contrapositive

2010-05-07T12:53:00.002-04:00

GLAD SHE'S NOT PRESIDENT Just saying.

Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Noting that the State Department already had the authority to rescind the citizenship of people who declare allegiance to a foreign state, she said the administration would take “a hard look” at extending those powers to cover terrorism suspects.

“United States citizenship is a privilege,” she said.

2010-04-09T23:02:00.003-04:00

JUST SAYING Based on what I've read so far, Solicitor General Elena Kagan doesn't seem like that good a fit for the Supreme Court.

2010-03-10T12:42:00.002-05:00

DISGUSTING This is some dark, dark business.

Donate here.

2010-02-18T15:36:00.002-05:00

TERRORISM CNN and I seem to have different ideas about what counts as terrorism:

The pilot of a small plane that slammed into a building Thursday morning in Austin, Texas, set his house on fire beforehand and then intentionally crashed the aircraft, a federal official told CNN.

Federal officials told CNN the plane was a Piper Cherokee PA-28 they believe belonged to Joseph Andrew Stack.

Two F-16 fighter jets were sent from Houston as a precaution, but federal authorities said preliminary information did not indicate any terrorist connection to the crash.

Is this the principle at work here?

2010-02-05T13:28:00.001-05:00

SIDDIQUI This case is disturbing on a lot of levels.

2010-01-26T20:51:00.001-05:00

SERIOUSNESS WATCH President Barack Obama? Not serious.

2010-01-21T15:39:00.002-05:00

BLAST FROM THE PAST Remember back when Rahm Emanuel used to tell other people they were stupid?

Good times.

2009-12-04T22:04:00.002-05:00

AGAINST BERNANKE Brad DeLong, a long-time fan of Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke, seems to be having second thoughts.

2009-12-03T20:51:00.004-05:00

NUMBERS There's been a lot of coverage of the hold Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has placed on the Bernanke reappointment. In each piece I've read, there's inevitably been a boilerplate line stipulating that, despite the criticism the Fed Chair has come in for, he has more than enough votes for confirmation.

But is this so? Has anyone actually counted heads?

2009-11-22T22:45:00.002-05:00

WISH GRANTED The next Interfaith Fellowship for Universal Health Care event focusing on Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is Tuesday, November 24 at 11:30 a.m. in Hartford.

2009-11-22T19:55:00.002-05:00

A WORTHY CAUSE More of this, please.

2009-10-26T13:24:00.001-04:00

PART OF THE PROBLEM? The New York Times says what must be said. Good for them.

2009-10-21T14:23:00.001-04:00

FUN FACT Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is a Rhodes Scholar.

2009-10-16T21:59:00.001-04:00

ANOTHER JULIE MYERS? This is troubling. Especially if you read all the way to the bottom.

2009-10-01T12:48:00.001-04:00

WES ANDERSON? REALLY? Very disappointing.

2009-08-17T22:27:00.003-04:00

A THOUGHT Guess we better close all the libraries--with their public funding and their peculiar business models.

I mean, how are private bookstores supposed to compete when the government just goes around loaning books to people for free?

2009-05-01T20:49:00.001-04:00

HE'S STILL ARLEN SPECTER Run, Joe, run!

2009-04-28T12:20:00.004-04:00

CLARIFY HIS MIND Doesn't it seem like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would benefit more than a bit from a primary challenge?

2009-03-08T21:24:00.003-04:00

TAX RATES Via Brad DeLong, top Federal marginal tax rates from the 1920s to the present:

The slight uptick shown in the final column (at right) is projected--it assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

2009-01-20T13:52:00.001-05:00

WHERE WERE WE? Ah, yes.

2008-12-25T09:15:00.002-05:00

PINTER DEAD The New York Times says that Harold Pinter, the playwright behind THE CARETAKER, THE HOMECOMING and other seminal works is dead at 78.

2008-12-05T13:33:00.002-05:00

PBS, CNN AND TORTURE From a footnote to Scott Horton's article "Justice After Bush" in the December issue of Harper's magazine:

I myself was warned twice by PBS producers, in advance of appearances on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, that I could use the word "torture" in the abstract but that I was to refrain from applying it to the administration's policies.

And after an interview with CNN in which I spoke of the administration's torture policy, I was told by the producer, "That's okay for CNN International, but we can't use it on the domestic feed."

2008-12-03T12:18:00.001-05:00

FEINSTEIN IS FOR TORTURE? It would appear so:

“I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible.”

2008-09-24T15:14:00.004-04:00

MAKES NO SENSE I keep seeing news reports about what provisions of the Wall Street bailout Hank Paulson has or has not agreed. But to be blunt about it: Who cares?

Does anyone honestly believe that if Congress comes up with a bailout plan--any bailout plan at all--clocking in at several hundred billion dollars, President Bush is going to veto it?

What Paulson thinks is (thankfully) irrelevant. Congress should figure out if passing a plan would be a good idea; if so, what plan would be best; and then Congress should pass that plan.

Looking at it any other way makes no sense.

2008-09-22T14:14:00.001-04:00

MUCH BETTER Via Krugman. Maybe this was the plan all along. But the early language from Sen. Dodd (D-CT) and others was ominous.

The question, now, is if Dodd and others will be willing to hold the line.

