reports that President Bush is making some headway in arguing that the increase in U.S. troops in Iraq is showing military progress.In the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, taken Friday through Sunday, the proportion of those who said the additional troops are "making the situation better" rose to 31% from 22% a month ago. Those who said it was "not making much difference" dropped to 41% from 51%.
About the same number said it was making things worse: 24% now, 25% a month ago.
--Josh Marshall
Clinton on Lobbyists
Over the weekend we brought you scenes from the Yearly Kos presidential candidates forum. But we've had a lot of call for the specific snippet where Hillary Clinton defends taking contributions from lobbyists ...
--Josh Marshall
Money, Money, Money
If you're trying to keep up on the political money race or just who some friend or neighbor or enemy is giving money to, check out Huffingtonpost's new Fundrace engine.
--Josh Marshall