http://mobile.nytimes.com/art/118166/21

NYT has a fun little story this morning on earmark hysteria. While offering a partisan balance (alternating back and forth between Democrat and Republican vignettes), it does a good job of highlighting what two-faced hacks most alleged fiscal conservatives are. I wish it had examined Bohner's partisan rhetoric on earmarks along side his assertion that 'there is no such thing as an earmark', but it also did a good job showing there is a bit of contention on the Republican side between those who do not mind earmarks and those who say they do not like earmarks and go after them anyway.

Three small things the article left out that are important add-ons:

1. The earmarks in the HHS bill, even after both sides accepted every single mark, amount to .6% of the HHS budget and less than .1% of the whole budget.

2. City University deciding to name a school of public policy after the man who has represented them for 30 years and him helping them get public dollars for a public education institute

No Such Thing as Bad Press

At my own peril, I am going to wade back into something I said last week for further clarification.

First, I never meant to minimize my own revulsion towards anti semitism. It is bad, should never under any circumstances be tolerated, and should be taken very seriously by university administrators, USCCR, and anyone else in a position to educate people about it or sanction those who promote anti semitism.

But, my reaction is based on the value judgement that 'Combatting hate speech on campuses' is much more a priority than just that against one group. I think there may be times when it is appropriate to designate priority groups. But given that we just finished Islamofacism Awareness Week and the Jena 6, it is ridiculous to think that Jewish groups are facing these challenges alone.

I will avoid walking into Walt-Mearsheimer territory, but I think the impact of politicisation on priorities - which was my original point - is pretty clear and an especially dangerous thing were this practice of appointing hacks partisans at USCCR to continue and anti Semitism were to reemerge as a very serious problem in America.

Proof is in the Pudding

The Post Trys to Become the Daily Show

You have to read todays Post to believe. The op-ed page includes Bob Samuelson arguing recessions are actually good. In other news up is down, left is actually right, and the President isn't a sadistic moron who used to torture his fellow frat boys.

The Ruth Marcus gets the question right but the answer wrong. 'Why should we care if grumpy old reporters get to ask the candidates questions?' Probably because when the press is allowed to talk they aren't asking about issues, theya re trying to play gotcha with decade old quotes, asking about hair cuts, and wondering allowed how voterd would react if the candidate held a bunch of positions they don't. I give Hillary and Obama tons of credit to limiting Q&A to real people, not pompous gatekeepers. And for the record, there have been a dozen debates with everyone moderated by a member of the press. Ruth Marcus please shutup or go get a real job.

Finally, we learn that old friend Julie 'my dad was chairman of the JCS when they appointed me head of ICE despite having never managed another person in my life' Meyers choice for best costume at the office halloween party was a white guy dressed up as a minority prison inmate. Stay classy Julie Meyers.

Wolf in Sheeps Clothing

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13497.html

Steve Benen has a good catch on how Republicans at the US Commission on Civil Rights have been reregistering enmass as Independents. Why would they do this? Because the Commission prohibits more than half the members being from the same party. In the old days this meant when a Dem or Repub retired someone from their party was chosen by the President to replace them. But recently someone had the brilliant idea that when a Dem slot opened you could just fill it with someone who was a lifelong Republican that changed their registration a few weeks earlier.

Steve and his commenters bemoan how Republicans are cheaters. Personally, I think this is an amazing opportunity so long as the next Dem President doesn't wimp out and uses this to actually advance CR in the US.

One of my favorite movie lines is 'this ain't checkers, this is chess'. My biggest problem with Dems is that they chronically fail to see politics as chess - a game that takes long term strategic planning, not jumping at the nearest open piece. More importantly, there is no crying in chess. You play to win (enact your policies), not just to waste away an afternoon.

BTW, in case you are wondering the effect of this realignment on USCCR, I met their Director a few weeks back. Their number one issue I was told - ending campus anti semitism. I am sure it exists somewhere, but come on.

The Importance of Framing

Today's NYT:

"With Mr. Mukasey's confirmation in doubt over his refusal to state a clear legal position on a classified Central Intelligence Agency program to interrogate terrorism suspects"

Mukasey's confirmation is not in doubt because he refuses to answer a question about a specific program. He is in question because he has repeatedly evaded answering the simple question of whether he believes waterboarding to be a form of torture.

This is a really important moving of the goal posts that as usual the morons who write this drivel do not even notice. While it is legitimate to refuse to comment on a program you have not been briefed on and are not yet associated with, it is completely bs to refuse to answer general questions from the Committee.