2008-09-21T15:32:00.004-04:00

SCHUMER Mukasey, the hedge fund loophole dodge and now wishy washy comments like this.

Doesn't Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) need to speak more clearly and forcefully against the Bush administration's bailout plan?

And if he won't, doesn't he need a primary challenge in 2010?

2008-09-21T15:27:00.003-04:00

OBAMA: IT'S NO PLAN Recently posted on the campaign blog:

Thus far, the Administration has only offered a concept with a staggering price tag, not a plan.

Even if the Treasury recovers some or most of its investment over time, this initial outlay of up to $700 billion is sobering. And in return for their support, the American people must be assured that the deal reflects some basic principles.

He goes on to enumerate a whole bunch of sensible principles.

But will he have the courage to stick his neck out on this? Even as Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) seem to be bowing down before Hank Paulson as some sort of savior?

We can only hope.

2008-09-21T15:14:00.002-04:00

THIS IS MADNESS Giving Hank Paulson $700 billion to do what he pleases with is insane. It's the same as the Iraq war--and roughly the same price--but instead of carnage and destruction, we're just skipping straight to the part where we give all the loot to the powerful and well-connected.

That's not to say federal intervention isn't needed. It sounds like it is. But putting the former head of Goldman Sachs in charge of the mother of all taxpayer sponsored slush funds--for him to dole out to his old Wall Street friends in whatever way he likes--is worse than crazy.

Calling it "crazy" doesn't even begin to capture how crazy it is.

2008-09-20T21:01:00.002-04:00

LISTEN TO DeLONG An economist from the Clinton administration speaks:

The decisions that will be made this weekend matter not just to the prospects of the U.S. economy in the year to come; they will shape the type of capitalism we will live in for the next fifty years.

Do we want to live in a system where profits are private, but losses are socialized? Where taxpayer money is used to prop up failed firms?

Or do we want to live in a system where people are held responsible for their decisions, where imprudent behavior is penalized and prudent behavior rewarded? For somebody like me who believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation is that the interest of few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the capitalist system.

The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists.

2008-09-04T10:39:00.002-04:00

NOT THE ONLY ONE Brad DeLong is confused:

John McCain wants to nominate his friend Joe Lieberman for vice president, is told that he cannot, and so he backs down and instead nominates somebody who takes their children to a church where they teach that suicide bombers in Tel Aviv are righteously executing God's vengeance on Israel for rejecting Jesus Christ.

Do I have it right?

I must say I am confused.

2008-05-03T20:46:00.004-04:00

WSJ ON RACE The Wall Street Journal wades into the gutter--and very close to the cesspool of racism--in a bizarre Saturday op-Ed from Jon Keller.

The conceit of the piece, titled, "President Obama: The Preview?" is this:

There may not be two politicians on the national stage more alike than Barack Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Both went to Harvard Law, are African-American politicians with mass appeal, and use soaring rhetoric to promise a bold new postpartisan politics.

The piece proceeds to catalog Patrick's supposed failures, and to suggest--with no justification beyond what's in the above paragraph--that Obama would make similar mistakes.

But plenty of politicians in this country--former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) come immediately to mind--went to Harvard Law School.

And literally dozens of pols on the national scene "use soaring rhetoric and promise bold new postpartisan politics."

So how does Keller reach the conclusion that Obama and Patrick are political twins? And that Patrick's record is a preview of what an Obama presidency would look like? Clearly, the decisive factor is that they're both "African-American politicians with mass appeal." (Although it's not clear how "mass appeal" figures into the equation.)

So, would editors at the WSJ allow a writer to lump together as near-facsimiles two Jewish politicians on the basis of their Jewishness? Would they allow this kind of guilt-by-ethnicity smear with two Catholic candidates or two Americans of Polish descent?

Of course not. Disgusting.

2008-04-29T11:24:00.003-04:00

LET ME SAY THIS On the Rev. Jeremiah Wright matter: I've seen several bits of commentary over the last several weeks accusing Democrats of hypocrisy for complaining about all the Wright coverage even though lefties have regularly criticized Republicans for their relationships with people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and more recently, John Hagee.

But this is apples and oranges.

The problem with conservatives cozying up to the Pat Robertsons and John Hagees of the world is that Republicans go to these people specifically seeking their political imprimatur. A Robertson endorsement is coveted not in spite of but because of the controversial things he's said, and the fact that a constituency exists which endorses his political views.

Whatever you think about the Wright-Obama relationship, it's clearly never been about that.

2008-03-27T13:26:00.001-04:00

NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF IS PISSED As well he should be:

Like the ground zero and Atlantic Yards fiascos, its overblown scale and reliance on tired urban planning formulas should force a serious reappraisal of the public-private partnerships that shape development in the city today. And in many ways the West Side railyards is the most disturbing of the three...

As a money-making venture conceived by a cash-starved transit authority, it signals a level of cynicism that should prod us to demand a moratorium on all such development until our public officials return to their senses.

Amen to that.

2008-03-05T07:47:00.008-05:00

TIMES DECEIVES READERS The headline: Big Wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio.

The sixth sentence?

And the result there allowed her to cast Tuesday as the beginning of a comeback even though she stood a good chance of gaining no ground against Mr. Obama in the hunt for delegates.

