The Blue State

Democrats might be springing their own trap

It takes more than just an opposition to something in order to win an election.  Democratic strategists are starting to figure that one out:

"The fear I have as a Democrat is that if we are making this solelya referendum on the Republicans, we are not giving people a reason toturn out," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane of California.

"Having said that, I think all these other elements are so bad for the Republicans that 'Had enough?' should be enough."

Where is the specific Democratic agenda for 2007 and beyond?  What are our energy goals?  How will we put a halt to corruption in Congress?  How will we tackle the problem regarding the increasing cost of living?  What is our health care solution?  What is our specific foreign policy strategy, and how do we convey it to voters?

Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership cannot expect to just hold one major photo-op in September, outlining to voters where the Democrats stand, and expect the country to overwhelmingly elect Democrats to Congress.  This is not 1994.  What we need is one sustaining effort between June and November that spells out to voters, over and over again, the principles that Democrats call their agenda.

It's not as if voters will be persuaded by a elegantly-dressed Nancy Pelosi walking up to the podium and all of a sudden laying out an agenda all at once.  No -- voters want Nancy Pelosi to show them, not tell them, what kind of a Speaker of the House she will be.  It takes months and months to convince voters to change the course.  Mere opposition to GOP policies and one September photo-op is now how you win over a majority of the country.  If the Democrats think it can be done that way, then they have a lot to learn.

Gore would make a great Energy Secretary

Pardon my tendency to jump ahead to the 2008 election contest as I usually do on this web site.  But ever since Gore's appearance on Saturday Night Live a few weeks ago, everyone is buzzing about 2008.  In a piece in Sunday's New York Times about Gore's sudden move into the spotlight with the debut of his new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", the former Vice President said that he still is not considering a run for the White House:

Mr. Gore was on the telephone from New York, taking a break from promoting his book and documentary about global warming,to dismiss — with a combination of weariness and wariness, but withsomething approaching finality — speculation that his rising profileshould be interpreted as the first stirrings of another bid for theWhite House.

"Why should I run for office?" Mr. Gore asked, theimpatience evident in his voice. "I have no interest in running foroffice. I have run for office. I have run four national campaigns. Ihave found other ways to serve my country, and I am enjoying them."

Aftera period in which he had worn out his welcome in some quarters, thesehave been days of some vindication for Mr. Gore, the Tennessee Democratwho likes to introduce himself as "the man who used to be the nextpresident of the United States," a melancholy reference to his defeat —a characterization he might be inclined to dispute — by President Bushin 2000.

Just because Gore might not enter the race does not mean that he could not serve his country within a Democrat-led Administration.  In fact, more than anything else, his new film is the perfect audition tape if he ever wanted the Energy Secretary job. 

What an impact he would have!  During the current Administration, Bush has hired more than 100 officials who were once lobbyists, lawyers or spokespeople for the very industries they now oversee.  This Administration has made the Energy Department less green than it has ever been.  Gore would be the perfect antidote for someone like Mark Warner, Hillary Clinton or whoever becomes president to throw in there as the head of the Department of Energy and start cleaning up our current mess.

Interesting weekend

What a crazy night this has been.  I came home in the evening only to discover that the entire basement had flooded (lovely Seattle weather!).  After hours worth of work, with help from relatives who arrived on such short notice, we have the situation under control.

Bottom line: don't expect any updates on this site until Sunday afternoon.  I also have a paper to finish in my philosophy class that is due Tuesday -- so my time is limited.  But whenever I have a few minutes to spare, I will write a political blog post or two.  At the moment, I am unbelievably tired and need my sleep.

The next post will be around 4 PM ET.  Oh, by the way, here is a list of the guests on all of the Sunday morning talk-shows.

Negroponte puts NSA legal troubles ahead of preserving citizens' rights

President Bush wants to throw out all the NSA domestic spying lawsuits because such lawsuits would force classified information to be revealed in a closed court room:

In papers filed late Friday, Justice Department lawyers said itwould be impossible to defend the legality of the spying programwithout disclosing classified information that could be of value tosuspected terrorists.