Also, whether this technique is used or not used by the CIA has never been officially confirmed or denied, though it has been confirmed off the record by a number of US officials. We do know that DoJ went to the trouble of writing a legal opinion that waterboarding is not, at least in a legal sense, a form of torture. But Bushs comments yesterfay are a clear confirmation that he definitively knows this is happening in CIA black sites. I only hope someday someone has the courage to lock up this faux cowboy.

Finally, McCain and Graham's statemebt yesterday makes a mockery of their principles. Publicly stating that you are going to URGE someone to take a position AFTER you confirm them and they no longer need your approval for anything is the mosy pathetic concession of impotence and duplicity in Washington.

Yesterdays WH press conference had a question on the departing Karen Hughes (h/t Matt Yglesias):
Q So in your mind, she has succeeded in her goal of outreach to the Arab world, based on those numbers that I just cited?

MS. PERINO: Look, I'm not going to comment or respond to a poll that you just read out. I don't know about those numbers, I don't know the questions that were asked; I think it's inappropriate. What I can tell you is that she has done amazing work. Let me give another example. She started a women's outreach effort with the Middle Eastern countries and started a breast cancer initiative. And just last week Mrs. Bush went and highlighted that initiative and went to four different countries in the Middle East, had a very successful trip in explaining that women have tools at their disposal when they find out that they have breast cancer, early detection and treatment. That is precisely what the President was hoping Karen Hughes would achieve, and she has.

The President was hoping she would raise awareness of breast cancer in Jordan? I don't know anything at all about the initiative, but I am sure it is doing good work raising awareness. That said, little forums that bring together a small group of elite women to talk about breast cancer or education or some other general issue doesn't really do anything to improve our image in the world. I mean maybe a few will notice the USAID logos on everything and think "wow, America paid for me to take a trip to the capital and have a nice lunch and meet some other folks... maybe their decisions to take over another country, spit on the Palestinians, and call declare war on Islam weren't so bad." But even if that happened, changing the minds of a few dozen elite women who were probably already sympathetic to the Western world doesn't actually have any real impact on our standing in the world. It is like saying fi you want to change the view of women in the US you should sponsor a book club for the DC lady's that lunch crowd.

Can't You See that We're at War...

... and with crazy extremists / terrorists, no less?

Can't you see that to deal with extreme people, we need extreme measures?

And more importantly, if you don't support these extreme measures (or the guy that will condone the extreme measures on your behalf), you're not supporting the war on terror?

Goddammit people, where the hell is your patriotism?


To savage that little bit of patriotism left in you, go read President Bush's urge for Michael Mukasey's attorney general confirmation right now.


I can't quite make it out whether

1. Bush is really smart about dodging questions by leading you to a seemingly related, but actually completely irrelevant subject; or
   
2. he is so thick and stubborn he can't possibly see how two unrelated things are, in fact, unrelated.
   

In either case, it's aggravating to say the least to be arguing with people like that. There's just no winning with merit here, they just filibuster you to no end until you stop bugging them about how they're wrong.

In defending his attorney general nominee, Bush says that it's unfair to ask Mukasey whether he thinks waterboarding is illegal, because "he doesn't know whether we use that technique or not."

What the Judiciary Committee wants to know is what Mr. Mukasey himself thinks about waterboarding, unconditionally. Mr. President's complaint unambiguously suggests that the answer that Mr. Mukasey would/should have is:

• If the US uses waterboarding ==> Waterboarding is legal
• If the US does not use waterboarding and does not plan on using it anytime in the future + its enemies are using it ==> Waterboarding is illegal

Mr. President also noted "the American people must know that whatever techniques we use are within the law." Going right back to that model answer Mr. Mukasey should have.

The President continues by saying that "it doesn't make any sense to tell the enemy whether we use those techniques or not." If the US is going to proudly declare its moral superiority on the international stage, it needs to act on its grandiose ideas and rhetoric, unless it wants to look like the 2-faced hypocrite that everyone but itself currently sees. Strategic ambiguity doesn't work here -- this is a case in which the lack of an answer is an answer in itself.

I hate people that take the "pragmatist" view on matters like this - i.e. where moral superiority achieves our goal, by all means use it, otherwise it's only fair and square that the US cares only about its interests and acts as a total jackass. You don't win with a strategy like that - you alienate yourself while you're in power (hence putting yourself on the path to your decline), and don't even try to think what's gonna happen if you're out of power.

And don't go on the "every other country acts just like that" defense either. Seriously, SHUT UP if that's all you can say.