(Emphasis added.)

The currency of the nomination process is delegates. How a candidate could have a "win" that's "big" without gaining delegates goes unexplained.

From the twelfth paragraph:

Given the way the Democratic Party allocates delegates, it remained unclear whether Mrs. Clinton would close Mr. Obama’s lead on that front.

But to reiterate: That is the only front.

The New York Times could use its prestige and influence to correct a misleading bit of conventional wisdom that has cropped up in the last several days. Instead, the paper sacrifices accuracy so that it can stick with the crowd.

UPDATE: From the sixth paragraph of an article--also touting Clinton's "victories"--that The Times gives less prominence:

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, appeared likely to accumulate enough delegates from Texas and Ohio (as well as from his victory in Vermont) to strengthen his mathematical edge for the nomination.

Stunning.

2008-02-29T21:20:00.002-05:00

SPLIT PERSONALITY? This may explain why the New York Times editorial page has been behaving so strangely lately.

2008-02-06T12:54:00.000-05:00

NYT LOSES ITS MIND? Check out this passage from a Wednesday editorial:

Mr. Obama's campaign often seems to teeter on becoming a cult of personality--a feeling that the candidate and those around him do nothing to dispel. In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," on Monday, Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, was asked if she would work to support Mrs. Clinton if she won. "I'd have to think about that," she replied.

Mrs. Obama quickly got back on her talking points, stressing party unity. But her unguarded answer was similar to what we heard from Obama supporters in e-mail messages that we received after endorsing Mrs. Clinton. Many of those readers said they would not bother to vote if Mr. Obama lost the nomination. That is not the way democracy is supposed to work.

Three points.

First: The Obama "cult of personality"? Are you kidding? Is this The New York Times or Rush Limbaugh? I have literally no idea what The Times is referring to here--and I've been watching this race very closely.

Are many Obama supporters passionate? Clearly. (Though not nearly as passionate as were Howard Dean's core supporters.) But painting that enthusiasm as cult-like is sloppy, histrionic and irresponsible.

Second: It's especially sloppy given the meager evidence The Times produces: That the paper got a few nasty e-mails (?!?) and that Michelle Obama said that she might not work to support Hillary Clinton as nominee. How this kind of off-hand comment proves anything is utterly beyond me.

Third: Regarding the assertion, "That is not the way democracy is supposed to work." If Sen. Clinton is the nominee, I will tell any Obama supporter that it would be a serious, dangerous mistake not to support her. But sitting out the election would not be, as The Times posits, an affront to democracy.

People should vote their consciences. The idea that doing so might be undemocratic is madness.

The Times should know better.

2008-02-05T12:01:00.000-05:00

NAGOURNEY ABDICATES Witness:

Thus, the big question is how much attention to pay to the results map on television--lighted up with, say, states that have swung to Senator John McCain's column--and how much attention to pay to the delegate counter. The answer is pay attention to both, though put somewhat more focus on states for the Republicans and put somewhat more on delegates for the Democrats. The delegate count might matter more officially, but the state results could count more politically, and that will be the central tension of the night.

Nagourney has a seat--a big seat--at the table when it comes to determining what "could count more politically."

But instead of using that seat to trumpet the truth, he hews to a fuzzy, sloppy pundit consensus.

So let's be clear: Delegates are the only thing that matters. And so the only way for state results to have an impact is if they wind up influencing delegate totals.

The most likely way for that to happen, of course, is if lazy reporters mischaracterize the situation in way that distorts the races and ultimately influences results.

In his article, Nagourney has already done what he could toward that tend.

2008-01-19T21:19:00.000-05:00

NUMBERS THAT MATTER If Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) won the most delegates in Nevada today--as seems at least possible--then he won the Nevada caucuses. Period.

If you don't believe me, ask President Gore.

2008-01-01T21:47:00.000-05:00

HAPPY NEW YEAR David Brooks tries something resembling honesty in his Tuesday column. (Of course, his approach has the added benefit of making the case for his chosen candidate, Sen. John McCain.)

The problem with Brooks isn't that he's a committed partisan. It's that his desire to serve "the team" nearly always trumps his interest in delivering candid commentary.

As today's piece shows, he can write intelligently about politics when he feels like it.

2007-12-02T11:53:00.000-05:00

NUDGE NUDGE The Rudy Giuliani campaign seems to have completely imploded. And yet, somehow, there's not a single article about him in Sunday's New York Times.

Shouldn't someone wake Bill Keller up?

2007-11-23T10:36:00.000-05:00

SOS Can someone save The New York Times from itself? Please?

Unfortunately, I think it's probably already too late.

2007-11-13T14:42:00.000-05:00

THEY HOLD READINGS Philly-area folks: Act II Playhouse in Ambler, PA will be holding a staged reading of Dan Aibel's play LAPSES on November 19 at 7pm.

Details here.

2007-11-02T15:06:00.000-04:00

CAPITULATION WATCH Here's Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) doing his best impersonation of a folding chair:

No nominee from this administration will agree with us on things like torture and wiretapping.

He's right. At least as long as Democrats keep enabling lawlessness.

2007-10-27T21:31:00.000-04:00

TOUGH GUY Why Rudy Giuliani can't be allowed to become President:

They talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That’s plain silly. That’s silly.