National Intelligence Director John Negroponte invoked the statesecrets privilege on behalf of the administration, writing thatdisclosure of such information would cause "exceptionally grave damage"to national security.

As a political science/history student, I cannot help but draw parallels between what we are seeing today and the propaganda during the Cold War.  The House hearings during the late-40s and early-50s involving Hollywood screenwriters accused of being communists were part of a sustained effort to snoop into the lives of anyone nuanced enough to ever question the domestic-driven U.S. foreign policy.  We are watching the same thing unfold today.  Although the a very legitimate battle against terrorism continues abroad, there are a few individuals heading government agencies here that are trying to get the government to wage war against its own law-abiding citizens.

Domestic surveillance by the NSA is supposed to occur with the oversight of both the legislature and our judicial system.  If a U.S. citizen feels that his or her privacy is being violated, then that is where our Judicial system comes in to at least hear the cases of those people.  If there is no way for those people to be heard, then there is absolutely no check on the Executive agencies in question.

Like during the Cold War, today National security is the ultimate trump card being used to outweigh all other matters in government.  What it comes down to is one question: is it more important to prevent the disclosure of classified information in a closed court room; or is it more important to see to it that every citizen has the right to be fully represented by our judicial system?  You make the call.

The low-down on the NSA's "secret rooms"

The progressive blogosphere has been abuzz about these reported "secret rooms" that allow the NSA to monitor all "electronic voice and data communications" coming from the AT&T switching center in San Francisco.  Brian Ross and Vic Walter, who have had one busy week, are all over this story:

New details on "secret rooms" allegedly established inside anAT&T switching center in San Francisco have been made public in asworn affidavit filed in court by a former AT&T employee, MarkKlein.

The affidavit was filed in support of a request by the ElectronicFrontier Foundation for a preliminary injunction to shut down the NSArooms.

According to the heavily-redacted eight page document, the NSAequipment is able to divert "the contents of all the electronic voiceand data communications" moving through the AT&T facility.

Klein was briefly given access to the room, which he says the NSA installed in 2002.

Klein describes the AT&T facility as "one of the largest internet switching points in the United States."

The government unsuccessfully sought to stop the lawsuit againstAT&T, but a judge has ruled that details will be kept secret.

Klein has previously provided a short public statement, but thecourt filing represents a more detailed description with broadercontextual details.

A hearing on the request for the preliminary injunction is scheduled for June 8.

An AT&T spokesman gave the following statement, "AT&T will not comment on pending litigation."

So what does all this mean, you ask? 

It means, as Google Watch's Ben Charny explained in his latest column, that the NSA was able to monitor "phone calls, e-mails and Internet sessions since 2003 without a warrant or court supervision" -- all from those secret rooms.  Even more revealing, this was done without complete oversight from the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Republican Chairman Pat Robertson and Ranking Democrat Jay Rockefeller of that committee were given a broad run-down of what the NSA was doing.  It is still unclear whether they were briefed about these "secret rooms."  But the other members of the committee went uninformed, which goes against precedent going back to ever since the passing of the 1978 Foreign Surveillance Act. 

The President is supposed to "consult" Congress on matters such as this.  The definition of the word "consult" means to "get or ask advice from."  Only briefing two out of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate does meet the lawful standard.

Both the NSA and AT&T have a lot of explaining to do about these "secret rooms."

Justice Department standoff ended in compromise

Just when the blogosphere thought that it knew the full extent of the incident between Dennis Hastert and the Justice Department, it turns out that there is much more to it.  In the end, it almost resulted in the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, according to Saturday's New York Times:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the FBI Director, Robert S. Mueller III,and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Departmenttold associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the WhiteHouse directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterlydisputed search of a House member's office, government officials saidFriday.

One week ago from today, FBI agents raided the property of Democratic Congressman William Jefferson for his role in the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal.  Instead of the Republicans using Jefferson as a poster-boy for Democratic campaign hypocrisy (culture of corruption), House Speaker Dennis Hastert and a number of Republican leaders rhetorically attacked the Justice Department, saying that the raid constituted an effort by the inflated Executive Branch to exercise unwarranted power over the lawmakers that make up the Legislative Branch.  Of course though, the raid was warranted by a judge, therefore perfectly legal.

The Justice Department responded to this rhetorical attack by leaking information, which might or might not be true, to ABC News that embarrassed Dennis Hastert by hinting that he was also part of the Jack Abramoff probe.

Hastert responded to these attacks by going on the radio and slamming the Justice Department for over-stepping its boundary by engaging in that FBI raid on Jefferson's property.  With a firestorm already under way, President Bush had a few choices to make.  He could fight Hastert and the rest of the Legislative Branch by letting the Justice Department disclose all of the Jefferson documents found in the raid.  Or, could tell the Justice Department to return all of the confiscated documents.  Instead of one of those two decisions, Bush chose to take the middle ground: seal the documents for 45 days and hope that the two sides, the Department of Justice and Dennis Hastert, can work out a deal in that time.

This New York Times column shows how if Bush had chosen to order the Justice Department to return all the documents seized, then both the Attorney General and FBI Director would have resigned, along with their deputies.  They did not want to be prevented from doing their job, which is enforcing the law.  Putting it simply, Bush is already isolated anyway.  Those resignations would only have isolated him even more, turning part of his own cabinet against him and awarding Hastert ultimate power.  Instead, the President made the wiser move by taking the middle ground solution.  Just imagine though if it had gone the other way.

As far as the raid goes, I think that I speak for most Americans in saying that if FBI investigations and raids can target normal Americans, the same should apply for members of Congress.  No lawmaker on Capitol Hill, whether Democrat or Republican, should be above the law.

Personal note about lack of direction in the Senate

I will always call myself a student of political science first, and a Democrat second.  The realism-driven political science half of me, which cares less about ideology and more about results, had a red light go off while evaluating the job of Senator Arlen Specter over the last week.  I have always given him credit.  He is a moderate.  He was a member of the "gang of 14" that prevented his own party from invoking the nuclear option last year.  He also breaks from GOP party ranks from time to time when it comes to the issue of warrantless wiretaps.

But Specter's self-driven, inconsistent attitude over the last week has hurt both his own party and all those in favor of getting this immigration proposal passed both houses.

In the first case, he scheduled a hearing about a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in a room specifically designed to keep audience members out.  There were hardly even enough chairs for all the Senators.  When Democratic Senator Russ Feingold questioned Specter about it, the Pennsylvania Republican went ballistic.  The two argued until Feingold picked up his stuff and left.  Even though Specter himself opposes the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he caved into pressure from the far-right of his party to move the hearing to a room where no political activists were welcome.

Secondly, one year from now when we look back on this immigration debate, Arlen Specter might be the one credited for destroying the great chance we had to get something done on this issue.  Right before the Senate immigration bill passed late last night, Specter inserted an extra amendment that would require the United States government, OUR government, to seek permission from Mexico before building a border fence.  Personally, I do not see how a fence will shut off the constant flow of illegal immigrations.  Border smugglers can just dig under the fence.  However, if we are going to build one, why do we have to first ask permission from Mexico?  I am a progressive and I still think that is a mindless amendment.  With conservatives all over talk radio pissed off at Arlen Specter for inserting that amendment, there is no way that the GOP-controlled House will vote to approve the Senate's version of the comprehensive immigration bill that most of the country supports.  Thanks a lot Arlen Specter!

It is counter-productive Senators like Arlen Specter that make me want the Democrats to take back the Senate even more than the House.