Link.

Read about sleep deprivation here.

2007-10-25T21:11:00.000-04:00

JUST A THOUGHT I think Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) would make a fine President.

And I've yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) would be stronger general election candidates.

2007-10-19T22:22:00.000-04:00

SAMANTHA POWER IS SERIOUS Add her to the list of people who ought to be in the room when serious policy discussions are taking place.

She's supporting Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in the Democratic primaries.

2007-10-19T21:10:00.001-04:00

"NAY" ON MUKASEY Waterboarding is torture. Period.

America can't afford another Attorney General who isn't willing to say so.

[SEN. SHELDON] WHITEHOUSE [D-RI]: Is waterboarding constitutional?

MUKASEY: I don't know what is involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: "If waterboarding is constitutional" is a massive hedge.

MUKASEY: No, I said, "If it's torture." I'm sorry. I said, "If it's torture."

WHITEHOUSE: "If it's torture." That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding, which is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces, and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning. Is that constitutional?

MUKASEY: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: I'm very disappointed in that answer--I think it is purely semantic.

MUKASEY: I’m sorry.

2007-10-18T13:42:00.000-04:00

DEAL BREAKER Telecom executives who illegally share private customer information with government officials aren't patriots. They're criminals.

Democrats should be able to get their heads around this.

If they can't, I don't see why we should support them.

2007-10-01T11:41:00.000-04:00

THINGS YOU WOULDN'T KNOW If you rely on the elite national media for your political news, you probably aren't aware that:

1. National polls--at this stage in the Presidential primary cycle--are virtually worthless.

2. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is leading among likely Iowa caucusgoers.

2007-08-28T11:29:00.000-04:00

FRIDAY FUN No more of this, anyway.

2007-08-13T22:15:00.000-04:00

WATCH IT AND WEEP Why didn't anyone in the media see fit to pass this along, oh, five years ago?

(Via Andrew Sullivan.)

2007-08-08T22:12:00.000-04:00

SIX MONTHS Even if you've been following the spin of Iraq occupation supporters closely, it's instructive to scroll through this timeline.

(Hint: Sen. Joe Lieberman (CFL-CT), in particular, doesn't come off very well.)

2007-08-07T12:15:00.000-04:00

AN EVENING TO REMEMBER I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the screening of BLOW-UP that Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) went to on a late-60s date.

Would also be curious to know what New York's junior senator thought of the film.

2007-07-31T15:39:00.001-04:00

WELCOME TO THE CLUB On the very day that the Wall Street Journal is poised to leap onto the schlock pile, The New York Times serves up a big front page story about...Chelsea Clinton's second shot at being 'first daughter.'

This, just a couple weeks after the Sunday Times featured: a front page puff piece exploring what life is like for "the richest of the rich"; a Business section cover story on Queen Elizabeth; and an Arts & Leisure page 1 dispatch about Paris Hilton and celebrity culture.

The Times, of course, also regularly features items about Nicole Richie in its 'Arts Briefs' column and typically runs two columns under the 'Spending' heading in its Sunday Business pages.

Let's be frank: The Times isn't what it used to be. It's a far cry from the paper it was even seven years ago.

And it isn't likely to become that paper again any time soon.

2007-07-30T13:53:00.000-04:00

PROFILES IN HYPOCRISY Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice:

To support our continued diplomatic engagement in the region, we are forging new assistance agreements with the Gulf States...This effort will help bolster forces of moderation...

Through our Gulf Security Dialogue, we are helping to strengthen the defensive capabilities of our partners, and we plan to initiate discussions with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States on a proposed package of military technologies that will help support their ability to secure peace and stability in the Gulf region.

2007-07-27T11:45:00.000-04:00

THE STUPID SEASON It must be upon us.

Katharine Seelye and Michael Falcone venture an unprovable assertion in the sixth paragraph of their story in today's Times:

Pundits generally perceived Mrs. Clinton as winning the debate point for highlighting her experience and at the same time suggesting that Mr. Obama was inexperienced.

Cloaking a personal judgment in the language of "pundits generally perceived" is classic, ugly campaign reporting.

And it's only going to get worse from here.

2007-07-03T21:54:00.000-04:00

AN HONEST ANSWER From today's White House press briefing:

Q Can I follow on that? There are more than 3,000 current petitions for commutation -- not pardons, but commutation -- in the federal system under President Bush. Will all 3,000 of those be held to the same standard that the President applied to Scooter Libby?

MR. SNOW: I don't know.

2007-07-02T20:56:00.000-04:00

EVERYDAY THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY Via Talking Points Memo, here's Patrick Fitzgerald on the President's decision to spare Scooter Libby from serving jail time:

...The President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.

2007-07-02T08:12:00.000-04:00

THEY WRITE REVIEWS The Detroit Free Press notice for LAPSES, published in our absence on June 14, is still online.

2007-06-12T12:35:00.001-04:00

SUMMER RECESS Posting has been slow here for the last couple months, but it's about to get even slower: CONTRAPOSITIVE will be on hiatus through the end of June.

Between now and then, please avail yourself of the blog links at right. And if you haven't checked out the Youtube selections below, they're worth a look.

See you in July.

2007-06-08T15:04:00.000-04:00

FRIDAY FUN The Korine/Letterman sequel.

2007-06-05T15:57:00.000-04:00

JAILTIME So it looks like both Scooter Libby and Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) will be heading off to jail--one sooner, one later.

Unless Libby gets a pardon. Unless Jefferson beats his charges. But neither of those seems especially likely to me--at least at the moment.

Isn't it telling, though, that the Republican response to the conviction of a Republican is to call for a pardon, while the response to the indictment of a Democrat is to try to expel him from the House?

Even when both happen during the same week?

2007-06-01T10:20:00.000-04:00

FRIDAY FUN

2007-05-31T12:23:00.000-04:00

THE MOTOR CITY The Detroit run of LAPSES starts tonight. More here.

2007-05-25T16:19:00.001-04:00

FRIDAY FUN

2007-05-25T12:56:00.000-04:00

I'M WITH KRUGMAN To adopt a guest worker program is to court moral disaster.

And we've got plenty of moral disasters to deal with already.

2007-05-23T09:27:00.000-04:00

THE RIGHT OF RETURN Chagos Islanders--displaced by the US base at Diego Garcia--win the right to go home in a British appeals court:

The families--ordered from the islands by the British government--packed the court of appeal to hear the ruling, which condemned government tactics preventing their return as unlawful and an abuse of power.

The court ruled that thousands of people who were tricked, starved and even terrorised from their homes could return immediately, with the decision likely to draw a line under what is widely seen as one of the most shameful episodes in British colonial history

The British secretly leased the island to the US in 1966.

2007-05-18T11:09:00.000-04:00

FRIDAY FUN

2007-05-18T10:44:00.001-04:00

THE RON PAUL PHENOMENON It's been fascinating to watch the anxious reception Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) candidacy has received from the Republican establishment. (Watch Paul in action here.)

The problem with Paul is that his very presence in the race draws attention to some ugly realities about the GOP in the Bush era: That the post-9/11 national security and foreign policy consensus among so-called conservatives is out of sync with the party's history; that it consists chiefly of vacuous bumper sticker phrases; and that its central tenets (e.g. "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here") don't hold up under real scrutiny.

Paul didn't get the memo that Republicans are supposed to close their mouths and clap louder. And it appears that there may be a constituency in the party for someone who has the foreign policy views (extreme versions of them, admittedly) of a pre-9/11 Republican.

It could be an interesting few months.

(For even more on Paul, read this post from June, 2005.)

2007-05-11T14:31:00.000-04:00

FRIDAY FUN A new feature.

2007-05-10T22:52:00.000-04:00

WHITE HOUSE INVOLVEMENT Except for a brief, incomplete reference in this article, a crucial moment in today's House Judiciary Committee hearing appears to have gone completely unnoticed.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "Did the White House ask you to seek the removal of any US Attorney?"

Gonzales responded with neither a denial nor a variation on "I do not recall." Instead, he provided a long-winded answer which included the phrase "it's conceivable that in those meeting there was some discussion about someone leaving..." before Scott (alas) cut him off.

This seems like a significant concession from Gonzales. For the first time, he appears to be granting that the White House may have been involved in the firing of US Attorneys. Which is a lawyerly way of going on the record with a hedge--in case evidence proving White House involvement emerges soon.

What am I missing?

2007-05-07T21:31:00.000-04:00

DeLILLO DISSENT In the issue currently on newstands, New York Magazine publishes a "Guide to the Don DeLillo Oeuvre ".

In it, WHITE NOISE is filed under "classic" while the novella THE BODY ARTIST and the stage play THE DAY ROOM are both labelled "avoid."

Each of the latter works are challenging, but for what it's worth, I'd recommend them both. Dare I say that they're two of the more compelling works of fiction I've read during the last five years?

2007-04-30T09:34:00.000-04:00

GEORGE SMILEY HE AIN'T Watching George Tenet last night on 60 minutes was enlightening, and not in a good way: The man came off as petulant, arrogant and intellectually sloppy.

I'm sure CBS shot hours of footage and whittled the interview down to the most explosive bits. But the head of the CIA--the chief intelligence officer in the land--should be an analytical powerhouse, studious and unflappable. At least those are some of the strengths I'd be looking for if I were doing the hiring.

If Tenet possesses those qualities, he sure didn't show it.

2007-04-19T19:16:00.000-04:00

AL HEARTS GEORGE To recap:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales struggled Thursday to convince skeptical senators he did nothing improper in firing eight federal prosecutors, losing ground as a second senator from his own party joined the calls for his resignation.

[...]

Seventy-one times he fell back on faulty memory, saying he could not recall or remember conversations or events surrounding the firings.

[...]

In Iglesias' case, Gonzales recalled an Oct. 11 conversation with Bush and White House political adviser Karl Rove about voter fraud concerns during which the prosecutor's name came up. "I now understand that there was a conversation between myself and the president," Gonzales said.

--Associated Press

I will go down with this ship
And I won't put my hands up and surrender
There will be no white flag above my door
I'm in love and always will be

--Dido ("White Flag")

2007-04-18T23:20:00.000-04:00

SMALL, DIRTY MINDS Much of what's sick, twisted and just plain wrong about Fox News is on view here.