Attacks by insurgents on innocent Iraqis continue

Today has been yet another messy day in Iraq.  Aside from the positive news on the political front, attacks against Iraqis and Marines continue.  Here are all the military developments in Iraq over the last 24 hours -- much of which you will not read about anywhere else:

BAGHDAD - A bomb car exploded near a market in the Hay al-Amil district of Baghdad, killing at least 10 people and wounding 18.

BASRA - Gunmen killeda Sunni Arab cleric and another person in the southern city of Basra asthey headed to Friday prayers, The Muslim Scholars Association said onFriday.

BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded in central Baghdad, killing at least nine people and wounding 31, police said.

KIRKUK - Gunmen shot dead a police officer and his friend as they werehaving tea outside his house in the northern city of Kirkuk, police andhospital sources said. Another friend was wounded in the drive-byshooting.

MUQDADIYA - Gunmen stormed a wedding party..abducted the groom, his uncle and cousin and a guest at the partyand all were found the next day beheaded near Muqdadiya, 90 km (50miles) northeast of Baghdad, police said on Friday.

BAGHDAD -Gunmen killed the coach of Iraq's national tennis team and two of hisplayers while they were driving through Baghdad on Tuesday, Ministry ofInterior and police source said on Friday.

KIRKUK - One policeman was killed and three wounded whena roadside bomb struck their patrol in central Kirkuk, 250 km (155miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Twenty people were wounded when a roadside bomb exploded in acrowded market in the southern al-Baya district of Baghdad, police said.

BAQUBA - Employees abducted from the local Diyala Television station inBaquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, watched gunmen execute twopolicemen held with them before being released, one of the hostagessaid.

BAGHDAD - Five civilians were wounded when a roadside bomb exploded in western Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Police found three bodies in western Baghdad with bullet wounds and showing signs of torture, police said.

And President Bush thinks we are turning a corner in Iraq.  I would like to believe that, but the facts sure do not add up.  This comes one day after Bush and Blair admitted that certain aspects of the war have not gone right.  According to the latest ABC News Poll, 62% believe that the war "was not worth fighting."

Fitzgerald's Cheney statement teases progressives

In his latest court filing, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald included a line or two about Cheney that is the ultimate teaser for progressives, especially those in the blogosphere. 

Fitzgerald is arguing that Libby lied to federal officials and the grand jury about how he learned the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent.  Libby testified that reporters told him Libby's identity.  But two CIA agents that will be called by Fitzgerald to testify say they had a discussion with Libby about Valerie Plame long before Libby ever talked with reporters about Plame -- proving that Libby did not tell the truth about the whole ordeal.

The reason why this is a teaser is because Fitzgerald is suggesting that Cheney himself "directed" Libby to find a way to respond to Joseph Wilson's article in the New York Times.  Here is an excerpt of the court filing:

"..the annotations corroborate the government's other evidence indicating that these issues were communicated to defendant by his immediate superior, who also directed defendant during the critical week after July 6 to get out into the public 'all' the facts in response to the Wilson Op Ed."

In other words, it looks like Fitzgerald is trying to say that Cheney was responsible ordering the leak, even though the leak itself might have come from Libby.

And in related news, Robert Novak and Karl Rove have a deal going.

So much change by Josh Bolton, no results

There is probable indication that Bush's Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton is still in the middle shaking things up.  Last month the White House announced the resignation of Press Secretary Scott McClellan.  Just over the last 15 hours, word circulated to Reuters news services that new Press Secretary Tony Snow will be replaced sometime in mid-June.  This followed a decision by the White House that Karl Rove's role in policy will be greatly reduced to just campaign strategy.

But the staff shake-up does not end there.  Sources tell the Associated Press that Treasury Secretary John Snow will resign, and that the President is already looking for a replacement.

Even as Josh Bolton continues to shake up the Bush cabinet left and right, public support for the President is still at an all-time low.  Will the Democrats seize the opportunity and roll out a detailed agenda of their own, or will they roll out the same reactive strategy that is continuing to be encouraged from long-time strategists over at the DNC who have already proved themselves to be inept at winning elections?