2007-04-11T23:04:00.000-04:00

VONNEGUT IS DEAD The great American writer was 84 years-old.

2007-03-27T23:38:00.000-04:00

WE TOLD YOU Here's Sen. Joe Lieberman (CFL-CT) today:

It is clear that for the first time in a long time, there is reason for cautious optimism about Iraq.

Shame, Connecticut. Shame.

2007-03-25T20:50:00.000-04:00

IMPEACH GONZALES? I haven't posted about the US Attorney purge--at least in part because I assume that everyone who reads this blog also tunes into Talking Points Memo and TPM Muckraker. They've owned this story from the beginning. (Links to both are at right.)

But we now have seemingly irrefutable evidence that the Attorney General lied to Congress and to the American people.

Now, I'm no impeachment scholar (a handy primer can be found here) but isn't this just the sort of case that impeachment was designed for?

Gonzales has been caught lying under oath during a congressional probe into whether US Attorneys were fired to prevent investigations (of Republicans) from going forward.

In other words, it very much appears he lied to obstruct an obstruction of justice investigation.

Admittedly, I've made a number of inferences here about Gonzales' motives and Congress will need to come to its own conclusions.

But suppose the ultimately judgment is that he deliberately misstated the facts in order to save the skin of corrupt Republicans. And suppose the President refuses to relieve him of his duties.

We're then left with a chief law enforcement officer whose been exposed as an enemy of the rule of law.

What other option besides impeachment is there?

2007-03-19T20:22:00.000-04:00

JEFFERSON MAYS IS AN ACTOR There are a number of very good reasons to see the excellent revival of JOURNEY'S END now on Broadway. But Jefferson Mays' performance as Private Mason tops my list.

It's hard to call it a leading role--and it might seem like a strange professional choice for an actor on the heels of a career-making turn in I AM MY OWN WIFE.

But that only makes the achievement more impressive: Mays delivers an unostentatious, utterly selfless reading of the role that blends seamlessly into the fabric of the play. It may not win him any awards, but it's the kind of performance that makes going to the theatre worthwhile.

Half price tickets--often for very good seats--have been available for most recent performances at the TKTS booths.

UPDATE: Via Stark Sands Online we learn that JOURNEY''S END may be closing sooner than later. Looks like it'll be around for at least the next two weeks, but perhaps not much longer than that.

2007-03-16T16:18:00.000-04:00

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY The Freep covers the 50th anniversary of the venerable Detroit Repertory Theatre.

The company will close out its fifth decade later this spring with a month-long run of Dan Aibel's play LAPSES. Stay tuned.

2007-03-10T18:13:00.000-05:00

IN PRAISE OF MARK SHIELDS Watching the NewsHour last night, it struck me that Mark Shields has made more sense than just about any pundit in America over the last six bruising, confusing years.

I'm sure there have been misjudgments here and there. But it's striking that a staid seventy-year-old has spun a narrative about the state of our politics more compelling and consistent than the analysis of younger, more vigorous-seeming commentators. (Take Joe Klein--please.)

Listening to Shields you get the sense that he's plugged in--that he has good sources in congress--but that he isn't a slave of the beltway consensus. I'd be surprised if he doesn't regularly read blogs, for example.

Of course, judgment also has something to do with it. The real question may be why even "serious" media outlets continue to push forward pundits who have so often been wrong about so much.

2007-03-06T12:09:00.000-05:00

MERRY FITZMAS Ball's in your court, Bushies.

2007-03-05T15:28:00.000-05:00

DEPT. OF EXEGESIS Compare these two sentences from Sunday's NYT whitewash of the Bush administration's US attorneys purge.

Sentence 1:

The ouster of Mr. Bogden and seven other United States attorneys has set off a furor in Washington that took the Bush administration by surprise.

Sentence 2:

Democrats have charged that the mass firing is a political purge, intended to squelch corruption investigations or install less independent-minded successors.

In sentence 1 the reporters ascribe a mental state--surprise--to the Bushies. But the article never explains how the reporters arrived at this wording; it never explains why the Bushies deserve to be seen as genuinely surprised rather than as simply professing to be surprised.

(That the "surprised" construction plays into the Bush administration's "nothing-to-see-here" talking point is, I'm sure, pure coincidence.)

The approach when it comes to administration opponents, in sentence 2, is different: The arguments of Democrats are summarized. No mental states are ascribed. The reporters stick to publicly verifiable facts rather than reading the minds of their sources in a way that serves one side of a political debate at the expense of the other.

So why the two different approaches? Why ascribe mental states to sources in the first place? Is there one reporting standard for the Bushies and another for everyone else?

Reporters David Johnston, Eric Lipton and William Yardley aren't dumb. They know what they're doing.

The question is, why are they doing it?

2007-02-28T16:08:00.000-05:00

FIRE UP THE TIVO Charlie Rose and Harold Pinter have sat for several lively, combative televised chats over the last several years.

Tune in tomorrow night for next round.

2007-02-23T23:22:00.000-05:00

THAT'S BETTER Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) should listen to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL):

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

2007-02-22T09:44:00.000-05:00

HIT BACK This doesn't cut it:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back that Cheney was questioning critics' patriotism.

"I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," Pelosi said. She said she tried to complain about Cheney to President Bush but could not reach him.

The Vice President accuses Democrats of validating Al Qaeda's strategy and Pelosi's response is to call the President to complain?

How many more years will we have to wait for the Democratic leadership to realize that there's no referee in politics?

Would it be so hard, when Cheney spouts nonsense, to respond with something like this:

This administration has spent the last six years playing into the hands of our enemies and making Americans less safe. The arrogance, poor judgment and downright incompetence of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, have cost thousands of American lives and billions of dollars over the last six years. When it comes national security, neither of these men has any credibility.

Don't whine, for crying out loud. Hit back.

2007-02-19T20:28:00.000-05:00

TAKING IN THE SENATE In the nation's capitol on unrelated business, I had a chance earlier this weekend to watch part of the rare Saturday Senate session, including the vote to cut off debate on the Iraq war resolution. (Photos by Willow Lawson.)

It was a striking scene. Freshmen Sen. James Webb (D-VA) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) were nearly alone in the chamber with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-VA) as the latter two men wound the debate toward its close.

But soon Democrats were converging on the floor--Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) greeted Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) with a slap on the back; Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) flew through the doors wearing what looked like a ski parka; and Sen. Hillary Clinton greeted several senators as she moved through the room, eventually parking herself near Webb.

Within a few minutes, nearly all the Democratic seats were filled, even as all but a handful of Republicans remained out of sight. The left side of the room reverberated with smiles and friendly, if hushed, conversations.

Having never seen the Senate in action before, I can't offer an explanation for the lopsided turnout in minutes preceding the vote. But it seems at least plausible that it was a conscious effort on the part of Democrats.

A show of unity? An effort to underscore the importance of the vote? Or a not-so-subtle demonstration to their colleagues across the aisle that they have no qualms about working on Saturdays?

In any event, it was heartening to see all the Democrats in one place, and it was encouraging to see them all getting along famously.

Now, onto results.

2007-02-14T23:49:00.000-05:00

A FORD FOUNDATION Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney kicks off his presidential campaign at the Henry Ford Museum?

Guess he isn't planning on winning the Jewish vote.

2007-02-14T15:53:00.000-05:00

LAUGH LINES Number of US military fatalities in Iraq since the war began: 3127

Number of "laughter episodes" noted today in the official White House transcript of the President's morning press conference: 16

(That's up from 14 laughter episodes during the December 7, 2006 presidential press conference. It equals the total of 16 achieved during the September 15, 2006 presidential Q & A.)

2007-02-12T22:46:00.000-05:00

COLLINS WATCH This just in: Sen. Susan Collins proposes homeland security legislation.

Hasn't she done enough to undermine the security of the homeland over the last five years?

Read about it at Collins Watch.

2007-02-12T22:01:00.000-05:00

HEY, REMEMBER WHEN Hey, remember back when the Bushies characterized every successive spike in Iraq violence as evidence that the insurgents/terrorists/Baathists, on the verge of defeat, were making ever-more-desperate attempts to prove their continued relevance?

Haven't heard that argument in a while.

2007-02-10T10:48:00.000-05:00

IT'S A BLOG! CONTRAPOSITIVE is proud to introduce Collins Watch. Same incisive commentary, same erratic news judgment, new narrower focus.

We'll continue to write about Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) at this address from time to time. But for in-depth commentary, you'll want to turn to the new blog.

Bookmark it today.

2007-02-05T19:20:00.000-05:00

COLLINS WATCH In the past I'd heard vague rumblings about a 1996 pledge from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) to serve no more than two terms in office. But searches both on and off the internet turned up nothing.

Thankfully, Foster's Daily Democrat has the scoop:

Collins said during her first campaign for the Senate she did not plan to serve more than two terms and thereafter reaffirmed that position when she first sought re-election.

The Bangor Daily News, on Sept. 17, 1996, reported Collins saying: "I want to go to Washington, serve two terms, and then come home."

Six years later, in a letter dated Sept. 6, 2002, to Carl Lindemann of Portland, Collins wrote: "I am proud of the accomplishments I have made during my first term, and I hope to have the opportunity to serve the people of Maine in the Senate for another six years. I intend to serve only two terms as I indicated in the Sanford forum six years ago."

But now, heading into a campaign for a third term, Collins says she has had a change of heart...

"I've found that I really underestimated the importance of seniority and how much difference it makes when you are a more senior member," said Collins, who worked for former U.S. Sen. William Cohen for a dozen years after college.

"At the time, I thought that 12 years, that two terms, would be enough. This was at the height of what I would call the frenzy over term limits," Collins said.

Hmm.

While it doesn't sound as though Collins made a formal, explicit promise not to seek re-election in 2008, she certainly made something close to a pledge. In any case, blaming the "frenzy over term limits" for her predicament does little to enhance her credibility.

In other news, Roll Call demonstrates why the minimum wage will be an issue in Collins's 2008 campaign:

Democrats are targeting Collins, who is up for reelection in 2008, and part of their strategy will be highlighting her mixed record on the minimum wage...

On March 7, 2005, Collins was one of only 16 senators to vote no on competing wage amendments offered by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Kennedy's measure would have raised the minimum wage $2.10, and enjoyed bipartisan support with Republican Sens. Pete Domenici (N.M.), Norm Coleman (Minn.), the recently defeated Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) and Mike DeWine (Ohio). The amendment was defeated 46-49, falling 14 votes short of the 60 needed.

The Santorum amendment was billed as more business-friendly, calling for a wage increase of $1.10 with tax breaks for small businesses. Some conservatives, such as Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), voted for the measure, but it also fell, 38-61.

Collins's office declined to comment to The Hill on her votes at that time, but explained her stance when pressed on those votes this week, stating that the senator repeatedly has voted against minimum-wage bills that do not contain small-business exemptions and tax breaks.

Except that the Santorum amendment did include small business tax breaks.

Looks like Collins is going to have explaining to do on a whole host of fronts.

2007-02-05T19:16:00.000-05:00

COLLINS WATCH Via Newsweek:

QUESTION: Do you see any contradiction between supporting McCain, who is in favor of escalating the war, and your current role now in trying to stop the escalation?

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): No, because there isn’t going to be any candidate who I agree with 100 percent. This is a major issue, and I’m sure that John wishes he hadn’t taken me on the trip [to Iraq] with him in December. That’s the real irony.

Silly me. And I thought the irony was that almost two years before the election, Collins has already signed on to back a candidate for president who she vehemently disagrees with--or at least professes to--on the most important issue facing the country.

2007-02-05T16:40:00.000-05:00

IRAQ REWIND Reasonable people now agree that the Iraq war has been a debacle, and that invading the way we did, when we did, was a mistake.

But what kind of mistake?

Was the core mission fundamentally misguided? Or was the problem only that it was badly executed?

Are the Shiite exiles the chief culprits? Was the decision to dissolve the Iraqi army the turning point? Or is President George W. Bush's arrogant, incompetent leadership to blame?

It's a complicated question, naturally--and there isn't a single, knowable right answer. But Ezra Klein over at over at The American Prospect has begun the important work of teasing out the views of the 2008 Democratic nomination contenders.

All the candidates have an interest in fudging the details--it's hard to score political points when you're dealing with nuances. And splitting hairs about why the war failed risks alienating voters who disagree on the specifics.

But it's important that primary voters understand exactly where each of the candidates stand.

In Klein's interview with John Edwards, for example, the former Senator suggests that the mistake he made in supporting the war was the mistake of trusting an incompetent President. But Edwards is not ready to say the project of invading, occupying and democratizing Iraq was itself misconceived.

For her part, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) seems to believe that the war was a mistake in that it turned out badly. In other words, that in hindsight we must call it a mistake.

But she hasn't yet been ready to go even as far as Edwards in saying that the decision to give this particular President the authority to go to war was a misjudgment on her part.

We'll be interested to see what else these (and other) candidates have to say about these issues as the campaign unfolds.

2007-01-31T23:32:00.000-05:00

GREEN STATE Via Brad DeLong, we get this paen to New York City:

Millions of Americans proclaimed their love of nature by moving to leafy suburbs while denigrating New Yorkers for living in the most man-made of places...Now we know that the suburban environmentalists had it backwards. Manhattan, not suburbia, is the real friend of the environment.

[...]

New York's biggest environmental contribution lies in the fact that less than one-third of New Yorkers drive to work. Nationwide, more than seven out of eight commuters drive. More than one-third of all the public transportation commuters in America live in the five boroughs...

The Department of Energy data confirm that New York State's energy consumption is next to last in the country because of New York City.

Is there any reason beyond civic pride to care that New Yorkers are true friends of the environment? I think so. Environmental benefits are one of the many good reasons that New York should grow. When Manhattan builds up, instead of Las Vegas building out, we are saving gas and protecting land.

Every new skyscraper in Manhattan is a strike against global warming. Every new residential high rise means a few less barrels of oil bought from less than friendly nations belonging to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

2007-01-29T21:59:00.000-05:00

COLLINS WATCH Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has signed on to head the Maine wing of Sen. John "surge" McCain's presidential exploratory committee.

At the same time, Collins is sponsoring an anti-surge resolution in the Senate.

Guess that's why they call her a centrist.

2007-01-26T16:05:00.000-05:00

SMALLNESS, POLITICS, ETC. Behind the firewall, Paul Krugman is exactly right about the inauspicious start of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential campaign.

For example, when Obama says...

The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place...

But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics...Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

...he sounds more like Sen. Joe Lieberman (CFL-CT) than any self-respecting poll ought to want to.

Which is to say: Partisanship may not be the answer to our nation's problems, but it isn't the central defect of our politics either.

The central problem of the last six years was that we had an incompetent, reckless, law-breaking President and a Congress that enabled his administration every step of the way. The "tone in Washington" had nothing to do with it.

2007-01-23T23:21:00.000-05:00

AND ANOTHER THING A thought from Andrew Sullivan about tonight's speech that's worth passing along:

"The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat." Is this the formulation by which the president tries to frame a Muslim civil war as a single war against the West? Rather than attempting to exploit the differences among Islamist terrorists, the president seems eager to unite them. I can't say it makes any coherent sense to me.

2007-01-23T22:46:00.000-05:00

SACRED AND PROFANE Am I the only one who thinks there's something obscene about a moral trainwreck and intellectual coward like President George W. Bush associating himself, even fleetingly, with the heroism and courage of Wesley Autry?

Just asking.